排序方式： 共有7条查询结果，搜索用时 78 毫秒
1
1.
Philip Mirowski 《Minerva》2008,46(3):317-342
Although the push to get universities to accumulate IP by commercializing their scientific research was a conscious movement,
dealing with the blowback in the form of contracts over the transfer of research tools and inputs, called materials transfer
agreements (MTAs), was greeted by universities as an afterthought. Faculty often regarded them as an irritant, and TTOs were
not much more welcoming. One reason universities could initially ignore the obvious connection between the pursuit of patents
and the prior promulgation of MTAs was a legalistic distinction made between intellectual property and contract law, which
of course is of direct concern to a lawyer, but should be less compelling for anyone trying to understand the big picture
surrounding the commercialization of academic science. However, as a subset of scientists were increasingly drawn into the
commercial sphere, they tended to attach MTAs to research inputs requested by other academics; and this began a tidal wave
of MTAs which shows no sign of abating. Furthermore, many IP-related restrictions have been loaded into individual MTAs, including
the stipulation that the existence and content of MTAs themselves be treated as secret and proprietary. The paper closes by
looking at recent arguments that the growth of MTAs has not actually harmed the research process, and rejects them.
相似文献
| Philip MirowskiEmail: |
2.
3.
The early 1980s constituted a watershed in science, mainly concerning the extent and nature of globalization and commercialization of scientific research, and its impact upon the university. Considerable debate has arisen about the sources of this transition, but aside from a few lone voices, the scholarly literature has neglected the concurrent rise of the contract research organization (CRO) and its role int he commercialization of scientific research. The CRO warrants wider attention as a modern paradigm of privatized science in the biopharmaceutical sector. In discussing the CRO's technologies, the purposes they pursue, and the legal and policy initiatives that have fostered their rapid rise, we confront the wider implications of the modern regime of commercialized science for the future conduct of scientific research. We identify five areas of innovation: treatment of human subjects, control of disclosure, subjection of research tools to commercialization, redefinition of authorship, and re-engineering the goals of research. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
7.
1