E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | News from Abroad: Patentees Denied Opportunity to Correct European Patent Text After Grant »

March 04, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017d417ee506970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Legislation Introduced to Develop Public Access Policies for Federal Research:

Comments

It is more than unfortunate that rejected results and results not submitted for publication are not required to be disclosed. There is real value, e.g., the tax dollars that supported it, in knowing what didn't work and why.

Sometimes failures are just as revealing as successes. Sometimes failures aren't really failures at all, but are misinterpretations or flawed experimental designs. Some labs treat failures like trade secrets in the hope that competitors will waste their time and resource going down dead ends. And, when it comes to biomedical research, flawed experimental design is rather common. Not publishing failed or "unpublishable" efforts simply wastes the resource with absolutely no beneficial effect on the bad (sloppy) habits of many biomedical researchers. When it comes to these matters, a little sunshine would probably go a long way to focus minds and discourage avoidable error.

Sadly, but as usual, our clueless congress is in way over its head. Nonetheless, one shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of something less than perfect. So in that spirit of collegiality; Yay congress!

I agree that purported failures should be published. In fact, in another life I'm gonna start "The Journal of Failed Hypotheses" to put this in one location for everyone's convenience. Imagine how helpful this could be in arguing patentability! I've looked long and hard in the past for examples of long-sought need only to find that the failures couldn't get anything into print, which vastly complicated things. If not this, then set up a "dreck" section to avoid wasting everyone but the patent lawyers' time.

Easy on Congress. Their hearts are in the right place. It is about time someone did something about the stranglehold the journals have on dissemination of scientific findings.

Agree with both comments. Negative results are still results! Today, the scientific world is running out of one thing in particular, money. As Benjamin Franklin put it: Time is money.
The funding scheme and the endless hunt for more and more publications has change research into an individualized sport instead of a team sport as it needs to be for the greater good of the people and that is why progress in the biomedical field is still slow.
By the way, excellent website.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31