AledI challenge policy wonks to do a “life cycle analysis” and provide compelling evidence (sans anecdote, with no non evidence-based assumptions) that patenting by universities is net positive for institutions, for science, or for society. I don’t think it’s possible. 1/
Not allowed using non-evidence assumptions or anecdotes like: “industry won’t work with universities without patents” or “there was no way this idea would have advanced if there was no IP”. 2/
And factor in the opportunity costs. The money spent on tech transfer. The time wasted on MTA’s and IP negotiations. The students who are not allowed to talk about their work. The ways in which the knowledge/innovation tree may be pruned, and the less fortunate are excluded. 3/
I suspect, all in, there is no science, educational, or business case supporting university patenting, and a far better case to explore different ways to translate our ideas into impact and products. 4/4.