Support for open-source practices comes amid a deeper shift in how innovation happens. Although the private-sector is now shouldering more basic research, there is a growing preference among venture capitalists and acquisitive pharmaceutical firms for biotech companies with products that have some clinical validation, as a safeguard that they're picking a winner. The implication is that biotech companies won't be given the capital or time to do early-stage or risky research. And that, ironically, leaves a big opening that academia can fill because it can rely on the public purse, follow blue-sky inclinations and enjoy longer time-horizons. The risk to the biotech industry that will arise, if academia does move aggressively to fill this gap, is that the public and nonprofit sector will put greater pressure for bigger changes in the patent system. It is unclear whether academe has the political clout to change much, but the biotech industry ignores their gripes at its own risk.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 3/16/2006 07:42:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
