Takk for videreformidling av fin artikkel. Jeg har stilt meg dette enkle
spørsmålet i sakens anledning: Kan uteksaminerte studenter og
dr.gradsstudenter bruke det de har lært og betrakte dette som sin "eiendom" ?
Spørsmålet dukket opp i anledning mitt arbeid med etter- og videreutdanning
for noen år siden. En faglærer ved NTNU anså det da som utilbørlig at en
nyutdannet dr.gradskadidat brukte sin viten og de slides han hadde notert
fra sine kurs til å konkurrere med sin lærer i etter- og
videreutdanningsmarkedet.
Mitt syn er at universitetenes funksjon i samfunnet er å utvikle en felles
kunnskapsbase for de samfunn de er en del av og dele kunnskapen åpent med
alle som vil tilegne seg denne. Alle som har studert, kan bruke kunnskapen
til å gjøre nytte for seg, enten det er å skape bedrifter, bli konsulenter
eller få NSB på rett spor. Det forutsetter igjen en forståelse fra det
omkringliggende samfunn at lønns- og arbeidsvilkår for de "uegennyttige"
vitenskapelige medarbeiderne blir slik at mange nok vil arbeide med å dele
samfunnets kunnskap med andre.
Kunnskap kan ikke løsrives fra kunnskapsbærerne slik jeg ser det. Selv om
mange synes å tro at kunnskap kan selges i vår e-verden er jeg av en annen
oppfatning.
- Kunnskapsbærerens formulering av kunnskap kan rett nok selges (foredrag)
- Produktet BOK kan selges.
- Kunnskapsbærerens tid kan selges (veiledning, rådgivning).
- et produkt utvikles med kunnskap kan selges.
Å selge kunnskap (som sådan) er ulogisk i tillegg til et kulturbrudd. Hvis
kunnskapen skulle kunne selges, eier da kjøperen hva vedkommende har kjøpt
? Til å selge den videre for eksempel ? Prisen vil gå mot null hvis
utsagnet om at kunnskap kan selges har noen mening.
På Stanford som er et av "modelluniversitetene" for denne type
kommersialisering, er forutsetningen om gode arbeidsvilkår for
kunnskapsbærerne på plass. Universitetet selger primært kunnskapsbærernes
tid, men også noen patenter. Her er det primært bedrifter med relasjoner
til Stanford som er fellesskapet, ikke samfunnet generelt. Stanford kan
fungere slik (som et unntak) fordi mange andre universitet ivaretar de
generelle fellesskapsinteressene. Imidlertid: selv om Stanford er et
kommersielt unntak er åpen deling av kunnskap en grunnleggende ideologi.
Tore R. Jørgensen
At 17:54 30.03.01 +0200, Lars Othar Svaasand wrote:
>Kjære alle,
>
>Jeg har fått professor Ben-Yaakov's tillatelse til å distribuere hans
>tankevekkende innlegg på det Israelse akademiske nettverket også til
>NTNU-debatt.
>
>Hilsen
>Lars Svaasand
>
>
>>Delivered-To: academia_at_techunix.technion.ac.il
>>X-Priority: 3
>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:56:43 +0200
>>Reply-To: "Shmuel (Sam) Ben-Yaakov" <sby_at_EE.BGU.AC.IL>
>>Sender: "ACADEMIA, ISRAEL FORUM FOR HIGHER EDUCATION"
>><ACADEMIA_at_TECHUNIX.TECHNION.AC.IL>
>>From: "Shmuel (Sam) Ben-Yaakov" <sby_at_EE.BGU.AC.IL>
>>Subject: WHY CAN'T A COLLEGE BE MORE LIKE A FIRM?
>>To: ACADEMIA_at_TECHUNIX.TECHNION.AC.IL
>>
>>=======> Posted to "Academia"
>>=======> An unedited free subscription list
>>=======> Caveat lector
>>
>>Another aspect to university/corporation discussion (Jerry Blaz posting) is
>>the futile attempt of the Universities "to make money" by commercial
>>activities. Being nonprofit organizations, all Israeli universities have set
>>up adjunct companies to commercialize the Intellectual Property (IP)
>>developed by the researchers. This is of course not new and certainly
>>legitimate. The problem develops when the people running these adjunct
>>companies start to feed the management of the university grand ideas (or
>>more accurately, illusions) on how the university can make a lot of money if
>>(and this is the catch) the researches of the university will be properly
>>controlled. So the 'idea' is very simple. The university has researches that
>>will invent, the company will file for patents, the rights for the IP will
>>be sold and a lot of money will be made.and quickly, ending all the
>>financial problem of the university. Before this can be accomplished (so
>>argue the companies set to commercialize the university IP), there is this
>>'small issue' that has to be taken care of: the researches have to be
>>controlled and restrained from 'wasting' the university IP, or God forbid,
>>making it public domain (e.g. publishing). To this end the universities are
>>mislead into developing new regulations to "control" the researcher. As the
>>regulations are being drafted the appetite develops. e.g. researchers should
>>not be allowed to serve as consultants in their area of expertise (so all
>>their 'inventions' belong to the university) and (why not) graduate student
>>(even external) should not be allowed to work in commercial companies that
>>have interest in the research done for the thesis.
>>
>>
>>All the above is a fact, not fiction. This trend is now being followed by
>>management of practically all Israeli universities including BGU. The IP
>>regulations now being developed make mockery of the traditional concept of a
>>university. According to these new regulations, the interest and hence
>>mission of a university is to commercialize the IP developed by the
>>researchers including students and visiting faculty. Gone are the idea of a
>>university as center for developing new knowledge for science sake, a center
>>for education and a place of academic freedom.
>>
>>It is obvious to me, and many colleagues with whom I have discussed the
>>matter, that all these grand illusions of the universities becoming a
>>business are destined to fail. The major reason being the fact that a
>>university is an academic institution and faculty members are scientists,
>>This is not the framework for doing business in any effective way. Granted,
>>there will always be some university researches that have a motivation to
>>invent and get involved in industrial activity. In these cases the
>>university is certainly justified in asking for a share if the work that was
>>done at the university and certainly if the university's company invested
>>money to protect the IP. However, treating university professors as private
>>property and claiming ownership on their mind seem to belong to other eras
>>and to violate modern concepts of freedom right of the individual.
>>
>>The problem with the commercialization trend is not that it will fail, but
>>that along the way the "experiment" will harm the universities. I wonder how
>>many faculty members will be ready, for example, to: " notify the university
>>company on any new method, algorithm, hardware or software ideas that they
>>came across" and "not to discuss these ideas with colleagues or to publish
>>them before getting clearance from the company" (all these are in the IP
>>Regulations). It is thus obvious that the new IP regulation will put an
>>extra, unnecessary and impossible stress on faculty members with the end
>>result of affecting their creativity not to mention willingness to cooperate
>>with university management.
>>
>>Following the distribution of the new IP Regulation, this issue in now under
>>discussion at BGU. I wonder what is the situation in other academic
>>institutions in Israel (and abroad).
>>
>>Shmuel Ben-Yaakov
>>____________________________________________________________
>>
>>Prof. Shmuel (Sam) Ben-Yaakov
>>Power Electronics Laboratory
>>Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
>>Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
>>
>>Tel.: + (972) (8) 646-1561
>>FAX: + (972) (8) 647-2949
>>Elect. Mail: sby_at_ee.bgu.ac.il
>>Power Electronics Laboratory: http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~pel
>
>Dr. Lars O. Svaasand
>Professor of Physical Electronics
>Department of Physical Electronics
>Norwegian University of Science and Technology
>N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
>e-mail NORWAY: svaasand_at_fysel.ntnu.no
>phone. + 47 73 59 4421
>fax. + 47 73 59 1441
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 20-12-01 MET