The U. S. government has a history of investing in university research, which has led to groundbreaking discoveries. One such success story is the development of HIV treatments. However, a recent proposal by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick could jeopardize this progress.

Lutnick argues that taxpayers are not benefiting enough from federally funded university research. He suggests that the government should seize licensing revenues from universities' patents to secure a better deal for the public. But this view overlooks the significant returns taxpayers already receive.

Consider the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act, enacted in 1980. Before this law, the government owned patents on university discoveries, but fewer than 5% were licensed to private companies. The Bayh-Dole Act changed that, allowing universities to own patents and partner with startups and entrepreneurs. This reform sparked a wave of innovation, leading to thousands of inventions, new companies, and millions of jobs.

The development of the "AIDS cocktail" is a prime example of how this system works. After years of research, scientists patented their discoveries, fought off imitators, and found a company willing to bear the development costs. The result was an FDA-approved therapy that has saved countless lives.

The proposal to reduce universities' licensing revenue by half could have severe consequences. Universities rely on this income to fund future research and commercialization efforts. Without it, breakthroughs may never make it out of university labs, and taxpayer-funded research could go to waste.

Innovations like high-definition television, Google, and COVID-19 vaccines are a testament to the success of the current system. Reducing universities' licensing revenue could stifle future breakthroughs, leaving consumers and businesses worse off.

The Future of University Research: A Risky Proposal

Actions