Report April 2009

Status Report, ICP Project

Field Research Methodology

Status

• Developed first draft of Field Research Methodology
  • Field Research Methodology: The initial draft has evolved to fit the specifics of each specific field.
• Developed mapping tool and some toy models for fields
  • Foundational data (BGP)
  • Narratives (BGP)
  • Tools (BGP)
  • Textbooks (EM)
• Developed first draft of Questionnaire for Commons-Based Case Studies
• A deeper Work on methodology has been put on temporary hold to focus on researching specific fields.
• After some research, we abandoned the idea of a standard “Questionnaire for Interviews”, and we are developing informal interviews (through email, call conferences and meetings) with experts (scholars and market) from the different fields. We may go back to a quantitative strategy through standard interviews in a second phase of the project, when the descriptive part of each area is more developed.

Next Steps

• Field Research Methodology: Compare how the questions are being used or are being helpful in each field to make sure the questions are still the same across fields of study. Improve questions language.
• Mapping Tool: Formalize methodology and develop clearer criteria.

Biotechnology, Genomics, and Proteomics

General Status

• Good progress in completing our general study of the field. We have developed an extensive bibliography, and have offered initial answers to most of the field research questions. However, big holes remain in some of the most important areas related to actors that are developing strategies around openness, and some answers remain cursory. Our objective now is to fill in the details, provide specific examples to justify our claims, be sure we are covering the literature we need to review;
• Toy mapping models were developed in Foundational Data, Narratives and Tools.
• The idea for two papers, which would accompanied the first phase report, were developed: “Sage - A Merck Project” - focused on the historical of data-sharing strategies - and “A brief history of license practices in BGP - the case of PCR” - focused on licensing strategies on a breakthrough technology. However, just the former will be developed this time in co-authorship with John Wilbanks, from Science commons and part of the Sage Board.

Work Completed

• We have fairly extensive research in the following areas:
  • Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in BGP
  • Overall picture of the BGP field
  • Outputs and Products of the field: data, narratives, and tools produced by the BGP field
  • IP Profile of Universities working in BGP
  • IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in BGP: data and narrative producers
  • Commons based cases in BGP
• Methodology in use:
  • Literature review
  • Media review: Area Specific Blogs and News
  • Market databases and reports review
  • Interviews
    • John Wilbanks (SC) - Interviewed in April
    • Fiona Murray (MIT) - Meeting scheduled for May, 7th

Work Remaining

• Our research remains weak in the following areas:
  • Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of BGP field
  • Competitive advantages in BGP
  • IP Profile of non-profit companies in BGP
  • IP Profile of Associations in BGP
  • Peer-Production Business models in BGP
  • Open Business models in BGP
  • IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in BGP: tool producers

Problems and Considerations

In answering questions related to Commons-based, peer-production, and open business models in BGP, there simply is not a lot of publicly available content online. To find out whether and how BGP actors are engaging in commons-based, peer-production, or open business models, I think we need to ask the actors themselves. Therefore I recommend that we start finding potential interviewees and developing a set of questions to ask.