Some of the arguments in your very useful survey of opinion on the scope for universities to generate income by licensing patented intellectual property ("A penny for your thoughts", 28 February) seem to assume that any such licensing income would be a bonus over and above public funding for research.
That seems a dangerous assumption. The economic rationale for public funding of university research, which continues to influence government thinking on these matters, is that some research has widespread social benefit but it would be impossible to raise subscriptions from the beneficiaries to pay for the cost. Public funding is provided because of this "market failure". If universities choose to fund a research field by creating intellectual property rights and licensing them, then the Government may argue that the "market failure" has been resolved, and there is no need for the state to pay anything more.
It is most unlikely that licensing revenues would be a pure bonus. If universities, in aggregate, raise more income from licensing patents, then they can expect the Government to provide less public funds for research.
Peter Swann, Professor of industrial economics, Nottingham University Business School.
Register to continue
Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.
Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:
- Sign up for the editor's highlights
- Receive World University Rankings news first
- Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
- Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber? Sign in now