Kiyonori Sakakibara

Professor, Faculty of Policy Management,

Keio University

　

The recently announced plan to launch 1,000 university-based venture businesses is ambitious and welcome, for developing liaisons between universities and business is a key priority for Japan today. Not only for venture business, but in other ways, it is desirable that society benefit from the fruits of university research. Nevertheless, a number of knotty dilemmas, such as ownership of research resources originating in universities, remain unresolved. As a first step, greater efforts to publicize the work of university research institutes should be encouraged in order to assure transparency of ownership rights.

In Japan, ownership of research resources is not clear. Institutional rules and frameworks regarding such ownership are rarely established at university or national research centers, or even at such special government corporations as the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (Riken). This is the background against which cases like the charges of economic espionage made in spring 2001 against Japanese scientists for allegedly stealing genetic research materials can occur.

　Let me give an example in the case of Japanese universities. Major Japanese corporations often support research at a national university under "research donations,"a rubric found to be most convenient from the viewpoint of the professors there. Universities treat these research donations as "proxy funds" and any discoveries made using these funds belong, pro forma, to the university, not to the funding corporation. What can happen when a discovery made using proxy funds, Iet us say by Professor A, who is affiliated with University B which received a research donation from Corporation C? In Japan, the rights to the discovery belong to Professor A. Corporation C may apply for a patent at his discretion. If Corporation C has foreign operations and a rival company claims that the patent application procedure is flawed, Corporation C could probably not win the patent.

　Thus, while research-business partnerships and university-based ventured businesses are much talked about, the system governing ownership of research discoveries and the research data generated through that research remains undefined in Japan. Returning to the above example, after 1978 each national university established an "invention committee,"which requires that the head of the institution be notified when members of its faculty or staff make discoveries. But even today, the invention committees at most universities are not consulted about patents related to the discoveries.

We need first of all to discuss the pros and cons of strong protection of university research discoveries under the principles of intellectual property rights. In the past, discoveries were announced at academic symposia or in academic journals, where they found their way into the public domain and were accessible to everyone. But universities in the United States, which became aware of the considerable economic value of discoveries made under their aegis, began at a certain point to patent these discoveries. In such cases, the rights to the discoveries belonged to the university, not personally to the researcher.

　Such moves were initially criticized, and with good reason, because public or private, universities receive public monies and are esteemed public institutions. It was natural for the universities to be the targets of criticism, since patents allow a personal monopoly under certain conditions. In fact, studies showed that private-sector corporations considered academic symposia or journals to be the most useful source for obtaining information on discoveries announced by universities.

　At any rate, the financial mechanism, whereby partnerships between academia and business are promoted, universities supported by generous corporate funding make discoveries and then assume the rights to or benefit financially from those discoveries, is well-developed especially in the United States and has made the universities powerful forces. Considering the proper role of a university, of course, this does not necessarily mean that American universities are the ideal, and many take people issue with the matter even in the United States.

What specific steps can be taken in Japan for the time being? One approach is to establish a rule stipulating that resources generated during the research process in principle belong to the university, just as they do in the case of private-sector companies. This must be clearly stated in employment contracts, as well as cases where rights may be transferred. The important point is to state who owns university research resources and clarify ownership as much as possible. This must be premised on full disclosure of university professors' activities.

　The Japanese university system, which is essentially unsupervised, is unacceptable. Institutions are currently incapable of dealing with international disputes over intellectual property rights, nor can they keep track entirely of the movements of research personnel. If the plan for creating 1,000 university-based venture businesses goes through under such conditions, utter chaos is bound to result.

　At American and British universities where research-business liaisons are quite fruitful, commercialization of research discoveries is encouraged. Still, the universities impose clear restrictions on the outside use of their resources. These restrictions vary, depending on the country and on the university, but all require university personnel to disclose their activities. When restrictions are imposed on outside activities, this is often done by limiting the time which personnel may spend on such activities, say one day a week or 13 days per quarter. This is the so-called "one-day rule" or "I3-day rule." We in Japan often hear of this rule, in, for example, the introduction of a "Stanford University professor who is engaged in consulting work one day a week."

　Such an introduction may be misleading, because personnel engaged in consulting one day a week must necessarily spend the rest of their time on their university duties, a strict and clear imposition of control. This is a major difference with Japan, where although supervision may exist, it remains a pro forma convention.

Regarding the issue of conflicts of interest, Japanese universities still lack procedures for requiring their employees to disclose potential or actual conflicts of interest at regular intervals. Based on my experience of teaching at universities abroad, I can see clearly that Japanese universities lack proper institutional controls and even a minimum level of systematic order. Universities in other countries impose strict control on their personnel's outside activities because they are well aware that conflicts of interest are always present in academic-business partnerships which involve profit-seeking corporations and universities operating for the public good. Attempting to establish partnerships on the basis of the notion of preestablished harmony, as is done in Japan, will do nothing to take care of conflict of interest issues and in the long run will fail to promote healthy partnerships.

　University-business liaisons are an urgent challenge for Japan and measures that will take rapid effect are needed. Although reform should begin with what is practicable as soon as possible, the more essential issues of principle should be discussed in detail and at length. The reforms needed at universities in Japan should not be half-baked; thorough discussion of the essential issues at stake is indispensable.