RESEARCH: FOR SOCIETY OR THE INDIVIDUAL

After two and a half years of postponement the Drinker-Emerson case comes before a Boston court today. It will be decided upon purely legal grounds in reference to patent laws but for the student and professional man it has ethical and scientific ramifications with which the courts will be unconcerned. To quote from a scientific journal the question involved: "Shall universities allow their professors to use for private gain scientific and medical discoveries made under university auspices on tax-free premises?" is a pertinent problem for institutions of higher learning and research.

It is a question that must be answered according to ethical considerations and standards. Whose rights should be given first consideration, those of humanity as a whole, or those of a selfish individual seeking private and greedy gain? Should a man be restricted from improving on life-saving inventions merely because an individual has secured a patent to assure his own gains? Scientists pool their knowledge. No discovery is made by an individual unaided by the vast background supplied by preceding men engaged in research. The one who culminates the achievement is more fortunate but not necessarily more worthy of credit or gain. Harvard University went further than most universities when, after this case in question was called to their attention, they adopted a resolution stating that "no member of either of these schools (Medicine and Public Health) should take out for his own profit, or make any profit on, a patent upon any invention or discovery that affects the health of individuals or the public. That if to protect the public against misuse of the invention or discovery it is necessary to control it by means of a patent, that should be applied for in such a name and under such conditions as the Corporation may determine." It seems that such a resolution would be unnecessary but such, unfortunately, is the nature of man that his individual morality rarely coincides with social morality. But already the spirit of this act of the Corporation seems to be evaded. Following its promulgation Professor Drinker, of the School of Public Health, transferred his patent through a Mr. Wilson to the Collins Company. It is interesting to note the wording of the assignment in trust, dated May 13, 1932: "Until the death of the survivor of Warren E. Collins and Warren E. Collins, Jr., the trustees shall accumulate all royalties and income of the trust fund. But if the trustees unanimously decide they may in their discretion pay income and (or) principal from time to time and in such proportions and amounts as they deem proper to and among or for the benefit of one or more of the following people" and among those listed are "The wife, children, and descendants of said Philip Drinker."

Important, however, as is the step already taken by the University there remains a great deal that might be done along this line. Not only should men engaged in research involving discoveries and inventions affecting public health be restricted from patenting their findings for private gain, except in very special cases, but also all other men engaged in research of all kinds. The laboratories of the University are tax-free and, moreover, are supposed to be used for the investigation of problems affecting public welfare, general scientific knowledge, and enlightenment. They are not provided for men to work out discoveries and inventions from which they privately derive profit and personal gain! Some discoveries must from their nature be patented, but they should not be handed over to individuals or institutions to enrich an individual or a corporation. Further, such taking out of patents discourages free interplay and cooperation between scientists and makes improvement and progress a difficult thing. No legal barrier should stand in the way of human welfare, scientific knowledge, or general enlightenment.

It has been suggested by one writer in a scientific journal that the control of all practical exploitation of discovery should be vested in one authoritative body for the nation. The suggestion merits serious consideration. "Income," he says, "could be used to provide a royalty for the research funds to support investigation in whatever laboratories needed assistance." The National Research Council might be the holder of such patents.

The University might well consider such a proposal, but whatever it might care to do along this line it should certainly take definite steps to restrict the patenting for private gain of all work done in laboratories under its control. It is an institution for the dissemination and increase of human knowledge and welfare, and should see that its members properly appreciate the spirit under which it grows and prospers.