Michael D. Moberly   March 11, 2010

Within the university research community, there remain spirited and polarizing debates about the openness in which research is conducted, that is, the freedom and ability of researchers to disseminate, communicate, collaborate, and publish at will, which incidentally, have long been recognized as the hallmarks of university-based research.

On one side of that debate stand those who favor retaining those legitimate hallmarks of academic freedom, while on the other side of that debate stand those who encourage safeguards be put in place to limit, set parameters for, if not prohibit some of the at will - discretionary freedoms conveyed in the former view, particularly in instances in which the research will likely produce special insights, outcomes, and findings that potentially carry significant (business) competitive advantages that may extend not just to the primary corporate (research) sponsor, but eventually to other U.S. companies and organizations in that sector.

There’s nothing particularly new about these diametrically opposing views, as they have existed in essentially the same format since the 16th century.  Regardless, whichever side of this argument one may be inclined to embrace, my experience in this arena suggests there is little middle ground on which to frame - reach consensus, bar one.  That is, the opportunity to objectively and dispassionately factor into the university-corporate research equation the realities embedded in today’s intangible asset based, hyper-competitive, aggressive, increasingly predatorial, and winner-take-all global R&D environment. 

So, the question may be, do these (aforementioned) realities support the inclusion of specific safeguards to the university-corporate research equation beyond those that predominantly IT (security) oriented?  The objective is to prevent-reduce the vulnerability-probability that the sponsored research will be vulnerable to insider theft, infringement, or the ‘always on’ and incredibly sophisticated global business/competitor intelligence operations.  In other words, acts that, if even reasonably successful, will dilute and/or impair the research’ strategic value to its sponsor and/or allow, inadvertently or otherwise, competitors (globally) to gain advance insights that permit them to achieve economic, competitive, and market entry advantages.

Walk me through-a-day-in-the-life of university research…An analogy may be useful as a potential starting point to advance this principled tug-of-war.  For example, when company representatives go before a venture capital firm to seek funding, one of the series of questions (scenarios) a VC will invariably pose to obtain a better sense of the usefulness and viability of the product or service being pitched, is to ask a company representative to ’walk me through’ a-day-in-the-life of a (target market) company in which the product or service is absent.  And then ‘walk me through’ a-day-in-the-life of that same company after the product or service becomes operational.  The VC’s follow-up questions will then be framed as w I see a difference?, will the company be better off?, if so, what and how will those differences manifest?, and how will those differences be exploitable to benefit the company?, i.e., to become more profitable?, gain/retain customers?, create efficiences?, improve morale?, etc.

It’s not inconceivable that a comparable, but objective and dispassionate ’walk me through a day in the life’ approach would be useful to advance the time honored debate about university research.  Key (objective) questions that could be posed then to researchers/scientists are (1.) consider their ability to sustain unchallenged control, use, ownership, and value of their research throughout its value-life cycle,  and (2.) what do they, their university, and research sponsor consider to be minimum foundation(s) for retaining viable options for (future) licensing and/or technology transfer?

(In addition to being an information asset protection specialist, Mr. Moberly remains a consistent researcher and consultant on these matters which began while he was a member of the faculty at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale from 1982-2002.)

 Michael D. Moberly    April 17, 2009    (Part 3 of 3 part post)

Should Colleges and Universities Care?

In the ‘global (business – transaction) economy no longer is there any practical or useful distinction between national economic relations and international economic relations.  Most national economies, like that of the U.S., are no longer islands where domestic preferences alone dictate outcomes.  (Sean Gregory and William Warner)

Similarly, the perception that university-based research is removed from all worldly concerns, vulnerabilities, and threats e.g., misappropriation, infringement, economic espionage, targeting by adversary (terrorist) organizations, etc., belongs more to wishful thinking than reality. 

Legislation in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (Cooperative Research and Development Agreements - CRADA’s, etc.) prompted significant interest in commercializing academic (university-based) research.  Researchers and scientists were encouraged to collaborate with (private) industry to speed the transfer – commercialization of ideas from academia to the marketplace, particularly new technologies with dual-use capabilities to, among other goals, ensure the intellectual resources developed within university research communities would contribute to U.S. economic competitiveness.  (Is Science For Sale?: Transferring Technology From Universities to Foreign Corporations.  Report by the Committee on Governmental Operations. October 16, 1992. House Report 102-1052)

Today’s goods and services though, frequently demand such high technology content to remain competitive, that fewer companies can afford full, vertical integration and mastery of all the technologies required for inclusion and ultimately, manufacturing.  One outcome is a marked increase in alliances, consortiums, and collaborative relationships between universities and corporations globally.  Collaborations on this scale and at this level are not only a result of today’s highly competitive, go fast, go hard, go global environment, they’re also actively shaping the competitive arena in many industries.  Such collaborations, alliances, and consortiums have evolved into competition in a different form!

Another outcome is that a growing number of universities are becoming more ‘entrepreneurial spirited’ in terms of their interest (receptivity) to consider - pursue new collaborative opportunities to secure research support. (M. Moberly)   As reported by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), the growth in academic technology transfer is having a positive impact.  Companies are investing in technologies licensed by academic institutions.  This investment yields jobs and economic growth, and the resulting products benefit the public and the communities in which the universities reside.  In some instances, the royalties generated can (a.) provide incentives to inventors (researchers, scientists), (b.) contribute to reimbursing the institutions’ considerable (technology transfer) costs, e.g., patenting and licensing, and (c.) be reinvested in research and teaching, thus ensuring future advances are more probable.

Initiatives like this, also present new challenges and even some vulnerabilities for some universities relative to the shareability and accessibility of university developed research, e.g., know how, intangible assets, and intellectual property.

It’s not the intent of this post to advocate controls be placed on the communication or collaborative arrangements of university-based scientific research in a manner that would unnecessarily undermine the principles of academic freedom and open scientific communication. 

It is the intent of this post however, to encourage the inclusion, in future debates in which open scientific communication and academic freedom are debated; the existence and adverse effects of technologically sophisticated, aggressive, predatorial and global competitor-economic intelligence and terrorist organizations’ interest in acquiring not only economic information and science for competitive advantage, but dual-use technologies as well…

By encouraging this element be included in future debates, it should prevent some to wrongfully characterize this post as a:

-           protectionists ’ attempt to influence debate about scientific communication in favor of exerting - imposing greater controls, or

-          subterfuge by private R&D firms to exploit or legitimize their growing influence over research agendas in universities, or even

-          poorly disguised attempt to ride the wave of domestic (homeland) security initiatives and rhetoric following the terrorist attacks of September 11^th.

Any such interpretation would be naïve and short-sighted and certainly a disservice to any future discussion about open scientific (university) communication if the proliferation (adverse effects, impact) of competitor and economic intelligence and various elicitation-solicitation practices were not fully considered (factored).

In the final analysis, this issue may have little, if anything, to do with secrecy or an institution’s well intentioned desire to sustain and continue to foster scientific openness on behalf of its researchers and scientists.  Rather, the issue will certainly evolve around (a.) personal privacy, (b.) professional attribution, (c.) sustaining control, use, and ownership of the intellectual property rights and (proprietary) competitive advantages, and perhaps most importantly, (d.) keeping military-defense related advances and technologies out of the hands of (economic, competitive, terrorist) adversaries.

Michael D. Moberly    April 16, 2009    (Part 2 of 3 Part Post)

Open scientific communication and university research has traditionally been a two-sided debate.  On one side stood those who argued that open scientific communication has resulted in a net flow of scientific and technical information to other countries including economic adversaries, and competitors.  Those favoring less openness by imposing controls and/or limitations sought stronger national security policies to safeguard that scientific knowledge, innovation, and subsequent discoveries.

On the other side of the debate stood those who expressed concern that imposing (any) controls and/or excessive constraints on the open, unfettered flow of scientific information within and between university research communities, in the name of national security would (a.) adversely affect the overall operational environment of institutions, (b.) contribute to reducing incentives for innovation that bring R&D findings to new markets, and (c.) make it harder to repeat or confirm research findings (outcomes, results).

Proponents of openness also argue that science is best served (advanced) through openness (transparency) and broad critique which to expose weaknesses, flaws, identify necessary improvements, or even total rejection.  This can only occur, proponents of openness suggest, by upholding the principles of academic freedom which, of course, favor unfettered sharing - dissemination of research methodologies and findings.

In 1982, former Deputy Director of the CIA, Admiral Bobby Inman aptly characterized the situation in the following manner, which still has relevance today; ‘there is an overlap between technological information and national security which inevitably produces tension.  This tension results from scientist’s desire for unconstrained research and publication on the one hand, and the federal government’s need to protect certain information from potential adversaries who might use that information against the U.S.  Both are powerful forces.  Thus, it would be a surprise that finding a workable and just balance between them is quite difficult”.

Quite correctly, university’s have a societal role to encourage the creation and dissemination of knowledge and research.  Progress in science is generally premised on the free, open exchange, and widest possible sharing.  Achieving a consensual (practical, viable) balance between sustaining ’openness’ and imposing ’controls’ on research products’/findings is a worthy objective, especially today as (a.) the life-functional (value) cycles of knowledge-based assets is increasingly abbreviated, and (b.) the traditions of open scientific exchange are being challenged by (1.) advancements in technology, (2.) a truly inter-connected global economy, and (3.) legacy free players with differing perspectives and respect for intellectual property rights and how to gain economic - competitive (and military/defense) advantages and market dominance.

Are the traditional arguments still relevant and what’s needed to advance the two-sided debate?  This post is not intended to merely rehash the time-honored and polarizing positions, nor does this post intend to portray this important issue narrowly as if there are only two sides, nor does this post wish to pit those favoring controls on scientific communication against those seeking to retain complete and unfettered openness.  At minimum, the traditional for - against debate has become blurred, increasingly complex, and perhaps obsolete!

Continuing to frame university research and open scientific communication in narrow, two-sided contexts:

1. does little to advance the discussion beyond its 16th century origins when academics sought independence from church doctrine in terms of their study and research.

2. neglects to consider the adverse impact-effect of the proliferation of ultra-sophisticated, aggressive, and globally predatorial state-corporate sponsored economic and competitor intelligence operations.

3. overlooks the fact that most government sponsored intelligence agencies have included acquisition of economic - business intelligence and public/private/government research as integral elements of their tasking.

4. does not recognize the economic fact - business reality that 65+% of organization - institution value, potential sources of revenue, and future wealth creation (sustainability) today lie in - are directly related to intangible assets and intellectual property.

Michael D. Moberly    April 15, 2009     (Part One of Three Part Post)

“Without an appreciation of the larger shifts that are restructuring our society, we act on assumptions that are out of date. Out of touch with the present, we are doomed to fail in the unfolding future.” - James Naisbitt, Megatrends

This post is not about keeping innovation and science out of the public domain! Rather, it’s about protecting and preserving intellectual property rights and keeping dual-use technologies out of the hands of adversaries. Predatorial data mining technologies, legacy free players and winner-take-all intelligence operations makes university-based ideas and innovation (R&D) vulnerable to compromise, theft and infringement at their earliest stage of development.

Open scientific communication and university research are deeply rooted in the hard fought and time honored principles of academic freedom which still spark emotional and polarizing debates anytime controls or impediments to either are proposed or implied.

This post does not examine open scientific communication in a conventional ‘academic freedom’ context. Rather, it considers the prudence of strictly adhering to those (academic freedom) traditions and principles without any regard for (factoring) the ever growing complexities and intertwined interests, not too mention, the vulnerabilities associated with a nanosecond, globally connected R&D environment in which attribution and intellectual property rights are being routinely outpaced, circumvented, and eroded.

National debates about applying controls to university scientific communication emerged initially (in modern times) in 1945 and again, in the early 1980’s. In each instance, the National Academies played a key role. But, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the debate emerged again with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) serving as a moderator – facilitator to those serious discussions and debates.

Over the years, in each instance in which scientific controls vs. scientific openness were being debated nationally, the government, under the name of national security, sought (desired) to impose restrictions (controls) on the communication and dissemination of scientific research originating (developed) in U.S. universities. Consistently, the government’s chief concern has been, and continues to be for the most part, that because of their ready (largely open source) access to technical material and innovation evolving from pre-patented and/or pre-classified university research, certain foreign nations (and, foreign nationals) are gaining economic and military/defense advantages that can impair - undermine U.S. national security and further diminish the U.S.’s ability to compete commercially, not too mention, a university’s standing, reputation, image, and goodwill.

The traditional two-sided debate about university research, i.e., controls vs. no controls, has taken on additional and more complex dimensions…As increasingly sophisticated IT systems and their PDA (personal data assistant) counterparts permit unfettered, instantaneous, at will, global communication and collaboration, one outgrowth is that the traditional two-sided debate about university research, i.e., controls vs. no controls, has taken on additional and more complex dimensions, for example…

- Decisions about when, where, and the circumstances in which the product of research (private, government grants, etc.) are disseminated have become blurred and increasingly risky. This is especially relevant if the originator of that research has a personal or professional interest in sustaining control, attribution, use, and ownership (IP rights) to his or her scientific work products/research.

- Know how, intangible assets, and intellectual property has outpaced tangible (physical) assets as the dominant source of value, revenue, (future) wealth creation and instituion sustainability and routinely comprises 65+% of an organization’s (company, institution’s) market value.

- Sophisticated and predatorial open source data mining technologies aligned with global commercial (business, competitor) intelligence operations now render ideas and innovation vulnerable to compromise, value – competitive advantage dilution and/or infringement at their earliest stages of development and well before conventional forms of IP are applied or provide legal standing for recourse.

The fact that university-based research is of interest to (specifically targeted by) global (public, private, government) intelligence collection entities is not new. Unfortunately, some institutions still trivialize its impact and lean toward dismissing it as another government initiative to impede (or, apply controls to) university research and scientific communication that, according to opponents, would, in effect, keep beneficial science out of the public domain - consumption.

Those expressing opposition or skepticism about government controls on open scientific communication often use some form of the following argument to present their opinions ‘…in today’s highly advanced R&D environment, there is little need for anyone (economic adversaries or competitors) to surreptitiously or otherwise disguise their intent to access (target, collect) R&D-related data and information because it’s often readily accessible, sometimes merely for the asking or through commercial (publicly available, open source) data bases and information sources. Or, interested parties can merely wait until the results/findings are published or presented at professional association seminars, or posted on researchers’ websites…’ (Moberly, 2009)