Topics

Statement from


Bruce M. Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences;
Kenneth I. Shine, President, Institute of Medicine; and
Wm. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering

Actions Are Needed To Promote Research Sharing

Sept. 8, 1998


Progress in science and technology depends on the participation of a global research community, as well as on broad public trust and support. Nearly every "proprietary" discovery can be traced to a foundation of theory and results that has been built up over many years from the freely exchanged ideas and efforts of individual researchers.

Sustained national investment in the research enterprise, coupled with rapid commercialization of research ideas by the private sector, has brought great public benefits. However, competitive drives for individual or national pre-eminence, or pressures of commercial secrecy, can inhibit the traditional openness of communication as well as the effective utilization of new research tools. A number of meetings sponsored by the Academy complex have highlighted some disturbing trends. In particular, participants from all three sectors in a program of the Academy's Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable expressed concern that increasing secrecy and proprietary pressures could jeopardize the value and utility of academic research for both public and private ends. These concerns are summarized in a recent brochure from the Roundtable.

We share this concern, and therefore urge that our colleagues place a high priority on the following actions:

  • Professional Societies. Openness practices are different in the many fields of science and engineering, depending on the nature of the research or the particular applications of the research results. While a single standard of openness is neither necessary nor practical, we urge our science and engineering colleagues to use their own professional organizations to create a dialogue on the appropriate norms of open communication to ensure research vitality within each of their disciplines.

  • Academic Leaders. We urge the leaders of our academic research institutions to generate a strong, local dialogue concerning acceptability of any restrictions on research communications, material transfers, and the sharing of research tools. A common stand on these matters can help prevent erosion of the healthy traditions of openness among researchers, and will support individuals who may be under pressure from their own or outside organizations.

  • Industry. We urge industry leaders to engage in similar dialogue, examining the long-term collective benefit for U.S. industry if the tradition of open communication in U.S. research universities is preserved, and seeking the least compromise of this tradition that is compatible with their commercial investments. A joint effort between industry and academia to develop model codes or standard agreements would greatly facilitate this dialogue.