How not to bring science and commerce closer together

Internal links

Dons' inventions belong to us, says Cambridge

It is difficult to sympathise with the reasoning behind Cambridge University's proposal to claim ownership retroactively over the inventions and research of its academics. The plan, which is supposed to take effect in January, would, at a stroke, remove any incentive for the brightest scientists to come up with schemes, products and processes that would benefit the rest of humanity, from biotechnological research into new medicines to understanding global climate change.

Not only would the more entrepreneurially minded be deprived of an opportunity to make a profit from their work; we also find that the most altruistically inclined are put off by the idea that they would no longer be able, say, to give their latest software away free, but would have to surrender it to the University authorities.

It all points to a rather poor prospect for the "Cambridge phenomenon" and the growth of the so-called "silicon fen" of high-technology companies, already threatened by a collapse in commercial confidence.

The University justifies this extraordinary move, akin to a 100 per cent tax rate applied retrospectively, by claiming that, in the words of Robert Marshal, the head of technology transfer, "there are perhaps 5 per cent of scientists who have the entrepreneurial skills and drive to exploit their ideas, but I think there's great swathe below those who are very gifted but aren't served well by the present set-up."

That may well be true, but surely the more sensible course of action would be to set up an office that they could go to which would give them advice about the commercialisation of their work. The University could charge a fee for this sort of advice, in the same way that a patent lawyer or a venture-capital firm would.

Successive governments, industrialists and academics have all agreed that technology transfer is one of the keys to Britain's survival as an advanced industrialised economy. We have in Cambridge an excellent example of how all those good intentions can be made real, to the benefit of all concerned. The University of Cambridge should think again before it rips through this web of commercial and scientific excellence.