Page 6 - T-I JOURNAL19 4
P. 6
Technology and Innovation, Vol. 19, pp. 655-657, 2018 ISSN 1949-8241 • E-ISSN 1949-825X
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/19.4.2018.655
Copyright © 2018 National Academy of Inventors. www.technologyandinnovation.org
Investing in Academic Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Moving Beyond
Research Funding through the NSF I-CORPS® Program 773
Chononye C. Nnakwe, Nisha Cooch, and Aileen Huang-Saad
On the Software Patenting Controversy 787
Neil G. Siegel and Marek A. Suchenek
THE GENDER GAP IN INVENTION
NAI Chapter Spotlight: University of Southern California 799
Innovation in Action: Arizona State University 805 Florence P. Haseltine
Alexandria, VA, USA
Aims and Scopes i
Preparation of Manuscripts i This issue of Technology and Innovation (T&I) high- their inventions and receiving recognition for their
lights an area of our innovative economy in which work was not the “low hanging fruit.”
Ethics Statement ii women and minorities are under-represented. With During this same time period, there was a group
the current recognition of the existence of economic of academics who were pursuing intellectual activ-
www.technologyandinnovation.org bias and the under-utilization of a large part of our ities in minority studies programs and women’s
population, some major intellectual movements are studies programs. Both of these fields have had a
changing our thinking about how sex and gender major role in highlighting disparities among groups
influence our country’s ability to innovate. This is as well as building a philosophical base for arguing
related, in no small part, to the fact that women for change. This issue of T&I belongs to this tradition,
are entering fields of science and technology at an and, for those readers who are interested in change
increasing rate. In the 1970s, when I started my career, and advancing innovation utilizing the full range
I was either the first woman to do something or, if of available talent, the series of articles in this issue
not the first, the only woman who was doing it at the should be of value.
time. Just getting a position and learning the aca- The issue starts with an article by Sandra S. Park
demic rules were what was important. Salaries were exploring the litigation to invalidate the patents on
not the same for men and women, but that was not
the main issue; getting the position and the promo- BRCA1 and BRAC2 genes—genes important for iden-
tions were the focus. By the early 1980s, that attitude tifying breast and ovarian cancer risk. Park reveals
started to change as the emphasis shifted to getting that the lawsuits were remarkable in two major
more women into graduate programs and then into ways: They highlighted women as key stakeholders,
academic positions. Salary discussions then started and they used feminist analytical methods in the
in earnest and now are a major topic. In academia, prosecution of this litigation. In pursuing this line
publishing was and still is a major requirement for of argument, Park reveals that feminist advocacy is
promotion. Since women were focused on their career not only effective in promoting the development of
paths and what it took to be promoted, it is not sur- women inventors but also in understanding and mit-
prising that other areas, such as prizes and patents, igating the broader impacts of intellectual property
were not factored into their aspirations (1). Patenting decisions on women’s lives.
_____________________
Accepted: March 1, 2018.
Address correspondence to Florence P. Haseltine, Ph.D., M.D, Emerita Scientist, NIH, Founder, Society for Women’s Health Research, 2181 Jamieson Ave
#1606, Alexandria VA, 22314. Tel: +1 (240) 476-7837. E-mail: florence@swhr.org
655
