Science is a rapidly growing industry. Beyond basic research, the commercialisation
of technologies and development of new products from bench top to marketplace
is a complex process. In asking “Who Owns Science?” the Manchester Manifesto
is concerned with all aspects of this process: scientific discovery, development,
application and distribution; and the interactions between each aspect. The
MMS Bulletin publishes parts of the Manifesto, which was launched in late November
2010.
An important component of the innovation process has been the idea of “ownership”
in science and technology. This concept has arisen partly in the context of
profiting from research and development, but also has implications for much
broader issues such as control of and access to scientific information and products
that result from research, in terms of both the private and socio-political
dimensions of ownership.
Statement of the problem
To manage the ownership of science and the fruits of research, an intricate
system of intellectual property (IP) law has developed. The justifications for
IP law as it exists at present include the idea that it is required in order
to facilitate scientific and economic benefit from innovation, and that it provides
a fair and morally justifiable way of rewarding those who invest in the process
of discovery and regulating access to these benefits. The initial meetings of
the Manchester Manifesto Group in 2008-2009 established that the current method
of managing innovation (and perhaps in particular IP in its present form), whilst
deeply embedded in current practice and hence of practical importance, also
has significant drawbacks in terms of its effects on science and economic efficiency,
and raises ethical issues because of its (often adverse) effects on people and
populations.
The Manchester Manifesto Group considered the core goals of science and identified
various issues and problems with the current system of ownership and management
of science and innovation, highlighting elements that hinder or obstruct achievement
of these goals. Reflecting on these problems, we were able to articulate some
broad principles and policy considerations to guide any investigation or evaluation
of alternative systems of innovation. Finally, we outlined some questions that
must be addressed if we are to move towards solutions to the problems identified
by the group. We call for further research in these areas as a matter of great
importance, in order to answer the question not only of “Who Owns Science?”,
but of who ought to own science and how the goals of science can best be fulfilled.
Goals
Science and the public good: Science can serve the public good by generating
knowledge to meet human needs and purposes. This includes knowledge with direct
application to current challenges and pure/undirected endeavour (so called “blue
skies” research) that forms the essential basis for future scientific discovery.
Innovation and the public good: Management of innovation has significant implications
for scientific progress and human welfare. It affects the distribution of benefits,
access to technology, dissemination of knowledge, and the pace and direction
of research.
Reciprocal responsibilities of science and society: The relationship between
science and society is essentially one of reciprocity, mutual benefit, and needs
to be seen to be so. Just as science has responsibilities to the public good,
the public has responsibilities towards science as the collective recipient
of its benefits and as a major funder of its activities – a relationship that
is often mediated by policy.
Issues/Problems in the Current Management of Innovation
The interests and contributions of inventors and authors deserve to be recognised
fairly. However the current dominant model of innovation and commercialisation
of science poses a number of problems. It has potential to encourage innovation
and stimulate research and development, but also to frustrate innovation and
stifle research and development; and can hinder science from operating in a
way consistent with the public good.
Access to benefits of research
Current models can restrict or prevent public access to the benefits of research
– both the information generated by scientific endeavour and the products of
innovation based on that science – and thereby hinder science from serving the
public good.
- Certain licensing and commercial practices can restrict access to the products
of science and innovation, particularly for those with limited market power.
- This is of particular concern in the case of those products that address
basic needs (such as health care).
- The current model rewards particular kinds of creative effort, namely those
which result in commercial gain. It is therefore likely to hinder innovation
of products that have limited market value, but which may have huge social
benefit.
- The obligation on corporate innovation to maximise profit and return for
shareholders can conflict with the creation of knowledge and achievement of
welfare goals.
Principles, Policy Considerations and Progress
We recognise that innovation has an essential role in economic development,
but its use for the pursuit of profit should not override, and ideally should
not conflict with, achievement of welfare goals and scientific progress. Scientific
information, freely and openly communicated, adds to the body of knowledge and
understanding upon which the progress of humanity depends. Information must
remain available to science and this depends on open communication and dissemination
of information, including that used in innovation.
Principles
- The regulation of frameworks of innovation should promote the following
objectives:
Provision of public benefit
- Just recognition of interests
- Facilitating progress of science and innovation
- Increasing access to fruits of research – information and products
- Addressing welfare and resource inequities both locally and globally
- Increasing trust in the relationships between scientists, innovators, corporations
and public, and between nations
At times these objectives may conflict and attention must be given to the most
appropriate way of balancing them in each situation.
Policy Considerations
Alternative systems: The current dominant model of intellectual property rights
for innovation is not the only option available. There are existing alternatives
and new models can be designed with differing cost distributions. Different
systems may be appropriate in different areas; consideration must be given to
the factors that affect this, including the nature of the knowledge, the method
of discovery and the environment in which knowledge generation takes place.
For example, the current system can be modified through increased use of mechanisms
such as patent pools, voluntary or compulsory licensing, and differential pricing.
A range of alternative models is also possible: from those which are related
to the current rights system such as remuneration-based patents, through prize
funds, to completely open-access models.
Assessing models of innovation: Any model of innovation is likely to have advantages
and disadvantages. Consideration should be given to which is the most appropriate
for particular circumstances, bearing in mind the principles above and the goals
of science and innovation.
In evaluating the various possible models, the following factors should be
taken into consideration: The extent to which it advances welfare and promotes
human flourishing
- Fair and equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, with particular
attention to resource providers (including the scientific community, the public,
specific contributors of knowledge/biomaterials, and other contributors).
- Facilitation of safe and sustainable access to the end product
- Affordability in use of the system and of the end products
- Maintenance of free flow of scientific information
- Promotion of open communication
- The provision of adequate incentives to stimulate scientific discovery and
innovation
- Ease and effectiveness of operation
- Inclusion of operational rules appropriate to achieving desired objectives
- Awareness of global dynamics
*The Manchester Manifesto Group brings together international experts from
relevant disciplines to address the question of “Who Owns Science?” Led by two
research institutes at The University of Manchester, the Institute for Science,
Ethics and Innovation and the Brooks World Poverty Institute, chaired by John
Sulston and Joseph Stiglitz, respectively, the Group represents a critical mass
of research expertise that are ideally equipped to meet the challenges and problems
outlined above. The Group’s members are drawn from a broad range of academic
disciplines and relevant sectors, including economics, science, innovation,
law, philosophy, ethics and public policy. The goal has been not only to investigate
the question of “Who Owns Science?” but to present and apply our findings to
maximum effect in order to make a difference in the real world as to how science
is used, and hence to “build a better future for humanity”. Website and Contact:
http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/themanchestermanifesto/
©The Manchester Manifesto
