Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research?

We examine three hypotheses regarding the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on research effort of faculty. The first hypothesis we call the status quo hypothesis and it asserts that there has been no effect on research profiles. The second hypothesis, which we call the negative hypothesis, asserts that faculty have been diverted from their traditional role in basic research toward research with more commercial potential. Our final hypothesis is derived from prior theoretical work that suggests that both basic and applied research is greater when faculty can benefit from commercialization of their research effort; we refer to this as the positive hypothesis. The data we examine are the research and invention disclosure of faculty at 8 US universities over the period 1983–1999. Using a citation based measure of basic research publications we relate basic research effort to invention disclosures. Our findings are clear in that they do not show any support for the negative hypothesis and they show substantially greater support for the positive hypothesis than for the status quo hypothesis.

► We examine three hypotheses about the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act on faculty research: 1) no effect; 2) research diverted from basic research; and 3) an increase in research.
► The 3rd hypothesis is based on the idea that faculty may increase both basic and applied research in response to financial incentives.
► We find no support for hypothesis 2 and more support for hypothesis 3 than hypothesis 1.