Crucial research fails to connect due to secretive nature of research and development

Sep 13 2004

A researcher in the United States has many of the pieces needed to cure a disease. Thousands of miles away, another scientist has uncovered some crucial information of his own - but thanks to the often secretive nature of research and development and the big-time dollars associated with major discoveries, they fail to connect.

According to a study by a Penn State Abington researcher and two colleagues from other Philadelphia area institutions, this scenario is a sort of "catch-22" in the research and development community. It's an even greater dilemma for researchers at public institutions such as colleges and universities who take money from private firms to conduct their work, and may be beholden to them when it comes to releasing the findings of their research and advancing the body of knowledge.

"Corporate support of university efforts continues to go up every year, which is a good thing, especially since many universities are cutting back on research spending," said Steve McMillan of Penn State, co-author of the study titled "The Ethical Dilemma of R&D Openness Versus Secrecy," which was presented at the R&D Management Conference in Portugal recently. "But corporations often look at the issue of disclosure in a different way, putting limitations on professors as to when they can publish and release information and, thus, shunning a universal obligation to openness."

According to McMillan, associate professor of business at Penn State Abington in suburban Philadelphia, attempts by corporations to hold onto information -- and coerce university and other public institution researchers to do the same -- can cause major breakthroughs to take longer than necessary. Of course, on the flip side of the coin, he acknowledges that corporations are out to make a profit and that without such incentive, outside researchers wouldn't be getting the billions of dollars in funding critical to making the discoveries.

The researcher said corporations normally want to hold onto any information they think may be valuable until they acquire the proper patents necessary to cash in on it, which typically takes at least four to six months. His study points to research done at Massachusetts General Hospital which indicates that 58 percent of those sponsoring academic research require delays of more than six months before publication, despite the fact that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends a delay period of one to two months.

The patent system in place in the United States is a far cry from what exists in many other countries, including Japan and France, where the patent submission is available to the public very soon after the patent application is submitted, McMillan said. Unless the system here is changed to require openness, there’s no reason to believe corporations will stray from secrecy — to the continued detriment of scientific breakthroughs.

"We’re one of the only ones who keep it (the information) a secret until the patent is granted, and if we continue to slow down the advancement of knowledge it's bound to cost lives at some point, if it hasn't already," he added.

Ronald Duska of The American College in Bryn Mawr, Pa., and Robert D. Hamilton III of Temple University, Philadelphia, are co-authors of the study.