Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?

[gwaybio]

https://doi.org/10.1186/gm316

Abstract Background Efforts to improve research outcomes have resulted in genomic researchers being confronted with complex and seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform their tasks. Over the past decade, there has been increasing pressure on university researchers to commercialize their work. Concurrently, they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and disseminate new knowledge quickly (that is, to adopt an open science model) in order to foster scientific progress, meet humanitarian goals, and to maximize the impact of their research.

Discussion We present selected guidelines from three countries (Canada, United States, and United Kingdom) situated at the forefront of genomics to illustrate this potential policy conflict. Examining the innovation ecosystem and the messages conveyed by the different policies surveyed, we further investigate the inconsistencies between open science and commercialization policies.

Summary Commercialization and open science are not necessarily irreconcilable and could instead be envisioned as complementary elements of a more holistic innovation framework. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we wish to point out the need to gather additional evidence on the coexistence of open science and commercialization policies and on its impact, both positive and negative, on genomics academic research.

[gwaybio]

Paper related to discussion on IP and open science in #20

[gwaybio]

The article brings up a lot of really interesting points. It describes open science and industry commercialization as two distinct "innovation models". These models are seemingly at odds because in an open science framework, nothing is left hidden to retain competitive edge. The article also discusses these two opposing forces from the perspective of funding agencies (in UK, USA, and Canada, specifically). Paradoxically, funding agencies are some of the strongest proponents of both models simultaneously.

The article describes the issues with a bunch of examples, but doesn't come to a solid conclusion of how open science interacts with commercialization. They state how the two forces can be balanced (presumably within a population of researchers and not an individual lab) to maximize societal benefit.

Here is the main concluding paragraph:

Despite the above, we take a more circumspect view on the question of irreconcilability of commercialization, on the one hand, and open scientific collaboration, on the other. Certainly there is a tension! But we should not presume that this tension is necessarily (all) bad. Managing the coexisting policy mandates (and tension), and keeping everyone (reasonably) happy will be a major policy and practical challenge in the coming years, but it is arguable that the dual pressures creates a balance that, in the aggregate, could be good for both science and society. Moreover, it is possible that the two mandates do not always conflict or are not always necessarily irreconcilable [75-77]. Ideally, both commercialization and open scientific collaboration could be viewed as complementary strategies within a larger framework of activities aimed at getting the optimal social and economical value from university research that must be alternatively chosen based on prevailing circumstances [11].

Important to note is that citations 75 and 76 are closed access. 77 is a policy document (download link) which may be useful to discuss as well.