I wish to comment on only one part of the paper, para 6.2.4, which I suppose fits roughly into Question 7. I am concerned that the drive for intellectual property protection (which is well established, and referred to in para 6.2.2) is potentially in conflict with the access of society.

In para 5.4 you rightly point out that there is increasing openness by public sector research, and increasing effort to dialogue with the public. This openness, however, is the delivery of information for awareness rather than for use: the public, within which I include industry, can see the information but does not have the right in many cases to use it, where it is subject to intellectual property rights. This has two important aspects: first, the more that public sector research is interested in intellectual property the more that information will be both protected and kept confidential, because confidentiality is an important part of any intellectual property regime, so there is a potential conflict. Secondly, as you point out in para 6.2.2, industry is often represented by large firms, often the same large firms, so that smaller firms are de facto excluded from participation. My own research with SMEs indicates, not surprisingly, that small firms often do not have the people or time or financial resources to be able to participate in research collaborations, so they depend on publication of results and the opportunity to make use of those results.

I therefore recommend that you consider, in your ongoing work, the extent to which public accessibility to research is underpinned by the opportunity to use such research. It may be that a serious commitment to public access entails allowing the public to apply research, and not merely to read about it.

Yours,

Sean Butler