{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00978698906160046, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.608365019011407, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Policy Incentives and Constraints on Scientific and Technical Information

Some recent policy changes have given new life to questions about what are appropriate controls on the dissemination of scientific and technical information. Recent changes in the law and decisions by the Supreme Court have helped to foster a climate hospitable to increased proprietary protection in the form of patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. In the interest of national security, the Reagan administration has undertaken a variety of initiatives to limit disclosure of information. Both sorts of policy changes have led to fears that undue constraints are being imposed on the dissemination of scientific and technical information. Proprietary protection has been extended to new subject matters such as microorganisms and computer software and to new institutional settings, in particular, universities. These new proprietary arrangements engender debate about the extent to which patent and copyright policies promote openness as intended and the extent to which a policy of valid trade secret contracts encourages secrecy. The changes in policy have expanded opportunities for universities and university researchers to patent their inventions, and some of our most prestigious institutions are taking advantage of these opportunities. The new policies also seem to have encouraged universities to form a large number and variety of collaborative ties with companies. Some observers voice concern that universities more closely tied to industry will not be able to maintain their autonomy and traditional commitment to openness. Some fear that the climate favoring proprietary protection may erode the scientific community's commitment to openness.