Historical perspective of asian countries - Free Essay Example

As a part of our research we found that universities in different Asian countries had different degrees of autonomy to engage in contractual collaboration with the private sector. In Japan and Korea, State-owned universities were treated as part of the government and were not allowed to operate as independent entities and because of this unique legal arrangement, they had no legal status, and did not have the capacity to write a contract or own patents (Nezu, December 2005). We find that this is particularly important because top universities in most Asian countries were often State-run. Such State-funded universities normally did not have a legal status, which would allow them to claim ownership over the results of their research activities, employ researchers, write contracts with private companies and take on legal obligations if necessary. Rather, they were deemed part of the government itself and were obliged to follow a meticulous process to obtain permission to work with the private sector. Professors were government employees and because of this, they were not allowed to work outside the university. In order to pave the way for more operational and efficient U-I relations, specific actions were taken. (Nezu, December 2005) Recently, the state realized the benefits and feasibility of university autonomy in certain matters, for instance the matters of patency in their research work, and the universities were empowered to deal with these issues. Consequently, many Asian universities moved towards establishing an office within or outside the universities to de al with the complex task of managing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and transferring technologies, developed in their laboratories. They were mostly emulations of the Technology Licensing Offices (TLOs) or Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) of US universities. In most of the Asian universities that conduct research, offices of this kind have been set up, although in some cases they are not called TLOs or TTOs. In certain countries where technology transfer from universities is rare, tasks related to technology transfer are handled by a general administration office. But Asian universities are increasingly recognizing that the transfer of technology calls for a high level of expertise, a firm knowledge of technology and the way universities function, and also familiarity with the legal aspects of IPRs. The functions of all TTOs are not identical. TTOs are regarded as profit centers and are expected to be self-supporting, while others are heavily subsidized by the universities or even by the government. In either case, it is widely recognized that having a TTO as a central body to handle all issues relating to the transfer of technology is that it makes possible to professionalize technology transfer activities and enhance the bargaining power of the universities. It would be practically next to impossible for individual researchers to deal with all the necessary work. Conflict of Interest When we take a look at the development model of the advanced countries we are illuminated of the fact that the, first major conflict of interest occurs in regard to time allocation of university researchers between academic and educational responsibility and commercial interest. It is generally agreed in Asian universities that, if university researchers intend to take on commercial responsibility, they should at least notify the University of such Intention and obtain approval. In order to be able to deal with such requests for approval, universities must have certain rules. A university researcher should take a leave or at least make a separation in schedule, so that there is always a line separating the two activities. Such leaves should be taken in a manner that would not disrupt the educational duties of the university or the other research activities of the professor. One example in this connection is the 20% rule, which is widely observed in US universities. Under this rule, faculty members are allowed to spend up to 20%, in other words, one day in one week, outside the university. The National University of Singapore (NUS) has more or less the same guideline of 52 days per year to be spent on consulting activities or for facultys engagement in a non-executive capacity in a start-up company. But in general, few Asian countries have clear policies in place. In addition to proper time management, there is also a need for managing the economic gains that may arise. This is likely to occur when a university researcher holds some stake in a business that utilizes the knowledge of the university. A successful start-up may bring about millions of rupees of profit for a single researcher. But, if U-I collaboration leads to a situation where university researchers make a fortune by using the knowledge of the university and its facilities, there may arise sentiments of unfairness, disappointment or even opposition to U-I collaboration. In order to avoid a sit uation like this, there must be clear rules for them to follow. Whether or not a university researcher can be a corporate director, executive or nonexecutive, is a moot point. If, yes, under which conditions should they be allowed to do so? While this can be left to individual universities, it will be in the interest of all universities and businesses to have basic guidelines agreed in advance. While not all Asian universities have concrete guidelines for avoiding conflicts of interest, some have taken concrete actions. The National University of Singapore (NUS) identifies a number of potential situations that are likely to arise. Misusing students by hiring them as cheap labor, Transmitting privileged information that is not generally available to the company, Undertaking or changing the orientation of research to serve the needs of the company, Using university resources for company activities, Purchasing equipment from the company in which the researcher has an interest, Funding by the company of a project related to the licensed technology. In addition to these, NUS regards consulting, equity ownership, royalty interest and family ties as potential areas for conflict. For each one of these situations, NUS provides certain policy and guidelines to minimize the risks. 3.1 Japan In Japan, many good universities were traditionally State-owned and had thus been shielded from the pressures of the private sector. As a result, they had shown little interest in working with business. It was only as late as 1990s that Japanese society became serious about establishing mutually supportive relations between the two communities. The direct cause of this change was the heavy loss of competitiveness by Japanese firms to the United States in such key sectors as information technology and biotechnology. The response to these new challenges was to upgrade industrial structures and raise the competitiveness of Japanese industry. As a result, companies began to show increasing interest in utilizing the knowledge of universities rather than doing all of their research on their own. Under the pressure of global competition, utilizing the most advanced knowledge developed by universities became the top priority for Japan. Laws to Facilitate Technology Transfer Laws/ policies Year Japanese Science and Technology Policy 1996 Japanese version of the Bayh-Dole Act 1999 Basic Law for IPRs 2002 Law to alter the legal status of national universities from a government institution to an independent administrative entity, 2004 Table 1: Japanese government acts passes for U-I collaboration In Japan, formal U-I Collaboration dates back to 1983, when joint research projects with the private sector were first approved, but it was in the 90s that U-I Collaboration was given full recognition as a major policy direction in the Japanese science and technology policy. The Basic Plan for Science and Technology, adopted by the Cabinet in 1996 stressed the importance of promoting collaboration between universities and business. During the few years that followed, several important decisions were made at the governmental level, including the Japanese version of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1999 and the Basic Law for IPRs of 2002. Pursuant to the Basic Law for S cience and Technology, the Science and Technology Council draw up a Basic Plan for Science and Technology every five years. 3.1.2 Japanese Law and TLO The law Promoting Technology Transfers from Academia of 1996 was the first in a line of legislative attempts to facilitate technology transfers. It was followed by a second law, the Industrial Revitalizing Law of 1999, which established a legal structure similar to that created in the Bayh-Dole Act in the US. However, the most important law, a law to alter the legal status of national universities from a government institution to an independent administrative entity, took effect in April of 2004  [1]  . To manage IPRs, Japan initially took an initiative stating that national universities research should belong to the individual researchers but later law was passed for establishment of TTOs within or outside universities.  [2]  As a result of success in U-I collaboration more and more initiatives were taken by the government. There is other evidence of the growing interest of Japanese universities in protecting their inventions by filing patents as a means for transferrin g technology. The Japanese universities filed 1,335 patents in 2002, a substantial increase from the 76 patents in 1996. 3.2 China Chinas university-industry partnerships began as early as the 1950s. From the start of the Communist regime, universities were called upon to make full contributions toward the increase of production in China. Transfer of knowledge from universities was conducted without explicit rules with respect to intellectual property. It was only after the major policy change that took place during the 80s that China became more focused on the productivity of the economy and thus began to mobilize academic and scientific resources to achieve economic ends. In 1985 decisions were made by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party which allowed universities to make their own decisions, based on the market situation, in organizing RD programs and transferring technologies. These decisions were presented in the Chinese science and technology policy. In addition, the decision made it possible to provide incentives through more pay for more work. The role of the government changed from di rect intervention and control to guidance and oversight, setting laws and regulations under which universities could decide on their own course of action. In China, Technology transfer and licensing from universities has increased. The number of patent transfers, for example, went up from 298 in 1999 to 532 in 2002. During the same period, technology transfers also increased from about 4000 to 5600. In addition to technology transfers, contractual research, consultancy and enterprise incubation are widely seen as a means for university researchers to work with private businesses. During the three-year period between 2000 and the end of 2002, 326 establishments were created in cooperation with Chinese or foreign enterprises. The success of China U-I collaboration can be attributed to strong incentives by the government such as allowing researchers to keep at least 50% of the earnings from commercialized technologies, and encouragement/contribution by the industry in funding almost 40 percents of the scientific research. In the late 1990s, China took a series of more specific actions to push ahead with university-industry collaboration. The Central Committee of the Communist Party decided in 1999 that bilateral and multilateral mechanisms for collaboration should be created in the form of mutual part-time jobs and training. The government objective for such collaboration was to promote universities to form technology transfer offices; to encourage universities to disseminate the use of technologies developed in various forms such as through patent licensing, technology transfer. As a result, Chinese universities are able to make regulations aimed at encouraging inventions and technology transfer. Faculty members and students are encouraged and supported in their efforts to build or take part in venture businesses as part-time work. Setting up the legal framework for universities is important in promoting university-industry collaboration. 3.3 India India moved gradually from a planned and closed economy to a more open and deregulated one, with new challenges being set forth for universities and industries. In the area of science and technology (ST), the country is being steered by the ST Policy of 2003. It is only in recent years that Indian industry has really started collaborative programs with universities. Indian success in the software sector is remarkable. Major global IT companies have outsourced some part of their operations to India and have established RD centers there as well. Indian IT engineers are working in many industrialized countries and contributing to the advancement of information technology. Most of the collaboration is in the form of consultancies, which typically do not involve large-scale projects. On the other hand, according to the survey questionnaire conducted by P. Ganguli in the Indian national study, Indian universities were not fully aware of the importance of intellectual property rights (IPR s) and lacked the resources to manage them. Indian academic institutions became aware of the importance of protecting and disseminating their knowledge through patents rather recently. In 1995, only 35 applications were filed, but it rose to 96 in 2001 and 79 in 2002. Out of the more than 300 Indian universities, the number of academic institutions that filed patent applications was still too small compared with the high number of educational institutions in India that engage in RD activities. In the last few years, India has amended and enhanced its IPR legislation to be in full compliance with the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO. But unlike Korea or Japan, India does not have any specific law, like the Bayh-Dole Act of the United States, which dictates the ownership of the inventions that arise from publicly funded RD. Different ministries, departments and funding agencies have different policies.  [3]  . Generally speaking, the concept of IPR policy in Indian academic instit utions is still developing with only a small number of institutions announcing their policies. Most universities just deal with IPR on a case by case basis. 3.4 Republic of Korea Asian governments have introduced the necessary laws, ministry directives, notices, and guidelines, which are meant to establish stable rules to regulate government and university conduct. Such legal measures were taken for the most part in the second half of the 90s, reflecting the growing need for university-industry collaboration. The second part of the national policy framework, of an evolving rather than fixed nature, takes the form of basic plans and sets forth certain goals and targets to be achieved within a given timeframe. Unlike legal frameworks, these are reviewed and revised periodically. 3.5 Singapore In Singapore the system for protecting IP and other economic properties was developed according to civil laws and other rules governing business practice and contracts that were already in place. These formed the basis for shaping the U-I relations, rather than the governments initiatives. This is largely due to the historical fact that, by the time other Asian countries became aware of the importance of U-I collaboration, the country had already ample experience of managing such collaboration. 3.6 U-I Collaboration: Summary of the Asian Universities The need for universities to adopt clear policies for protecting and managing IPRs is increasingly realized by Asian universities. Without a strong IPR policy that provides clear rules and guidelines for the commercial exploitation of IP generated within the university, establishes ownership criteria and rules for income-sharing and defines responsibilities and obligations of all stakeholders; it will be difficult for universities to move forward in this field in a systematic manner. In some cases, problems arise from inadequate implementation of rules rather than the absence of rules. But on the whole, without clear and standard guidelines and procedures, there is a risk of conflict between the different parties as the outcomes may not meet expectations. In some of the Asian countries that were analyzed in the national studies, only few universities have formally adopted an IP policy, although in some cases, policies are currently being discussed or have been submitted to the rele vant internal bodies for adoption. A problem researchers or scientists often face is their lack of expertise in filing patent applications and negotiating agreements with industry. This raises a fundamental issue for all Asian countries and points to the strategic importance for universities to have a strong and effective office devoted to managing technology transfer staffed with legal and technical experts. For the Asian countries, development and expansion of university-industry relationships during the last decade has been a result of goal-oriented and deliberate public policy efforts. The areas of focus included: Defining the legal status of universities and their professors Relaxing or removing regulations that prevented faculty members from working with companies developing policies on intellectual property rights, establishing technology transfer offices creating funding schemes, and Ensuring adequate financial resources for research and development activities at universities. Presently, there seems to be some consensus in Asian countries, both developed and developing, that universities and public laboratories should make greater contributions to countries overall economic growth and competitiveness. While universities, industries, and publicly-funded research institutions should be allowed to develop working relations with each other through their own initiative, governments also have a responsibility to establish laws and practices that would give proper incentives towards collaborative research activities. In more developed countries of the Asian, policy framework, underpinned by laws and government regulations, has been put in place over the last two decades. Ideally, the policy framework should serve three purposes: First, to state publicly the intention of the government with respect to the direction universities and industry should take; Second, to lay down legal rules for the conduct of universities and industry, for example in relation to the management of IPRs; and Third, to secure financial resources and incentives to facilitate collaboration.