For years, researchers at colleges and universities have been put into one of two categories: basic or applied research. The prevailing thought among university administrators and tenure committees has long been that patenting distracts researchers from building a strong publication record.
A new study from UC Berkeley has the first comprehensive evidence that shows the opposite is true—combining scientific inquiry with practical invention doesn’t diminish either effort, rather it enhances both. The findings have significant implications for how universities evaluate faculty and how funding agencies allocate grants.
“Having some understanding of the application of your research—as you do it—actually increases the impact of your science,” says study co-author Lee Fleming, a professor with appointments at UC Berkeley. “The old linear model is that real scientists do pure science and don’t want to get their hands dirty. Our work adds to the evidence that the linear model is probably wrong and that we should encourage scientists to think about their application while they are doing their research.”
For the study, published in Science, the research team linked all science publications and U.S. patents to create a dataset of nearly 700,000 individuals who’ve both published and patented since 1976. The results showed that researchers who published and patented at different points in their careers produced results that were more highly cited and more novel than those who only did one or the other. Researchers who published and patented in the same year were the most novel and highly cited of all.
According to the study’s authors, working simultaneously in both science and technology exposes researchers to complementary influences that spark greater creativity and spur more innovation. Applied problems can increase motivation and prevent scientists from fixating on unproductive approaches. Conversely, practical research can lead to unexpected observations that scientifically trained minds are well-positioned to recognize and exploit.
Specifically, the research showed this complementary work positively affects early career scientists and innovators. Fleming and his team matched dual-purpose researchers by field, university and number of science publications in the first five years of their career. Those who had published and patented in their first five years had higher science productivity and impact (as measured by citations). Even those who had one fewer publication in their first five years of research had 25% more citations over their career, relative to scientists who did not patent in their first five years of work.
“Universities were traditionally seen as ivory towers—places for professors to pursue knowledge for its own sake. Today, the society we serve expects more, and needs more than the basic academic research we have excelled at for so long,” writes UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons. “The world is increasingly turning to our universities in pursuit of tangible ideas, innovations and solutions that will advance the greater good.”
In 2021, the University of California became one of the first to enact a policy that explicitly recognizes innovation and entrepreneurial achievements—not just publications—among the criteria for faculty promotion and tenure review.
Ultimately, Fleming said he hopes the new study will encourage universities and funding agencies to reconsider how they allocate funding between basic and applied research, how technology transfers from academia to industry, and what drives science-based entrepreneurship.