ArticlePloS one2023
Comparing the economic terms of biotechnology licenses from academic institutions with those between commercial firms.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protecting cells at the genetic level and simulating unauthorized access via a biohackathon.Science advances · 2026Article
- Do patent applications and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements between the National Cancer Institute and industry serve the public interest?Nature biotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Licenses of drug-related biotechnologies from academic institutions to commercial firms are intended to promote practical applications of public sector research and a return on government investments in biomedical science. This empirical study compares the economic terms of 239 biotechnology licenses from academic institutions to biotechnology companies with 916 comparable licenses between commercial firms. Academic licenses had lower effective royalty rates (median 3% versus 8%, p<0.001), deal size (median $0.9M versus $31.0M, p<0.001), and precommercial payments (median $1.1M versus $25.4M, p<0.001) than corporate licenses. Controlling for the clinical phase of the most advanced product included in the license reduced the median difference in effective royalty rate between academic and corporate licenses from 5% (95% CI 4.3-5.7) to 3% (95% C.I. 2.4-3.6) but did not change the difference in deal size or precommercial payments. Excluding licenses for co-commercialization did not change the effective royalty rate but reduced the median difference in deal size from $15.8M (95% CI 14.9-16.6) to $11.4M (95% CI 10.4-12.3) and precommercial payments from $9.0M (95% CI 8.0-10.0) to $7.6M (95% CI 6.8-8.4). Controlling for deal terms including exclusivity, equity, or R&D in multivariable regression had no substantive effect on the difference in economic terms. This analysis suggests the economic returns associated with biotechnology licenses from academic institutions are systematically lower than licenses between commercial firms and that this difference is only partially accounted for by differences in the intrinsic terms of the license agreements. These results are discussed in the context of a reasonable royalty rate, recognizing that factors extrinsic to the license agreement may reasonably impact the negotiated value of the license, as well as economic theories that view government as an early investor in innovation and technology licenses as a mechanism for achieving a return on investment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.