Dataset Information

Patenting of university and non-university public research organisations in Germany: evidence from patent applications for medical research results.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patents are one of the most important forms of intellectual property. They grant a time-limited exclusivity on the use of an invention allowing the recuperation of research costs. The use of patents is fiercely debated for medical innovation and especially controversial for publicly funded research, where the patent holder is an institution accountable to public interest. Despite this controversy, for the situation in Germany almost no empirical information exists. The purpose of this study is to examine the amount, types and trends of patent applications for health products submitted by German public research organisations. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search for patent documents using the publicly accessible database search interface of the German Patent and Trademark Office. We defined keywords and search criteria and developed search patterns for the database request. We retrieved documents with application date between 1988 and 2006 and processed the collected data stepwise to compile the most relevant documents in patent families for further analysis. We developed a rationale and present individual steps of a systematic method to request and process patent data from a publicly accessible database. We retrieved and processed 10194 patent documents. Out of these, we identified 1772 relevant patent families, applied for by 193 different universities and non-university public research organisations. 827 (47%) of these patent families contained granted patents. The number of patent applications submitted by universities and university-affiliated institutions more than tripled since the introduction of legal reforms in 2002, constituting almost half of all patent applications and accounting for most of the post-reform increase. Patenting of most non-university public research organisations remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: We search, process and analyse patent applications from publicly accessible databases. Internationally mounting evidence questions the viability of policies to increase commercial exploitation of publicly funded research results. To evaluate the outcome of research policies a transparent evidence base for public debate is needed in Germany.

SUBMITTER: Tinnemann P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2987808 | biostudies-literature | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patenting of university and non-university public research organisations in Germany: evidence from patent applications for medical research results.

Tinnemann Peter P Ozbay Jonas J Saint Victoria A VA Willich Stefan N SN

PloS one 20101118 11

<h4>Background</h4>Patents are one of the most important forms of intellectual property. They grant a time-limited exclusivity on the use of an invention allowing the recuperation of research costs. The use of patents is fiercely debated for medical innovation and especially controversial for publicly funded research, where the patent holder is an institution accountable to public interest. Despite this controversy, for the situation in Germany almost no empirical information exists. The purpose ...[more]

PMID: 21124982

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence shows that territorial borders continue to have an impact on research collaboration in Europe. Knowledge of national research structural contexts is therefore crucial to the promotion of Europe-wide policies for research funding. Nevertheless, studies assessing and comparing research systems remain scarce. This paper aims to further the knowledge on national research landscapes in Europe, focusing on non-communicable disease (NCD) research in Italy and Germany.MethodsTo capture the architecture of country-specific research funding systems, a three-fold strategy was adopted. First, a literature review was conducted to determine a list of key public, voluntary/private non-profit and commercial research funding organisations (RFOs). Second, an electronic survey was administered qualifying RFOs. Finally, survey results were integrated with semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders in NCD research. Three major dimensions of interest were investigated - funding mechanisms, funding patterns and expectations regarding outputs.ResultsThe number of RFOs in Italy is four times larger than that in Germany and the Italian research system has more project funding instruments than the German system. Regarding the funding patterns towards NCD areas, in both countries, respiratory disease research resulted as the lowest funded, whereas cancer research was the target of most funding streams. The most reported expected outputs of funded research activity were scholarly publication of articles and reports.ConclusionsThis cross-country comparison on the Italian and German research funding structures revealed substantial differences between the two systems. The current system is prone to duplicated research efforts, popular funding for some diseases and intransparency of research results. Future research will require addressing the need for better coordination of research funding efforts, even more so if European research efforts are to play a greater role.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health research may improve both the relevance and quality of the research. There is however a lack of research investigating the experiences, attitudes and barriers towards PPI in clinical research in Norway. The Norwegian Clinical Research Infrastructure Network therefore conducted a survey among researchers and PPI contributors aiming to investigate experiences with PPI and identify current challenges for successful involvement.MethodsTwo survey questionnaires were developed and distributed in October and November 2021. The survey targeting 1185 researchers was distributed from the research administrative system in the Regional Health Trusts. The survey targeting PPI contributors was distributed through Norwegian patient organisations, regional and national competence centers.ResultsThe response rate was 30% among researchers and was unobtainable from PPI contributors due to the survey distribution strategy. PPI was most frequently used in the planning and conduct of the studies, and less utilized in dissemination and implementation of results. Both researchers and user representatives were generally positive to PPI, and agreed that PPI might be more useful in clinical research than in underpinning research. Researchers and PPI contributors who reported that roles and expectations were clarified in advance, were more likely to experience a common understanding of roles and responsibilities in the research project. Both groups pointed to the importance of earmarked funding for PPI activities. There was a demand for a closer collaboration between researchers and patient organisations to develop accessible tools and effective models for PPI in health research.ConclusionsSurveys among clinical researchers and PPI contributors indicate overall positive attitudes towards PPI in clinical research. However, more resources, such as budget, time, and accessible tools, are needed. Clarifying roles and expectations, and creating new PPI models under resource constraints can enhance its effectiveness. PPI is underutilized in disseminating and implementing research results, presenting an opportunity for improving healthcare outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesNon-publication and publication bias are topics of considerable importance to the scientific community. These issues may limit progress toward the 3R principle for animal research, promote waste of public resources, and generate biased interpretations of clinical outcomes. To investigate current publishing practices and to gain some understanding of the extent to which research results are reported, we examined publication rates of research projects that were approved within an internal funding program of the Faculty of Medicine at a university medical center in Germany, which is exemplary for comparable research funding programs for the promotion of young researchers in Germany and Europe.MethodsWe analyzed the complete set (n = 363) of research projects that were supported by an internal funding program between 2004 and 2013. We divided the projects into four different proposal types that included those that required an ethics vote, those that included an animal proposal, those that included both requirements, and those that included neither requirement.ResultsWe found that 65% of the internally funded research projects resulted in at least one peer-reviewed publication; this increased to 73% if other research contributions were considered, including abstracts, book and congress contributions, scientific posters, and presentations. There were no significant differences with respect to publication rates based on (a) the clinic/institute of the applicant, (b) project duration, (c) scope of funding or (d) proposal type.ConclusionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore publication rates associated with early-career medical research funding. As >70% of the projects ultimately generated some form of publication, the program was overall effective toward this goal; however, non-publication of research results is still prevalent. Further research will explore the reasons underlying non-publication. We hope to use these findings to develop strategies that encourage publication of research results.

Project description:BackgroundUniversities undertake the majority of publicly funded research in Germany and hence bear a responsibility to contribute to global health efforts. So far, involvement and impact of German medical faculties in global health are unknown. Our aim was to systematically asses and evaluate German medical faculties' contribution to global health related research and education, as well as their policies and practices concerning open access publishing and equitable licensing.MethodsWe assessed the involvement in global health of all 36 publicly funded medical faculties in Germany during 2010-2014 in three areas: innovation, access and education, using the following indicators: research funding and publications focused on global health or poverty-related and neglected diseases; open access publishing and policies promoting access to medical innovations worldwide; provision of global health education. Data were gathered from public databases, university websites and questionnaires sent to individual universities for validation and triangulation.ResultsThere was a high level of variability between institutions and indicators. The proportion of research funding for poverty-related and neglected diseases research ranged between 0.0-1.1%. The top five institutions received nearly 85% of the total poverty-related and neglected diseases research funding. 20 of 36 universities had an institutional open access publishing policy, 19 had an open access publishing fund, 16 had neither. Only one university reported having used an equitable licensing policy. 22 of 36 faculties provided some global health education, but only one of them included global health in their core undergraduate medical curriculum as a compulsory course with more than just single lectures.ConclusionObtained data indicate that global health and poverty-related and neglected diseases research at German medical faculties is highly concentrated in a few institutions, open-access publishing and equitable licensing policies are mostly absent, and only little global health education exists. Universities and government should address global health strategically in both research and education at medical faculties to reflect the country's economic and political weight and human resource potential.

Dataset Information

Patenting of university and non-university public research organisations in Germany: evidence from patent applications for medical research results.

Publications

Patenting of university and non-university public research organisations in Germany: evidence from patent applications for medical research results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets