In the age of open economy and transformation of material wealth to information as wealth, and the widespread application of IPR, it seems that the geoscientists are not getting their due in terms of number of patents applied/granted when compared with other sciences. It does not mean that we, the geoscientists are not generating enough information or design processes worthy of getting patents. Even the routine academic performance is also being measured in terms of number of patents generated out of academic research!! On the contrary, it seems that the number of patents granted to other sciences is multifold higher than the geosciences. Please share your thoughts on whether we should work on problems worthy of generating patents. I am putting forth this question to get convincing answer and also to spread awareness on the importance of IPR regime in geoscientific research.
Maybe the lack of industrial utility of information? The "permanent possibility" "industriality" to use the information within an industrial process (agrarian industry included) is the necessary prerequisite to obtain a patent.
Some times the problem is the lack of institutional polices to stimulate investments that could generate patents in the geoscientific research
I agree with the view of Marcia Carla Pereira Ribeiro that some times the problem is the lack of institutional polices to stimulate investments that could generate patents in the geoscientific research.
A number of possibilities come to mind immediately, but I guess the main one, which was already hinted at by Monica Cossu is that the geosciences being inherently a descriptive science with a focus on describing and understanding natural processes, do not tend to generate much information which is immediately relevant to industrial applications - I am not sure about anyone else on here, but I think trends in the oxygen isotopes of foram carbonates along a drill core really are not that relevant to any industrial process. The same goes for regional tectonics, evolutionary history, and metamorphic and magmatic processes etc. The majority of academic geoscientists are simply not working on engineering problems, as far as my experience goes. Very many are climatologists, palaeontologists or petrologists.
But perhaps this is a misconception, and things like exploration models for oil or other resources (economic geology), new ceramic materials (mineralogy) etc. could be patented. This will only be relevant to relatively small part of the community, though. Even so, perhaps the way of thinking in categories of geological problems (of Earth processes) does also, in some instances, hinder people to see the potential of their discoveries for commercial applications (if ever there are any). I guess the ones actually working on economically relevant problems do think about patents, simply because they are much closer to industry, but there are very few of them at most universities. I think the difference to other sciences such as the life sciences and chemistry is due simply to the higher average industrial relevance of these fields, since very many people work on relevant problems. To test this hypothesis, I would suggest to compare the patent application rate of geoscientists to other fields which are, on average, similarly far removed from industrial applications, such as astronomy, behavioural biology and psychology.
Of course, this explanation only applies to people of the traditional geological trade, and not the related engineering subjects. In this field I lack experience to voice any opinion, but would expect the rate of patent applications to be much higher, simply due to the fact that the work of geo-engineers is usually of much higher industrial relevance.
Yes Max. I agree with you. Then follows a rider - Are we (the geoscientists) are far away from industry? Are we dispensable? I am not posing this question to you, but these are the words from an expendable asset - the geologist who scales mountains and digs deep into the ocean basins to locate and characterize the economic deposits only to be sent out first, when locating, estimating the grade and providing crucial information to be used by others.
I asked to my Prof about patent. He said knowledge is human right. Patents is like a dark hole for develop knowledge.
In my opinion for technology and industry is ok.
Thanks
12.01.16
A patent is only as valuable as the costs of defending it. While some aspects of geoscience lend themselves to patent protection, such as seismic processing & interpretation technologies (e.g., waveform charts and CDP stacking), most others involve "The art of application". A prime example of this is when Carter Oil (now EXXON) attempted to patent paleontology.
Donald G. Hill, PhD
Consulting Petrophysicist
I agree with the view of Marcia Carla Pereira Ribeiro that some times the problem is the lack of institutional polices to stimulate investments that could generate patents in the geoscientific research. A patent is only as valuable as the costs of defending it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience