科技研發成果收入回饋機制研析－以美國經驗爲中心

The Revenue Sharing System of Goverment-Sponsored Research in Taiwan and the United States

劉憶成

《科技法律透析》 21卷9期 (2009/09) Pp. 40-63

https://doi.org/10.7062/STLR.200909.0040

摘要

對於國家經濟的發展，科技研發扮演著重要的角色，而每年世界各國政府，投入資助科技研發的經費，更是不計其數，然這種投資對於國家或社會產生了多少效益？
本文首先從贊成與反對回饋機制的學說談起，再從比較法觀點來看，發現美國就政府資助研發之法規或計畫，是否納入回饋機制曾引發產學研各界的密切關心，雖後來未被採用，但其仍各具一定比例的支持者。
再者，在州政府層級，一向居於美國人類胚胎幹細胞研發龍頭地位的加利福尼亞州（California State，以下稱加州），則一反聯邦的態度，在其人類胚胎幹細胞研究規範中，採用了回饋機制，然此機制至今仍持續受到許多討論，對此本文將做介紹。
而就我國部分，在科學技術基本法第6條第1項的授權下，各科技研發資助機關在其訂定的研發成果歸屬與運用辦法中，皆有研發成果收入繳回的設計，與美國不同的是，我國對此項機制的討論並不多。對於這樣的差異，究竟是我國的設計比較良善，抑或因爲國情不同，而對回饋機制的需求亦不同？美國對回饋機制的爭議，是否值得我國加以借鏡思考？便是本文探討的目的。
其實回饋機制的設計，牽動政府對於科研資源分配與科技產業發展等政策之決策。設計不當時，將會導致科技研發減緩，設計良善時，不但科技研發水準得以提昇，更可將成果效益確實擴散至社會。正因回饋機制對於科研成果法規設計的重要性，故有必要對於其爭議進行了解，進而檢視我國回饋機制是否有值得再加以精進之處。

關鍵字

回饋機制 ； 強制性政府權利金 ； 收入分享 ； 回饋給付 ； 雙重給付

並列摘要

Research and development (R & D) in which a lot of funds are invested by governments are usually considered as an essential part to the economics growth of a country. However; how the investments can be measured and how the governments can be benefited from R & D funding become a continuingly arguable issue. Revenue sharing is one of the solutions that some scholars and politicians introduce to solve the issue and of course, there are some people against it. Both of them have their justified reasons which are valuable to know and to be analyzed. In the first part of this article, I will find out the pros and corns of revenue sharing systems.
In United States, revenue sharing systems have been proposed as necessary provisions of federal acts or project’s regulations of supporting R & D and finally were denied by the federal government many times. However they were accepted by California State in 2007. In the second part of this article, I will discuss the reasons why the U.S. government denied the systems to be a part of the acts and projects and why the California State government accepts a revenue system in their stem cell research funding projects.
In Taiwan, revenue sharing systems are generally accepted in R & D acts and regulations. The first reason is that the systems are thought as an important way to ensure R & D institutes funded by the Taiwanese government use the money efficiently. The second reason is that the systems are easy to calculate the revenue which the institutes received government's R & D funding has earned. The third reason is that the government plays as a main R & D funder to support most institutes to engage in R & D. In order to get the completely support of government the institutes usually willingly share their revenue with the government according to the systems despite of occasionally some opinion of opposition being addressed. The fourth reason is that the systems help the government to get certain figures to deal with the interpellation from lawmakers who have the rights to approve and cut the annual budgets of R & D funding and to audit how the budgets are used. For these reasons, I discuss the acts and regulations which contain the systems and compare the differences between them in Taiwan and the U.S. in the third part of this article.
In the final part of the article, I address some unsolved questions about the systems to inspire readers of this article to think deeply whether the revenue sharing systems are requisite to R & D funding and make a conclusion.

並列關鍵字

recoupment ； compulsory government royalty ； revenue sharing ； repayment ； double payment

參考文獻

The Advanced Technology Program: Reform with a Purpose, Office of the Secretary of Commerce, February 2002. http://www.atp.nist.gov/secy_rept/contents.htm (Last visited on 2009/5/25)

Bouchard, Ron A.(2007).Balancing Public and Private Interests in The Commercialization of Publicly Funded Medical Research: Is There a Role for Compulsory Government Royalty Fees?.B.U.J. SCI. & TECH. L..13(120),177.

California Code of Regulations Title 17 、§100300-10 (2006)、§100400-100410 (2008)、§100308 (2007) 、§100408(a)(1) (2008)、§100408(b)(1) (2008)、§100408(b)(2) (2008)、§100408(b)(3) (2008)

Research Universities Oppose Provision of ARPA-E Measure, CFR WEEKLY WRAP-UP, May 18, 2007, http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=834&LangType=1033 (Last visited on 2009/5/25)

Peter Arno & Michael Davis, Paying Twice for the Same Drugs, Wash. Post, Mar. 27, 2002, at A21