Research funding is scarce and while there is a technology transfer office(or something similar) in most universities, the process of commercialization is done by a small percentage of faculty(at least this is my perception).
Some people might object to the concept,since it is not research for its own sake but for the purpose of commercial interest.
My own personal view is that this approach may give researchers extra funds to continue their own interests and it is a minor sacrifice to make in order to reach sustainability(granted that the funds go to your department or reserved for further research).
Does this seem a viable approach to funding in your university? Would you object to this view?
Faculty members should take initiative to commercialise their developed research process.One need not invent a completely new approach to move his project forward.Most of the time it will be enough to change only few minor things here and there.And the minor changes will help one to walk further.Passion and motivation will join naturally and therefore allow ones full commitment and gaurantee ones success. Just look around ,the world is full of absolutely amazing invention,hugely successful people,remarkable concepts - that started with crazy idea.There is enough fund for good research.One need to convince the funding agency with data , new findings and implication for future benifits etc.
From my standpoint, anything you can do to diversify your funding base is smart. I had a U.S. patent go through last year, which led to some industry funding and some internal university funding. I think that a small percentage of faculty go this route because many of us don't work in areas where patents come easily. This may be my only patent during my career (who knows?), but other departments have hallways full of them hanging on the wall. It depends a little bit on your field of expertise, how crowded or competitive the patent landscape is in that area of research, and the economic viability of the idea.
Faculty members should take initiative to commercialise their developed research process.One need not invent a completely new approach to move his project forward.Most of the time it will be enough to change only few minor things here and there.And the minor changes will help one to walk further.Passion and motivation will join naturally and therefore allow ones full commitment and gaurantee ones success. Just look around ,the world is full of absolutely amazing invention,hugely successful people,remarkable concepts - that started with crazy idea.There is enough fund for good research.One need to convince the funding agency with data , new findings and implication for future benifits etc.
At our university commercialization of one´s own research is forbidden. There is a research foundation, so opportunities to get funding are not scarce. To me (as a humanist), selling my research is repugnant. Some of my colleagues enrich themselves by publishing textbooks. This I have never wanted to do. Instead, I have preferred to increase knowledge in my field through serious research.
I totally agree with Nelson. I find it particularly repugnant (to use his expression, which is totally appropriate) that researchers try to profit personally from research that has been funded with public money. If tax payers pay for the research, they should be fully entitled to its proceeds, without having to pay an additional cent. I think that the greed of a small portion of the faculty (and administrators) in US universities, has been of the reasons that has caused state governments to rethink the need for public support for higher education, and has led us to the dire straights we are in.
In Sweden, the default is that the researcher owns the research. So if it is government funded research they can capitalize on their research (patent, books etc.). However, since companies are more involved in the support to research there is more or less always an IPR agreement made that in most cases gives the company the right to file patent, hold the research for publication for some months etc.
The researcher in most of the cases has not even the money to pay for the patent, so the companies get the patents. This is also a dangerous situation as they can get patents on so many parts of the human body, they even tried to do it for the whole genome.
Universities are losing their independence and the spin- offs come closer and closer, even within the walls of the university.
We are losing the grip on our own nature which get manipulated how they want. They are creating third class citizens who think they are free because they have to choose out of many the same things.
To me, this is not just a question of financial resources. Universities are places where ideas should be freely exchanged, with no restrictions of any kind. As soon as some researchers are hoping to get some of their work patented, this introduces the need for a level of secrecy and protection of intellectual property, which runs counter to the free discussion of ideas. I have seen around me more and more people who are not willing to discuss what they are doing, for example not willing to freely share computer programs they have written, simply because they want to eventually benefit financially from their work. In more ways than one, this is killing the intellectual atmosphere of universities... And all that, often, for no real financial return. Many patents, which cost money to apply for, never really generate any funding. In my field (soil science), computer programs that people develop have no real commercial value at all, in spite of what anyone's dreams of grandeur might be...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education