Europe a laggard in research?

Europe is sometimes described as a laggard when it comes to the commercialization of intellectual property. New research comparing technology transfer on both sides of the Atlantic shows that the reality is rather different.

Researchers at the United Nations University (UNU) recently published what they believe is the first critical comparison of patent and commercialization activity between Europe and the US. They sought to shed light on the so-called European Paradox, the notion that Europe has good ideas but doesn't make any money from them.    

They find that for every million dollars invested, Europe produces 20% more licenses, 40% more startups and earns within 10% of overall return on investment enjoyed by investors in the US. Measured in terms of these formal forms of technology transfer, Europe is not such a laggard after all.

In characteristic self-deprecating fashion, the European researchers hail the findings as a warning rather than a sign of success. They believe Europe may be focusing too much on formal technology transfer, in turn threatening the open exchange of ideas.

Borrowing from the language of software development, the UNU publication calls for a strengthening of Open Source Science, that is, for greater sharing of basic knowledge and intellectual property.

The US, they believe, is actually much stronger in this regard. Despite an explicit orientation favouring the Market over sharing, technology transfer in the US is conducted with a strong orientation towards sharing knowledge.

If anything, this is the paradox that deserves attention. How is that the country that believes in unfettered competitiveness could simultaneously be home to the planet's greatest achievements in open source software?

Might this come down to the difference between talk and action?

I recently attended a public lecture in Zurich, Switzerland, in which talk and action came into sharp contrast. A member of Switzerland's seven-member governing committee was warmly acknowledging Europe's communitarian instincts.

The Swiss governor explained that competition created jealousy, and that jealousy wasted precious human energies. Much better to do research as a network and share, said the Governor.

There followed a talk by a high profile Harvard professor. He began with the words "I luuurve competition". The lecture hall froze as he described how competitiveness was the foundation of the US dominance in research.

The Swiss Governor's face tightened visibly.

But as the Harvard professor went on it became clear that competitive advantage was not the only factor behind the US's superior research profile. The professor acknowledged a much simpler, and insidious factor behind US successes.

That factor was access to journals.

US journals, he acknowledged, had a clear bias towards US research. Everyone else was somewhat off the radar, he explained.

You can talk the talk, but the action came down to jealous US journal editors.

Talk. Action.

If the US can't resolve the disparities between the two, let's hope Europe can, and that Europe's Open Source Science will flourish.