Author
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Other affiliations: University of Michigan, University of California, Berkeley, Yale University
Bio: Lisa Larrimore Ouellette is an academic researcher from Stanford University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intellectual property & Incentive. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 48 publications receiving 2881 citations. Previous affiliations of Lisa Larrimore Ouellette include University of Michigan & University of California, Berkeley.
Topics: Intellectual property, Incentive, Trademark, Patent troll, Tax credit
Papers
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: This paper found that those with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change, rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest, suggesting that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public's incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest.
Abstract: Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. An empirical study found no support for this position. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.
1,408 citations
TL;DR: The authors found that individuals with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity are not the most concerned about climate change and are the most culturally polarized, while those with the lowest degrees are concerned.
Abstract: Public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension and to limits on technical reasoning. However, evidence suggests that individuals with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity are not the most concerned about climate change and are the most culturally polarized.
1,325 citations
TL;DR: This article found that the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least literate or numerate ones, and that greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization.
Abstract: The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.
134 citations
84 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the benefits of disclosure are stronger than is generally believed: patents do contain useful technical information that is not available elsewhere, and the benefit of further improving this technical content (and researchers ability to find and use it) likely outweighs any resulting loss in innovation incentives.
Abstract: Courts often state that patents are justified by disclosure theory, the idea that patents are awarded as quid pro quo for the public disclosure of inventions. But many commentators have argued that disclosure theory should be accorded no weight in the design of the patent system because patented inventions would have been disclosed anyway. Even the few legal scholars who dispute these economic arguments agree that, in practice, patents are currently not useful as technical sources for other innovators. This Article reorients the debate over disclosure, arguing that we do not grant patents because of disclosure - we require disclosure because we grant patents. Using results from a new survey of nanotechnology researchers and case studies of individual patents, this Article demonstrates that the benefits of disclosure are stronger than is generally believed: patents do contain useful technical information that is not available elsewhere. The benefit of further improving this technical content (and researchers’ ability to find and use it) likely outweighs any resulting loss in innovation incentives. This improvement could occur through stronger enforcement of disclosure requirements (such as an obligation to respond to good faith reproducibility questions from skilled researchers), elimination of legal barriers to using patents as technical sources, and improved access to patents through peer production. These changes will help defuse the tension between patents and the open culture of science.
60 citations
Cited by
More filters
New York University1, University of Chicago2, Mackenzie Presbyterian University3, Middlesex University4, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń5, University of Kent6, Harvard University7, Yale University8, Stanford University9, Northwestern University10, University of Sussex11, Utrecht University12, University of California, San Diego13, University of Maryland, College Park14, McGovern Institute for Brain Research15, University of Queensland16, University of Michigan17, California Institute of Technology18, Lehigh University19, University of Regina20, University of Oregon21, Ohio State University22, Massachusetts Institute of Technology23, University of St Andrews24, University of Cambridge25, University of British Columbia26, University of Illinois at Chicago27, University of California, Berkeley28, Carleton University29, VU University Amsterdam30, Cornell University31
TL;DR: Evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics is discussed, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping.
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.
3,223 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys should be considered as a legitimate method for answering the question of why people do not respond to survey questions.
Abstract: 25. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. By D. B. Rubin. ISBN 0 471 08705 X. Wiley, Chichester, 1987. 258 pp. £30.25.
3,216 citations
[...]
TL;DR: The Social Contexts of Research as mentioned in this paper is a collection of articles about the social context of research in the 1970s and 1980s, edited by Saad Z. Nagi and Ronald G. Corwin. Pp. xii + 409.
Abstract: The Social Contexts of Research. Edited by Saad Z. Nagi and Ronald G. Corwin. Pp. xii + 409. (John Wiley: New York and London, August 1972.) £5.65.
1,206 citations
TL;DR: A clear link between susceptibility to misinformation and both vaccine hesitancy and a reduced likelihood to comply with health guidance measures is demonstrated, and interventions which aim to improve critical thinking and trust in science may be a promising avenue for future research.
Abstract: Misinformation about COVID-19 is a major threat to public health. Using five national samples from the UK (n = 1050 and n = 1150), Ireland (n = 700), the USA (n = 700), Spain (n = 700) and Mexico (n = 700), we examine predictors of belief in the most common statements about the virus that contain misinformation. We also investigate the prevalence of belief in COVID-19 misinformation across different countries and the role of belief in such misinformation in predicting relevant health behaviours. We find that while public belief in misinformation about COVID-19 is not particularly common, a substantial proportion views this type of misinformation as highly reliable in each country surveyed. In addition, a small group of participants find common factual information about the virus highly unreliable. We also find that increased susceptibility to misinformation negatively affects people's self-reported compliance with public health guidance about COVID-19, as well as people's willingness to get vaccinated against the virus and to recommend the vaccine to vulnerable friends and family. Across all countries surveyed, we find that higher trust in scientists and having higher numeracy skills were associated with lower susceptibility to coronavirus-related misinformation. Taken together, these results demonstrate a clear link between susceptibility to misinformation and both vaccine hesitancy and a reduced likelihood to comply with health guidance measures, and suggest that interventions which aim to improve critical thinking and trust in science may be a promising avenue for future research.
797 citations
TL;DR: The authors in this article reviewed potential challenges to success in each of these dimensions and discussed policy implications. But having licensed vaccines is not enough to achieve global control of COVID-19: they also need to be produced at scale, priced affordably, allocated globally so that they are available where needed, and widely deployed in local communities.
782 citations