Article S6.9 Intellectual Property Rights Regime: Implications for Scientific Research in India Seminar Leader: Sambit Mallick Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India sambit[at]iitg.ernet.in The relationship between science and society is changing. It has profound implications for research practice. The field of study known as sociology of knowledge, as a specialty, has been concerned with exploring the dynamics of such changes. The significant changes in this domain can be divided into five broad groups: (a) changes in the mobility and global flows of science and scientists, associated challenges to the norm of “universal character of science” (see Merton, 1942/1973) (b) changes in the production of scientific knowledge and the emergence of hybrid contexts of practice (e.g., public-private networking), raising concerns about the neutrality of science (c) changes in the speed and scale of innovation, producing unavoidable new risks and uncertainties (d) changes in the governance of science and technology, especially as a consequence of the protocols outlined in the Intellectual Property Rights documents, creating new demands for expert accountability and ethical conduct (e) changes in the nature of expertise on the relations of science and society in government, academia, and private R&D institutions The seminar discussed the gradually changing institutional (or organisational) context of research. The discussion was contextualised in two ways: first, by focusing on a particular scientific speciality, that is, plant molecular biology and second, by examining a particular piece of legislation regulating scientific work in India, that is, the Indian Patents Act (2005). The scientific community in India tends to believe that science is international (or universal) and attempts to contribute to the so-called “international science.” Scientists in India tend to follow the research agenda that is set elsewhere. The shift in the character of scientific output from a public resource to an intellectual property has been taking place since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) provisions on the intellectual property rights (IPRs) (Haribabu, 1999). The change in the institutional context, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, has implications for: (a) the organisation of scientific communities as paradigm-bound groups, (b) the organisation of knowledge production in institutional settings and its linkage with industry and the government, and (c) collaborative work of scientists involving R&D institutions (both public and private) located in different institutional settings, such as industries. Mallick’s study centred on the following research questions: (a) To what extent and in what ways plant molecular biologists in India are responding to the WTO provisions on the IPRs in terms of the choice of research areas/problems and the associated practices at the individual level and at the level of collaborative research? (b) How does the national product patent policy, which dovetails with the WTO provisions on the IPRs, influence research in plant molecular biology in India? Do practitioners of scientific research recognise/identify scientific areas of research in the Indian context that enhance the prospect of producing novelties, that is, processes and/or products? (c) To what extent the R&D organisations involved in research in plant molecular biology internalised the changed context and what steps have they initiated in managing change? The study focused on scientists working in the field of plant molecular biology. Development of plant molecular biology today is bound up with the interests of the groups such as scientists located in centre- and state-funded universities and research institutions, mission-oriented institutions, research-fund granting agencies (national and international), the State and its policy-making bodies, the corporate sector (national and international) and the users (Haribabu, 1999). Both primary and secondary data were collected. The study mapped the changes in thrust of scientific research after 1995--the year in which the WTO provisions on the IPRs were formulated in India. The primary data were collected from the scientists engaged in plant molecular biology research in Indian universities and research institutes. Interview schedules were prepared to understand the underlying meanings and the nature of interaction among the scientists. Questionnaires were prepared to collect statistical data pertaining to scientific research output as reflected in publications, patents, and collaborative projects. The secondary sources included various government policy statements, WTO documents, books, journals, and Internet sources. Content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was used to analyse the interview material, identifying, for example, oft-repeated statements and terms. The empirical results of the study endorse many of the current insights on the nature of contemporary science and its “changing social contract” (Gibbons, Limgoes, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, & Trow, 1994; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2000). The results evidence what these authors have termed the “Mode 2” form of knowledge production. The results also lend support to the so-called “triple-helix” model of knowledge production (Etzkowitz & Webster, 2005), that highlights the interdependence among the government, university, and private R&D institutions. The study captured the reflection of senior scientists on the transition from monovalent to polyvalent knowledge. Senior scientists commonly reflected on the pressures introduced by institutional changes that have taken place since the mid-1990s, including the shrinking of funding for basic research in different institutional settings and the increasing emphasis on contract, industry-sponsored and/or user-oriented work since the incorporation of the IPRs protocols in the WTO on January 1, 2005. Merton (1942/1973) outlines three responses of scientists vis-à-vis institutions (norms): (a) conformity, (b) deviance, and (c) ambivalence. Mallick’s study suggested that though the scientific community in India at times resists the protocols of the IPRs regime keeping in view the spirit of democratisation of scientific knowledge (Mallick, 2006, 2008), the scientific community in India today is trying to cope with the emerging value system. The emerging value system has created a tension between the idea of scientific knowledge that is communally owned and the idea of scientific knowledge whose ownership is restricted. The practice of research will continue to be impacted by the manners in which individuals and institutions respond to this tension. References Etzkowitz, H., & Webster, A. (1995). Science as intellectual property. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 480-505). Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Haribabu, E. (1999). Scientific knowledge in India: From public resource to intellectual property. Sociological Bulletin, 48(1-2), 217-233. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage. Mallick, S. (2006). Democratizing scientific knowledge through building scientific institutions in nineteenth-century India: The sociology of science perspective. Current Science, 90(8), 1138-1145. Mallick, S. (2008). Changing practices in/of science: The context of intellectual property rights in India. Scientific Commons, 3, 1-12. Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1942) Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2000). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity.
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
