Intellectual property rights for whom?

The European Commission has decided not to pursue a European version of the US law that gives American universities ownership of intellectual property generated by public research funding, in return for a commitment from them to commercialise. This follows a consultation with universities and industry which provided no clear view on whether or not Europe would benefit from such a law.

ince its introduction in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act has been credited with giving a new impetus to the commercialisation of publicly-funded research in the US. Before then, ownership of intellectual property (IP) belonged to the research’s sponsors in the federal government, who had neither the time nor the skill to seek commercial partners. In contrast the act’s requirement to commercialise, together with the possibility of financial benefit, has proved a great incentive to US universities.

In Europe doubts linger about whether the act is transferable. "Stakeholders remain divided on the subject and its potential benefits," the Commission concluded following its consultation. There was no clear consensus for or against legislation, with no distinct positions arising in either the university or industry sectors. Among those who favoured legislation, there was also no consensus on whether it was more appropriate to act at the EU or national level.

The one clear trend was that more than half the negative responses came from the UK. This may be more than a statistical quirk, since the UK is one of the few European nations to have carried out an in-depth study of university-industry relations, in the form of the 2003 Lambert review. As well as providing a good deal of information on the issue, this has created a strong consensus on the way forward. "We would like to see a similar study conducted across the whole of Europe, then there will be a much more informed debate," says David Livesey, secretary-general of the League of European Research Universities.

Legislation to change the balance of IP ownership did not feature among Lambert’s recommendations. "They focus on there being an agreed protocol for effective exploitation of IP in research collaboration and for an understanding of how targeted funding can help technology transfer between universities and industry," Livesey explains. His organisation supports the findings and feels that much can be achieved by the dissemination of best practice.

The Commission’s position following the consultation is not so different. It concludes that there is an urgent need for concrete guidance regarding knowledge transfer links between public and private sectors, and it plans to take this forward in a communication. The main problem is that there appear to be significant cultural barriers to collaboration, making it difficult for public bodies and their private counterparts to align interests, in particular regarding revenue-sharing and costs.

The Commission thinks that these cultural differences can be diminished by establishing a common starting point for discussions between universities and industry, irrespective of partners’ countries of origin. Meanwhile, staff in the public sector need to have adequate incentives in order to wish to take part in knowledge transfer activities.

More funding is also required for knowledge transfer activities, it concludes, in particular for collaborative research and for partner-finding activities. The EU will go some way to providing additional resources, with public-private staff exchanges expected to receive support in the 7th Framework Programme for Research and transnational networking and partner-finding being targeted in the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.

• Ian Mundell is a freelance journalist based in Brussels.

The European Commission has decided not to pursue a European version of the US law that gives American universities ownership of intellectual property generated by public research funding, in return for a commitment from them to commercialise. This follows a consultation with universities and industry which provided no clear view on whether or not Europe would benefit from such a law.