[GhettoComputers]

Hasn’t it always been corporate interests in academia? Stanford was a joke when it was founded, MIT was being petitioned into becoming a tech school. Patrons of sciences have always been funded by private interests, there isn’t any corruption.

> This 'public-private' partnership situation has corrupted American academics, placing the profitability of research well ahead of the accuracy and reliability of research.

Private profitability research is no different. I don’t understand what you mean by losing accuracy, for some research corporate hardware or copyrighted work is required or the best choice.

I thought they gave the ability for other pharma to make the mRNA drugs that require incredible investment, to make it seem open.

Most of the information we mentioned is out there now. But it’s much more fun watching tiktoks and liking posts.

[photochemsyn]

As I noted, it's really Bayh-Dole exclusive licensing that's the problem. Make all exclusively licensed federally financed patents held by academic institutions available to anyone who wants to utilize them via a no-fee license, that's the fix.

Prior to that, if academics wanted to get involved in industry and make some money thereby, the route to take was called consulting, which seems fine with me, as long as conflicts of interest are stated honestly.

[GhettoComputers]

I’m reading the law and I don’t see that issue. All the issues are from the requirements of the FDA, making it patent free solves nothing, unless you’re talking about another industry, the cases are all from healthcare patents from the wiki. This isn’t new or something unusual, most of the issues are in healthcare and the requirements to produce them are not going to be fixed by removing patents.

Academic papers do submit sponsorships and conflicts of interest, and there’s also the case of academia wanting cutting edge equipment from private companies and doing deals with them. This is much more honest than the smoking research, the federal government has an interest in maintaining patent law, it has no incentive to give free access to no fee licensing. There’s lots of laws with access to healthcare information, which requires industry knowledge where the information is freely given to corporations to do research on, which would not be allowed federally. The researchers are not usually working because they’re interested in making their research public information, and while post grads are funded by government, they are free to develop royalty free information, they choose not to and the government wants to partially fund corporations. I don’t see the problem, people want to make money and they want to do cutting edge research.

I see academia and research papers as advertising rather than a patent minefield. There are plenty of people who want to work for the common good, but the government wants to fund private entities to produce products, government contracts is what the US does instead of its own production.

I see computer science papers with non of these issues under the current law.

[fsckboy]

> MIT was being petitioned into becoming a tech school

MIT was called Boston Tech when it was founded in 1861 to bring to life William Barton Rogers's vision for a “new polytechnic institute”