Olds James L
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study and the School of Computational Sciences Program in Computational Neurosciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004 Mar;277(1):5-9. doi: 10.1002/ar.b.20008.
Policy regarding academically generated biomedical intellectual property (IP) has been shaped by two important events: the Vannevar Bush report to then President Roosevelt in 1945 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. This policy, which vests the intellectual property produced from federally funded biomedical research from the government to the academic institution, was designed to promote technology transfer and thus promote the health of the U.S. economy. However, the policy has led to significant challenges, particularly in implementation. Here it is argued that the difficulties are due to differences in the structure of motivations between biomedical scientists, institutional officials, and private sector entrepreneurs. Understanding these differences may lead to a review of policy with the goal of enhancing technology transfer for the future.
关于学术产生的生物医学知识产权（IP）的政策受到了两个重要事件的影响：1945年万尼瓦尔·布什向当时的罗斯福总统提交的报告以及1980年的《拜杜法案》。这项政策将联邦资助的生物医学研究产生的知识产权从政府转移到学术机构，旨在促进技术转让，从而推动美国经济的健康发展。然而，该政策引发了重大挑战，尤其是在实施方面。本文认为，困难源于生物医学科学家、机构官员和私营部门企业家之间动机结构的差异。理解这些差异可能会促使对政策进行审查，以期在未来加强技术转让。
