Robert K. Christensen
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199204762
- eISBN:
- 9780191603860
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199204764.003.0003
- Subject:
- Economics and Finance, Development, Growth, and Environmental
The Westphalian paradigm suggests that sovereign nation-states formally constitute the only legitimate institutions of international policy creation, enactment, and enforcement. This paper seeks to ...
More
The Westphalian paradigm suggests that sovereign nation-states formally constitute the only legitimate institutions of international policy creation, enactment, and enforcement. This paper seeks to highlight the policy potency of nongovernmental organizations by turning to a debate that questions the relevancy of the Westphalian paradigm. One of the most contentious points in this debate is the role and legitimacy of the various actors involved in globalization. The mechanism of ‘soft law’ is discussed, which allows non-state actors to participate — in an increasingly formalized way — in policy processes traditionally and even exclusively populated by sovereign nation states. Ostrom et al.’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is used to clarify the institutional implications of non-sovereigns in policy formation. Ultimately, the soft law mechanism illustrates that the informal sector is gaining access — as and through NGOs — to powerful policy networks where formal sovereignty is decreasingly relevant.Less
The Westphalian paradigm suggests that sovereign nation-states formally constitute the only legitimate institutions of international policy creation, enactment, and enforcement. This paper seeks to highlight the policy potency of nongovernmental organizations by turning to a debate that questions the relevancy of the Westphalian paradigm. One of the most contentious points in this debate is the role and legitimacy of the various actors involved in globalization. The mechanism of ‘soft law’ is discussed, which allows non-state actors to participate — in an increasingly formalized way — in policy processes traditionally and even exclusively populated by sovereign nation states. Ostrom et al.’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is used to clarify the institutional implications of non-sovereigns in policy formation. Ultimately, the soft law mechanism illustrates that the informal sector is gaining access — as and through NGOs — to powerful policy networks where formal sovereignty is decreasingly relevant.
Michael A. Carrier
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195342581
- eISBN:
- 9780199867035
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195342581.003.0011
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
Research tools used by scientists are essential for innovation in the biotechnology industry. In recent years, the patenting of such tools has skyrocketed with many scholars and organizations ...
More
Research tools used by scientists are essential for innovation in the biotechnology industry. In recent years, the patenting of such tools has skyrocketed with many scholars and organizations lamenting this development. They have focused, in particular, on reduced access to research tools and an “anticommons” characterized by multiple patentees exercising rights to exclude. This chapter addresses the question of whether scientists are able to use patented research tools. It argues that industry and academia have forged a relationship that, at least at the present time, has displaced the need for changes to the law. The chapter offers three proposals that could be implemented if the situation changes. First is to protect “experimentation” on the invention, which uses the invention to study its technology or design around the patent. Second, it offers an amendment to the Bayh–Dole Act (which encouraged the commercialization of nonprofit inventions) that would require universities and nonprofit institutions to reserve the right to use the invention for non-commercial research. Third, it recommends empirical study of user innovation among research tool innovators.Less
Research tools used by scientists are essential for innovation in the biotechnology industry. In recent years, the patenting of such tools has skyrocketed with many scholars and organizations lamenting this development. They have focused, in particular, on reduced access to research tools and an “anticommons” characterized by multiple patentees exercising rights to exclude. This chapter addresses the question of whether scientists are able to use patented research tools. It argues that industry and academia have forged a relationship that, at least at the present time, has displaced the need for changes to the law. The chapter offers three proposals that could be implemented if the situation changes. First is to protect “experimentation” on the invention, which uses the invention to study its technology or design around the patent. Second, it offers an amendment to the Bayh–Dole Act (which encouraged the commercialization of nonprofit inventions) that would require universities and nonprofit institutions to reserve the right to use the invention for non-commercial research. Third, it recommends empirical study of user innovation among research tool innovators.
Alex Posecznick
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9781501707582
- eISBN:
- 9781501708404
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Cornell University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7591/cornell/9781501707582.001.0001
- Subject:
- Education, Higher and Further Education
It has long been assumed that college admission should be a simple matter of sorting students according to merit, with the best heading off to the Ivy League and highly ranked liberal arts colleges ...
More
It has long been assumed that college admission should be a simple matter of sorting students according to merit, with the best heading off to the Ivy League and highly ranked liberal arts colleges and the rest falling naturally into their rightful places. Admission to selective institutions, where extremely fine distinctions are made, is characterized by heated public debates about whether standardized exams, high school transcripts, essays, recommendation letters, or interviews best indicate which prospective students are worthy. And then there is college for everyone else. But what goes into less-selective college admissions? Ravenwood College was a small, private, nonprofit institution dedicated to social justice and serving traditionally underprepared students from underrepresented minority groups. To survive in the higher education marketplace, the college had to operate like a business and negotiate complex categories of merit while painting a hopeful picture of the future for its applicants. This book is a snapshot of a particular type of institution as it goes about the business of producing itself and justifying its place in the market. This book documents what it takes to keep such an institution open and running, and the struggles, tensions, and battles that members of the community tangle with daily as they carefully walk the line between empowering marginalized students and exploiting them.Less
It has long been assumed that college admission should be a simple matter of sorting students according to merit, with the best heading off to the Ivy League and highly ranked liberal arts colleges and the rest falling naturally into their rightful places. Admission to selective institutions, where extremely fine distinctions are made, is characterized by heated public debates about whether standardized exams, high school transcripts, essays, recommendation letters, or interviews best indicate which prospective students are worthy. And then there is college for everyone else. But what goes into less-selective college admissions? Ravenwood College was a small, private, nonprofit institution dedicated to social justice and serving traditionally underprepared students from underrepresented minority groups. To survive in the higher education marketplace, the college had to operate like a business and negotiate complex categories of merit while painting a hopeful picture of the future for its applicants. This book is a snapshot of a particular type of institution as it goes about the business of producing itself and justifying its place in the market. This book documents what it takes to keep such an institution open and running, and the struggles, tensions, and battles that members of the community tangle with daily as they carefully walk the line between empowering marginalized students and exploiting them.
S. Tina Piper
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- April 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199336265
- eISBN:
- 9780199351282
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336265.003.0004
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law, Legal History
From the 1920s to the 1940s, scientists at Ottawa's National Research Council pursued an extensive program of research into the synthesis of plant hormones. Drawing on materials in the Canadian ...
More
From the 1920s to the 1940s, scientists at Ottawa's National Research Council pursued an extensive program of research into the synthesis of plant hormones. Drawing on materials in the Canadian National Research Council (NRC) archives, this chapter examines how researchers struggled with the idea of patent, or indeed mobilized it as a public interest tool. It focuses on the correspondence between an NRC researcher, R. H. F. Manske, and his colleague P. W. Zimmerman at the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) at Cornell University. While the series of events revealed in the correspondence suggests that Manske was firmly embedded in scientific norms, Zimmerman and BTI challenged these and co-constructed the notion of the public nonprofit scientific research institution (i.e., nonuniversity) by deciding to patent and commercialize aggressively.Less
From the 1920s to the 1940s, scientists at Ottawa's National Research Council pursued an extensive program of research into the synthesis of plant hormones. Drawing on materials in the Canadian National Research Council (NRC) archives, this chapter examines how researchers struggled with the idea of patent, or indeed mobilized it as a public interest tool. It focuses on the correspondence between an NRC researcher, R. H. F. Manske, and his colleague P. W. Zimmerman at the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) at Cornell University. While the series of events revealed in the correspondence suggests that Manske was firmly embedded in scientific norms, Zimmerman and BTI challenged these and co-constructed the notion of the public nonprofit scientific research institution (i.e., nonuniversity) by deciding to patent and commercialize aggressively.
