Welcome to the ideas boom?
There is a well-documented stoush occurring at present between at least one university and general practices regarding supervision of GP registrars.
One of those sticking points is intellectual property (IP) clauses.
These clauses have been standard in university contracts for years (?decades) and are one of the things that need to be seriously updated as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. In their current form, they are seriously skewed toward big business (read universities, these days) and against the small business (general practice).
Why?
Who is going to sign a contract that gives a university unfettered rights to intellectual property developed by a small business, simply because they are a training practice?
Why would an SME (general practice) hand over its IP for the privilege of training a government-funded (ie taxpayer-funded) trainee, who will eventually be an independent practitioner that may or may not stay with them?
Could it be that the government and the university need the training place more than the practice needs the trainee? Some practices have already voted with their feet and walked away from training altogether.
If the Federal Government are serious about “collaboration” as one of their key planks – and I think they are – such outdated and outmoded clauses need to be removed from contracts asap.
Why? It stifles innovation. And that’s what we’re all about, isn’t it?
When I search Innovation and Science Australia and the Group of Eight websites, “intellectual property” isn’t even on the agenda! Does this point to whose problem it really is?
Closing the Gap
Malcolm Turnbull delivered the 8th Closing the Gap report last week.
It was the first time, however, that a Prime Minister addressed Indigenous people directly in their own language.
This is a symbolic but important gesture on the road to recognition.
It recognizes that language is the bedrock of culture and the bedrock of history, particularly oral history.
And it is a mark of respect. Something seriously lacking in our Parliaments of late?
Indigenous commentators have weighed in to the analysis of the report.
But I find myself in such agreement with Professor Marcia Langton. That when you get the economic engagement right, the gap begins to close itself. This is really an acknowledgement that so much of the issues in Closing the Gap are really an embodiment of the concept of the social determinants of health. A concept very familiar to those working in the general practice space.
Professor Langton also comments on the important role of Indigenous engagement in procurement strategies – something that I have seen and continue to believe plays an important role in reducing the economic inequities evident in Indigenous communities and business opportunities.
We need more focus on this particular aspect of Closing the Gap.
Till next time
Joan
There is a well-documented stoush occurring at present between at least one university and general practices regarding supervision of GP registrars.
One of those sticking points is intellectual property (IP) clauses.
These clauses have been standard in university contracts for years (?decades) and are one of the things that need to be seriously updated as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. In their current form, they are seriously skewed toward big business (read universities, these days) and against the small business (general practice).
Why?
Who is going to sign a contract that gives a university unfettered rights to intellectual property developed by a small business, simply because they are a training practice?
Why would an SME (general practice) hand over its IP for the privilege of training a government-funded (ie taxpayer-funded) trainee, who will eventually be an independent practitioner that may or may not stay with them?
Could it be that the government and the university need the training place more than the practice needs the trainee? Some practices have already voted with their feet and walked away from training altogether.
If the Federal Government are serious about “collaboration” as one of their key planks – and I think they are – such outdated and outmoded clauses need to be removed from contracts asap.
Why? It stifles innovation. And that’s what we’re all about, isn’t it?
When I search Innovation and Science Australia and the Group of Eight websites, “intellectual property” isn’t even on the agenda! Does this point to whose problem it really is?
Closing the Gap
Malcolm Turnbull delivered the 8th Closing the Gap report last week.
It was the first time, however, that a Prime Minister addressed Indigenous people directly in their own language.
This is a symbolic but important gesture on the road to recognition.
It recognizes that language is the bedrock of culture and the bedrock of history, particularly oral history.
And it is a mark of respect. Something seriously lacking in our Parliaments of late?
Indigenous commentators have weighed in to the analysis of the report.
But I find myself in such agreement with Professor Marcia Langton. That when you get the economic engagement right, the gap begins to close itself. This is really an acknowledgement that so much of the issues in Closing the Gap are really an embodiment of the concept of the social determinants of health. A concept very familiar to those working in the general practice space.
Professor Langton also comments on the important role of Indigenous engagement in procurement strategies – something that I have seen and continue to believe plays an important role in reducing the economic inequities evident in Indigenous communities and business opportunities.
We need more focus on this particular aspect of Closing the Gap.
Till next time
Joan