Research Scientists, any reward?
August 29, 2005 6:51 PM Subscribe
I have a question with research scientists. They do research for universities and such. Do they reap any reward (monetary) when they're original research develops into a patentable discovery? Or are they just salaried employees?
I know that some university science faculties have (wink) business industrial liaison (nudge) offices (local example) that facilitate (wink, nudge) strategic partnerships for mutual benefit, and I suppose (the next part is my guess) that tenured or otherwise prestigous researchers have the clout to take out the patents themselves instead of signing it over for a bonus.
posted by planetkyoto at 7:17 PM on August 29, 2005
posted by planetkyoto at 7:17 PM on August 29, 2005
I forgot to mention it's not just scientific research -- a couple friends went to a prominent film school in California that took 100% ownership of any student film they produced as part of their program.
Imagine if Georgey Lucas never saw a cent from THX1138 and his film school got to keep anything he made off it. Would Star Wars have ever gotten made?
posted by mathowie at 7:17 PM on August 29, 2005
Imagine if Georgey Lucas never saw a cent from THX1138 and his film school got to keep anything he made off it. Would Star Wars have ever gotten made?
posted by mathowie at 7:17 PM on August 29, 2005
Scientists and engineers who work for a corporation or university typically agree, as part of their employment contract, to assign patents that come out of their work to their employer. People who do what Matt describes are really cheating their employers, although it's certainly not uncommon.
It's quite expensive to get a patent, too, so part of the agreement most employees have is that the employer will pay to prepare and file the patent application, and the inventor will assign the patent to his employer. Often, employers pay a bonus to the inventor when the application is filed or when the patent is granted.
posted by spacewrench at 7:23 PM on August 29, 2005
It's quite expensive to get a patent, too, so part of the agreement most employees have is that the employer will pay to prepare and file the patent application, and the inventor will assign the patent to his employer. Often, employers pay a bonus to the inventor when the application is filed or when the patent is granted.
posted by spacewrench at 7:23 PM on August 29, 2005
FWIW, at many (all?) major US universities, the work of PhD students belongs to the school. The US is losing serious serious nanotech brainpower to Oxbridge (where students own their work) for this reason.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:53 PM on August 29, 2005
posted by Kwantsar at 7:53 PM on August 29, 2005
Depends entirely on the school. Some have very enlightened policies - the rights belong to the faculty inventor (Waterloo is one of these). Most I'm familiar with have an intellectual property policy where the school owns the patent but gives some percentage of any royalties to the faculty. I have some IP that was just licensed this year by Carnegie-Mellon, where I used to work; under their policy, the inventors get half of the royalty.
The spin-off method, whereby the faculty sets up an independent company, is by no means cheating the university, if the university IP office licenses the patent properly. The spin-off has to pay the university to use the IP developed with sponsored research funds. Typically, follow-on patents are subsidiary to the original invention, so the university continues to get royalty payments based on that work. I'm in this situation right now, where my company pays license fees to UVa while the company does all the work to make the invention marketable.
posted by Wet Spot at 8:07 PM on August 29, 2005
The spin-off method, whereby the faculty sets up an independent company, is by no means cheating the university, if the university IP office licenses the patent properly. The spin-off has to pay the university to use the IP developed with sponsored research funds. Typically, follow-on patents are subsidiary to the original invention, so the university continues to get royalty payments based on that work. I'm in this situation right now, where my company pays license fees to UVa while the company does all the work to make the invention marketable.
posted by Wet Spot at 8:07 PM on August 29, 2005
In all Unis I have worked (US) we always sign out papers that our research is property of the University and we cannot profit from it on our own -maybe together with the University, yes. However, I am in applied physics and things there are much easier. Even at a couple of government labs I have worked (Los Alamos and NASA -non confidential research) we sign conflict of interest agreements regularly (each year or whenever we apply for funding).
But the real dough (and possibly loop-arounds) is in places for, lets say, ummm, medical research where patentable discoveries/inventions are more often made. I believe this is where most of the intellectual property lawyers make their money from.
posted by carmina at 8:16 PM on August 29, 2005
But the real dough (and possibly loop-arounds) is in places for, lets say, ummm, medical research where patentable discoveries/inventions are more often made. I believe this is where most of the intellectual property lawyers make their money from.
posted by carmina at 8:16 PM on August 29, 2005
Response by poster: Can you detail strategies to protect your "inventions" or "discoveries" ? Starting a business/consulting service is one way. Any other ways? Has anyone negotiated prior to signing on with a lab/university? Thanks again for the input.
posted by erd0c at 8:31 PM on August 29, 2005
posted by erd0c at 8:31 PM on August 29, 2005
It definitely varies from university to university. Simon Fraser University (in Vancouver, Canada) has the MOST researcher-friendly policy I have ever seen:
"University Members who create IP own the products of their intellectual endeavours and are free to publish those products without commercial intent, to pursue Commercialization with the assistance of the University, or to pursue Commercialization of the IP in their own right."
The only catch is that the university gets to use the IP royalty-free themselves (but they can't license it to others unless you say so).
One thing I had never realized until recently was the repercussions of collaborating with researchers at other universities. I am at UBC and my boyfriend is at Simon Fraser. If we were to collaborate on something the IP situation would be a mess - UBC's policy isn't nearly as nice for the researcher!
posted by sanitycheck at 8:37 PM on August 29, 2005
"University Members who create IP own the products of their intellectual endeavours and are free to publish those products without commercial intent, to pursue Commercialization with the assistance of the University, or to pursue Commercialization of the IP in their own right."
The only catch is that the university gets to use the IP royalty-free themselves (but they can't license it to others unless you say so).
One thing I had never realized until recently was the repercussions of collaborating with researchers at other universities. I am at UBC and my boyfriend is at Simon Fraser. If we were to collaborate on something the IP situation would be a mess - UBC's policy isn't nearly as nice for the researcher!
posted by sanitycheck at 8:37 PM on August 29, 2005
Money? In science? Hahahaha!
Usually the university keeps everything, money-wise. However, if you develop something physical (synthesize a molecule, or clone a strain of bacteria) that other scientists can use, you're free to send it to them if they ask for it, and you can also take it with you if you move on to another university. (Actually, officially I'm not sure if this is encouraged, but it is basically the same as sending it to a friend and then having him send it back when you're at your new post, so I don't see how it can be stopped) That's the most direct way you can personally benefit from your discoveries.
In general, though, in science your only personal benefits are your publications, for which you PAY per page to get it published in the first place. It's beneficial only in the resume-padding sense.
As far as patents, I'm not sure how it works. Our lab has patented one or two things, but all I can remember from it is that the people working on that project weren't allowed to give public talks before the patent went through. Money-wise I don't think anyone got anything from it personally.
This is at a research hospital in Canada, but we follow university policies for a lot of things, since hospital research is just as public (non-commercial) as university research.
posted by easternblot at 8:53 PM on August 29, 2005
Usually the university keeps everything, money-wise. However, if you develop something physical (synthesize a molecule, or clone a strain of bacteria) that other scientists can use, you're free to send it to them if they ask for it, and you can also take it with you if you move on to another university. (Actually, officially I'm not sure if this is encouraged, but it is basically the same as sending it to a friend and then having him send it back when you're at your new post, so I don't see how it can be stopped) That's the most direct way you can personally benefit from your discoveries.
In general, though, in science your only personal benefits are your publications, for which you PAY per page to get it published in the first place. It's beneficial only in the resume-padding sense.
As far as patents, I'm not sure how it works. Our lab has patented one or two things, but all I can remember from it is that the people working on that project weren't allowed to give public talks before the patent went through. Money-wise I don't think anyone got anything from it personally.
This is at a research hospital in Canada, but we follow university policies for a lot of things, since hospital research is just as public (non-commercial) as university research.
posted by easternblot at 8:53 PM on August 29, 2005
Yeah, collaborations - especially between different countries - can be a real mess.
The University of British Columbia (hi sanitycheck) gave one of their professors emeritus a really nice deal - they leased him a 'private' lab on campus with everything included for $1 (CDN, natch) per year - where I used to work - he had a free hand with IP. He eventually got bought out by a medium-Pharma (with the tacit agreement that they keep the research facility in Vancouver - which they eventually betrayed) and IIRC UBC never got a cent from the patents/drug sales.
Definitely depends on the Uni/situation/how-much-leverage-you-can-pull.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:03 PM on August 29, 2005
The University of British Columbia (hi sanitycheck) gave one of their professors emeritus a really nice deal - they leased him a 'private' lab on campus with everything included for $1 (CDN, natch) per year - where I used to work - he had a free hand with IP. He eventually got bought out by a medium-Pharma (with the tacit agreement that they keep the research facility in Vancouver - which they eventually betrayed) and IIRC UBC never got a cent from the patents/drug sales.
Definitely depends on the Uni/situation/how-much-leverage-you-can-pull.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:03 PM on August 29, 2005
Speaking as a researcher, in a lab, with a Pending Patent: In my case (at RIT) the school will own the patent and be in charge of licensing it out. I will receive some nominal percentage of that licensing fee. In reality, your best financial reward is through your salary.
However, the lab that I'm a member of also 'allows' us to own our ideas - meaning that we can continue to develop them elsewhere, if we so choose. This brings up the point that mathowie made above - some of my fellow researchers have started off-campus corporations to hold their projects/technologies to try and make some extra money. Just be sure to never let your in-lab work mix with your corporation's work. If you want to go down this path, you should probably talk with a lawyer first.
posted by jeresig at 9:15 PM on August 29, 2005
However, the lab that I'm a member of also 'allows' us to own our ideas - meaning that we can continue to develop them elsewhere, if we so choose. This brings up the point that mathowie made above - some of my fellow researchers have started off-campus corporations to hold their projects/technologies to try and make some extra money. Just be sure to never let your in-lab work mix with your corporation's work. If you want to go down this path, you should probably talk with a lawyer first.
posted by jeresig at 9:15 PM on August 29, 2005
Just chiming in as a researcher at the University of Georgia. Here, most patents do belong to the university, so yea, you don't make any money off the patents themself. The money is made by bringing money into the university (by patents and grants) to become tenured.
However, as some have commented, some university employees also own their own companies, though they are staffed as university employees. In this case, patent profits are indeed split.
posted by jmd82 at 9:32 PM on August 29, 2005
However, as some have commented, some university employees also own their own companies, though they are staffed as university employees. In this case, patent profits are indeed split.
posted by jmd82 at 9:32 PM on August 29, 2005
Sounds like it's a bit easier in the UK, colleagues of mine are currently patenting something which they will be able to profit from if it goes commercial.
I have heard one anecdote of a supervisor making a killing off work done by their PhD student while the student made nothing though.
posted by biffa at 2:09 AM on August 30, 2005
I have heard one anecdote of a supervisor making a killing off work done by their PhD student while the student made nothing though.
posted by biffa at 2:09 AM on August 30, 2005
Patents and your salary are your chances to rake in the cash. At my university, you pull in 20% of the gross profits off a patent. This can be considerable or it can be nothing at all. The university takes most of what is left, and another percent of the money is funneled back directly into labs through grants.
They also offer you smaller incentives ($1000 or so) at each step of the patent application in order to encourage you to see the patent through. The university also foots the bill for all the lawyers, application fees, etc.
Another financial benefit of going into the sciences: our grad school (at least PhD programs) pay you to go to school. Not only is my tuition taken care of, but I get a stipend that is equivalent to the amount a technician with a B.S. would make. So, I am lucky enough to get a higher education without going (further) into debt with new school loans, etc.
posted by divka at 5:39 AM on August 30, 2005
They also offer you smaller incentives ($1000 or so) at each step of the patent application in order to encourage you to see the patent through. The university also foots the bill for all the lawyers, application fees, etc.
Another financial benefit of going into the sciences: our grad school (at least PhD programs) pay you to go to school. Not only is my tuition taken care of, but I get a stipend that is equivalent to the amount a technician with a B.S. would make. So, I am lucky enough to get a higher education without going (further) into debt with new school loans, etc.
posted by divka at 5:39 AM on August 30, 2005
As other have said, it all depends on the deal your employer gives you.
As a federal government research scientist in Canada, any intelectual property I create belongs to the Crown. If I write a book, all royalities revert to the Crown, etc... The only exception for us is patents. A federal researcher assigns the patent to the Crown, gets about 15% of the ongoing royalties.
The IP clawback on written materials sucks, but that patent royalty can be very generous. One senior scientist in my institute makes a very substatial part of his income from patent royalties. Mind you, only 4 people in the 250 at my centre have patents. On the other hand, my friends working for private firms get $2500 to $5000 flat payment per patent, which their companies have turned around and licenced for millions, so we feds can't complain.
posted by bonehead at 5:59 AM on August 30, 2005
As a federal government research scientist in Canada, any intelectual property I create belongs to the Crown. If I write a book, all royalities revert to the Crown, etc... The only exception for us is patents. A federal researcher assigns the patent to the Crown, gets about 15% of the ongoing royalties.
The IP clawback on written materials sucks, but that patent royalty can be very generous. One senior scientist in my institute makes a very substatial part of his income from patent royalties. Mind you, only 4 people in the 250 at my centre have patents. On the other hand, my friends working for private firms get $2500 to $5000 flat payment per patent, which their companies have turned around and licenced for millions, so we feds can't complain.
posted by bonehead at 5:59 AM on August 30, 2005
In the U.S., the law generally provides that royalties from inventions derived from government-funded research done in nonprofits be shared with the inventor, but does not say to what extent. 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(7)(B).
This looks like a good summary.
posted by exogenous at 6:04 AM on August 30, 2005
This looks like a good summary.
posted by exogenous at 6:04 AM on August 30, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
The university policies are so bad that I know several professors that do some novel research, then setup off-campus corporations that they run for consulting. Then when they know they're onto something special, they basically claim they came up with the process in their off-campus lab, and bring the research method back to their school research.
This way, all patents, sales, and rewards lie in their off-campus work they control, while the university still funds their regular exploratory stuff.
I believe the "Berkeley License" on BSD has ties to the UC system taking ownership of compsci research work into making a Unix-like OS.
posted by mathowie at 7:15 PM on August 29, 2005