自美國於1980年制定The Bayh Dole Act及各國紛紛跟進相關立法後，大學研究成果商業化的興起帶動了對於科學研究影響與否的論點，學術商業活動的傾向被認為對學術研究工作及發表活動產生可能的負面影響。本研究實證衡量台灣實行科技基本法後之學術專利對於知識發表活動的反科普效應情形，以國立清華大學理工院系教授為研究對象，建構1999~2010年期間之panel dataset（縱橫資料庫），樣本數為400名教授並包含專利發明家與非專利發明家。實證結果顯示在國立清華大學中，學術發表量、發表品質與發表多樣性三個面向上並未發生反科普效應，相反地學術專利與學術發表表現為互補關係而非替代。此外，相對於過去實證文獻著墨於探討學術專利活動後的發表影響，本研究以專利申請前後兩階段分別檢驗的研究架構中，發現學術專利活動對於教授學術發表行為的影響，從專利申請前便已開始產生影響。

After The Bayh Dole Act in the US and related laws in other countries, the increasing commercialization of university discoveries has initiated a controversy on the impact for scientific research. It has been argued that an increasing orientation towards commercialization may have a negative impact on research work and publication. This paper empirically examines the emerging anti-commons effect of academic patenting on knowledge production after Taiwan after Science and Technology Basic Law. Through a panel dataset of 400 professors, including patent inventers and non-patent inventors, in National Tsing-Hua University during 1999~2010, the results reveal that the anti-commons effect is not happen in publication quantity, quality, and variety. In contrast, they reveal that the relationship between patent activities and publication performance is complementary, not substitute, in National Tsing-Hua University. Especially, this paper examines the pre-patent and post-patent period, and discovers that the change in the behavior of professors can be traced to the pre-patent period.

Agrawal, Ajay, & Henderson, Rebecca. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44-60.
Audretsch, David B., Bozeman, Barry, Combs, Kathryn L., Feldman, Maryann, Link, Albert N., Siegel, Donald S., . . . Wessner, Charles. (2002). The Economics of Science and Technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(2), 155-203.
Azoulay, Pierre, Ding, Waverly, & Stuart, Toby. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 599-623.
Baldini, Nicola. (2006). The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity. Scientometrics, 69(2), 387-407.
Blumenthal D, Campbell E. G. Anderson M. S. Causino N. Louis K. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1224-1228.
Breschi, Stefano, Lissoni, Francesco, & Montobbio, Fabio. (2008). University patenting and scientific productivity: a quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review, 5(2), 91-109.
Calderini, Mario, Franzoni, Chiara, & Vezzulli, Andrea. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36(3), 303-319.
Campbell, Teresa Isabelle Daza, & Slaughter, Sheila. (1999). Faculty and Administrators' Attitudes toward Potential Conflicts of Interest, Commitment, and Equity in University-Industry Relationships. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 309-352.
Chang, Yuan-Chieh, Chen, Ming-Huei, Hua, Mingshu, & Yang, Phil Y. (2006). Managing academic innovation in Taiwan: Towards a ‘scientific–economic’ framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(2), 199-213.
Chang, Yuan-Chieh, & Yang, Phil Y. (2008). The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: a test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Management, 38(3), 321-334.
Cockburn, Iain, Henderson, Rebecca, & Stern, Scott. (1999). Balancing incentives: The tension between basic and applied research: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Crespi, Gustavo, D’Este, Pablo, Fontana, Roberto, & Geuna, Aldo. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy, 40(1), 55-68.
Czarnitzki, Dirk, Glänzel, Wolfgang, & Hussinger, Katrin. (2007). Patent and publication activities of German professors: an empirical assessment of their co-activity. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 311-319.
Czarnitzki, Dirk, Glänzel, Wolfgang, & Hussinger, Katrin. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26-34.
David, Paul A. (2004). Can "Open Science" be Protected from the Evolving Regime of IPR Protections? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 160(1), 9-34.
Davis, Lee, Larsen, MariaTheresa, & Lotz, Peter. (2011). Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 14-37.
Dietz, James S., & Bozeman, Barry. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349-367.
Elfenbein, Daniel W. (2007). Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 688-715.
Etzkowitz, Henry. (1989). Entrepreneurial Science in the Academy: A Case of the Transformation of Norms. Social Problems, 36(1), 14-29.
Etzkowitz, Henry. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833.
Etzkowitz, Henry. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109-121.
Etzkowitz, Henry, & Leydesdorff, Loet. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
Fabrizio, Kira R., & Di Minin, Alberto. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914-931.
Feller, Irwin. (2009). Performance measurement and the governance of American academic science. Minerva, 47(3), 323-344.
Geuna, Aldo, & Nesta, Lionel J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790-807.
Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies: Sage.
Godin, Benoît. (1996). Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy, 25(4), 587-606.
Gulbrandsen, Magnus, & Smeby, Jens-Christian. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950.
Hamilton, Kimberley S. (2003). Subfield and level classification of journals. CHI Research(2012).
Harman, K. M. (1989). Professional versus academic values: cultural ambivalence in university professional school in Australia. Higher Education, 18(5), 491-509.
Harrington, Peter J. (2001). Faculty conflicts of interest in an age of academic entrepreneurialism: An analysis of the problem. Journal of College and University Law, 27, 775-831.
Heller, Michael A., & Eisenberg, Rebecca S. (1998). Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280(5364), 698-701.
Hsiao, C. (1986). Analysis of panel data.
Jain, Sanjay, George, Gerard, & Maltarich, Mark. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922-935.
Jensen, Richard, & Thursby, Marie. (2001). Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
Joshua S. Gans, Scott Stern. (2000). Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative. Destruction. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 9, 485-551.
Lissoni, Francesco, Llerena, Patrick, McKelvey, Maureen, & Sanditov, Bulat. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87-102.
Lo, Szu-chia Scarlett. (2012). Innovation and patenting activities at universities in Taiwan: After Bayh-Dole-like acts. World Patent Information, 34(1), 48-53.
Manuel Trajtenberga, Rebecca Hendersonb & Adam Jaffe. (1997). University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19-50.
Markiewicz, Kira R, & DiMinin, Alberto. (2004). Commercializing the laboratory: the relationship between faculty patenting and publishing. Haas School of Business Working Paper.
Martin, Meyer. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646-1662.
Merton, Robert K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
Meyer, Martin. (2006). Academic Inventiveness and Entrepreneurship: On the Importance of Start-up Companies in Commercializing Academic Patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 501-510.
Mowery, David C., Nelson, Richard R., Sampat, Bhaven N., & Ziedonis, Arvids A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99-119.
Mowery, David C., & Ziedonis, Arvids A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole act in the United States. Research Policy, 31(3), 399-418.
Murray, Fiona, & Stern, Scott. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648-687.
Nelson, Richard R. (2001). Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 13-19.
Nelson, Richard R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455-471.
Perkmann, Markus, & Walsh, Kathryn. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033-1065.
Renault, CatherineSearle. (2006). Academic Capitalism and University Incentives for Faculty Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227-239.
Rosell, Carlos, & Agrawal, Ajay. (2009). Have university knowledge flows narrowed?: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 38(1), 1-13.
Scotchmer, Suzanne. (1991). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 29-41.
Shane, Scott. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127-151.
Siegel, Donald S., Waldman, David, & Link, Albert. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.
Sterckx, Sigrid. (2011). Patenting and Licensing of University Research: Promoting Innovation or Undermining Academic Values? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1), 45-64. doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9168-8
Thursby, Jerry G., & Thursby, Marie C. (2011). Has the Bayh-Dole act compromised basic research? Research Policy, 40(8), 1077-1083.
Van Looy, Bart, Callaert, Julie, & Debackere, Koenraad. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596-608.
Van Looy, Bart, Callaert, Julie, Debackere, Koenraad, & Verbeek, Arnold. (2003). Patent Related Indicators for Assessing Knowledge-Generating Institutions: Towards a Contextualised Approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 53-61.
Van Looy, Bart, Ranga, Marina, Callaert, Julie, Debackere, Koenraad, & Zimmermann, Edwin. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425-441.
Wang, Gangbo, & Guan, Jiancheng. (2010). The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 338-350.
Whitley, Richard. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science. Research Policy, 32(6), 1015-1029.