Ida Sim, Physician Scientist from Open Access Videos on Vimeo.
There has been some news recently about the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009(http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_1373.html), which would “deliver online public access to the published results of research funded through eleven U.S. agencies and departments, requiring that peer-reviewed journal articles stemming from publicly funded research be made available in an online repository no later than six months after publication.” (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/0152276888.shtml) This act was recently supported by 41 Nobel Prize winning scientists who sent a letter to congress that can be found here: http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/supporters/scientists/nobelists_2009.shtml.
If research is funded by taxpayer dollars, it seems to make sense under the notion of the “public good” to allow all who are interested to be able to read this research without the barrier of expensive journals. To make publicly funded research public, makes sense, because the party line that pharmaceutical companies use, that they need patents to protect their research property so that they can have temporary monopolies to earn a profit on there discoveries and thus conduct more research is nullified, since they will get money for more research from the government, which most of them do anyway. Why should the public have to pay taxes to fund research, buy journals if they want access to that research, and then pay an inflated price for a drug or invention that gives the research company profits without repaying the public? Where is the public good? Yes, the drug or invention is a public good but the cost to the public is exorbitant. Especially when the company who earned the profit again gets public funding to conduct more research.
If you excuse my rant above (it irks me that people seem to not care that life saving drugs are no different then a house or car or other property), the point of this post is to highlight some alternatives to the patent process. I agree with the reform allowing a limited time where the research can be solely in journals or other private places. The bill states 6 months. However, twenty years, as patent law stands now, is a long time to control research or drugs that are needed for the public good. However, one problem I foresee is that private funders of research may be discouraged from co-funding research with the government. Maybe there could be a scheme in place that allowed the current system of monopoly rights until the funders have recouped their investment plus a certain % decided by congress. Then the research would fall into the public domain. That would still motivate companies and entrepreneurs to fund research and contribute to the public good.
A second problem is research that is not conducted with any government funds. I feel there needs to be a review board on patents that can save lives or are needful in a crisis. Such a board may institute a similar policy as I hypothesized above, letting the patent remain private until the cost plus a certain amount of profit is achieved, or maybe the government could purchase such patents under eminent domain, which if a patent is property, it should be legal?
I think that you make many good points. It does seem that if the funding is public the results need to be more directly opened up for the public good. I especially appreciate that you thought through a practical and feasible alternative as a solution, rather than simply isolating the problem. Built on top of the reform that would shorten the patent term, I think that the scenario you put forth sounds reasonable without being too idealistic. Private researchers are always going to need the motivation of a certain profit potential, but limiting the scope of the private profit and then moving the results into the public domain sounds logical and dually beneficial. The reform is definitely a positive move in the right direction.