论文部分内容阅读
为推动科技成果转化,美国《拜杜法案》规定了“介入权”条款。几十年来,美国出现过4个申请强制科技成果转化的案例,但美国职能部门都认为不满足法律规定的条件,因而没有行使“介入权”。根据“介入权”条款,对Fabrazyme、CellPro、Norvir及Xalatan 4个案例进行了分析和研究,并对“介入权”条款的执行情况进行了评价。美国“介入权”强制成果转化的条款形同虚设,其原因主要有:资助部门认为该条款可能影响研究人员参与政府科技项目的积极性;“介入权”程序较为复杂,调查取证需要较长时间,使之难以实施;所涉及的成果往往不只是获得政府一个部门的资助,还获得其他方面的经费,导致“介入权”的行使更加复杂、困难。
In order to promote the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, the U.S. Baidoa Act stipulates the terms of “intervention rights.” In the past decades, there have been four cases in the United States that applied to force the transformation of scientific and technological achievements. However, all the functional departments in the United States do not consider the conditions stipulated by law and therefore exercise no “right of intervention.” Based on the “Intervention rights” clause, four cases of Fabrazyme, CellPro, Norvir and Xalatan were analyzed and studied, and the implementation of the “Intervention rights” clause was evaluated. The United States “intervention rights ” the terms of mandatory conversion results in name only, the main reasons are: the funding department that this article may affect the enthusiasm of researchers involved in government science and technology projects; “Intervention rights ” process is more complex, investigation and evidence collection takes longer Time, making it difficult to implement; the results involved are often not only funded by a government department, but also get other funds, resulting in “involvement ” exercise more complex and difficult.