Ran across a very thorough review of the literature on this issue:
Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40(1), 6-19. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.013
I previously discussed it here. Note this is not a research blogging post because I have not carefully read the entire article and I'm not giving you the answers, just what she covers.
Bayh-Dole (in the US), drop of state/gov't funding, and increasing pressure to show broader impact have lead to "academic enterprise." Patenting can help universities transition research to practice (to commercial development) more efficiently, but many university IP disclosures are based more on embryonic ideas that require lots more development.
She addresses these standard questions:
- does university patenting lead to more applied and less basic science?
- does university patenting lead to more secrecy?
- does university patenting lead to any changes in productivity?
- does university patenting lead to fewer publications or any other impacts to publications?
- do commercial partnerships alter the research topic choices in universities?