Who Should Own Scientific Discoveries?

Introduction

Countless scientists have made breakthroughs throughout history. For example,

the structure of DNA was discovered by James Watson, Francis Crick, and

Rosalind Franklin. Their discoveries revolutionized the field of genetics, inspiring

the development of CRISPR, which remains a prominent area of research today.

Another example is Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery of penicillin, which

led to the development of antibiotics and saved countless lives throughout the

20th and 21st centuries. These inventions are paramount to human society and

how we live today. However, this comes with the complex question: who should

own scientific discoveries? There are different perspectives to consider when

examining this question: individual scientists and researchers, institutions and

universities, or the public.

Individual Scientists/Researchers

Most people believe that scientific discoveries should belong to the person who

made the discovery. It makes sense, as this fosters recognition and credit to

whoever discovered it, potentially motivating them to contribute further to the scientific community. Allowing scientists to own their own inventions and

discoveries can incentivize them to use patents, making them have exclusive

rights to their inventions/discoveries.

This could also encourage commercialization by allowing individual researchers

and scientists to turn their discoveries into marketable products. By holding

intellectual property rights, they can bring their products to market and thereby

benefit society, as people can purchase from them. Intellectual property rights

(IPRs) can stimulate innovation by protecting creative work and investment, and

by encouraging the ordered exploitation of scientific discoveries for the good of

society.

Nevertheless, there can be some potential cons to this. The most important one

is that a scientist/researcher owning a patent could restrict access to scientific

research. This can greatly affect the exchange of information associated with that

particular discovery due to the intellectual property rights, slowing down scientific

development.

Another downside to this is the potential of a monopoly. A monopoly is the

exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or

service. Because of exclusive rights, some could take advantage of it and could

raise the prices of their commercialized products. For example, a scientist who

has discovered an effective type of painkillers may raise their prices, leading

them to be costly for consumers.

Lastly, this could decrease the amount of collaboration between fellow scientists

and researchers. This could encourage proprietary science, which is the scientific

research that is privately owned and controlled, often with the goal of

commercialization and profit. This can lead to secrecy, instead of a learning,

collaborative environment, potentially slowing down scientific contributions and

research.

Institutions/Universities

Others believe that institutions and universities should be able to own scientific

discoveries. For example, if someone from NASA had discovered something,

that would then belong to the company of NASA, rather than the individual. This

also presents its advantages and disadvantages.

A benefit of letting the scientific institutions/universities own their scientific

discoveries is that it allows for more technology transfer, as well as

commercialization. Institutions have the resources to be able to patent or license,

making it much more stable and easier than an individual scientist going through

this process. During the past several decades, universities have achieved

notable success in licensing their research results for commercial application.

They provide commercial sector companies with access to discoveries and

innovations resulting from research.

Allowing institutions/universities to own scientific discoveries could potentially

boost economic growth by opening up job opportunities for others who wish to

pursue a career in science. This can also help create jobs that are related to

manufacturing and production (factory workers, engineers, etc.), marketing,

sales, and distribution.

Lastly, institutions and universities owning scientific discoveries have higher and

more efficient protection against idea theft, due to their possessing strong

intellectual IP policies. Intellectual property rights are typically governed by

institutional policies and agreements, which may vary depending on the type of

institution, funding sources, and the nature of the research.

Public Ownership

Some think that scientific discoveries should be owned by the public, which is

any person in society, as opposed to both the individual scientists and the

research institutions/universities. Public ownership of scientific discoveries can

lead to accelerated scientific progress because it permits the visibility of available

and openly made scientific discoveries, and allows others to potentially

collaborate and share their opinions.

Public ownership can also enable independent verification because of the

abundance of open resources and research data/notes. This then strengthens

the credibility of these scientific discoveries and reduces errors and mistakes.

According to OpenScholar, Increased access to research and publications allows

for an increase in national and global collaboration. This speeds up the transfer

of knowledge and assists in addressing issues that require a wider range of

attention and collaboration - such as global warming.

This can also lead to faster translations of these scientific discoveries into real-

life applications can benefit society. Research findings, especially in technology

and healthcare, can be quickly made into practical and efficient applications. This

happens because of the accessibility of scientific findings to a broader, wider

group of people.

On the contrary, public ownership has its disadvantages. Funding difficulties and

differences in incentives are by far the most difficult obstacles. Public funding

might not cover all areas of research. It is difficult to monetize public ownership of

scientific discoveries and the research done by the open science community

because it often requires specialized equipment, which is only present in private

labs in institutions.

This can also taint the quality of research. By allowing the public to own scientific

discoveries, this can raise concerns about the accuracy and fairness of studies

published in open-access formats. Lastly, making scientific discoveries owned by

the public can raise ethical questions about the data security of these scientific

datasets. If unsafe and insecure, this could potentially benefit biohackers and

exploiters who can exploit this data for unethical purposes.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, this question doesn’t have an unambiguous answer. Each

perspective has its advantages and disadvantages. This is why almost all believe

that there should be a balance between those three; in other words, individual

scientists, institutions, and the public should all play an important role in

ownership, maintaining recognition and credibility, and benefiting society.

Sources:

Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of

science. (2003). https://royalsociety.org/-

/media/policy/publications/2003/9845.pdf

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN U.S. RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: DISPELLING

COMMON MYTHS. (2022).

https://www.cogr.edu/sites/default/files/Myths_Final%2008-01-22.pdf

Protecting Your Intellectual Property in Academia. (n.d.). Thesis Editing - Enago.

https://www.enago.com/thesis-editing/blog/protecting-your-intellectual-property-

in-academia

Open Science: Purpose, Benefits, and What it Means for You. (n.d.).

Blog.theopenscholar.com. https://blog.theopenscholar.com/en/open-science-

purpose-benefits

‌

‌