1980年，在美國拜杜法案（Bayh-Dole Act）通過以後，政府補助研發成果從原屬於國家財產，下放歸屬權於研發單位。因此研發單位可自行管理並將研發成果授權至產業界，將研發成果商品化，此過程稱之為「技術移轉」。技術移轉是一個非常細膩且複雜的過程，有許多因素會左右技術移轉的成敗，其中包括：技術之品質、法律限制、政策因素、產業需求和資訊流通等因素。技術移轉將可以使研發成果商品化， 有助於提升政府稅收和權利金收入，並且推動科學發展和增加就業機會，為國家創造經濟收入。 本研究旨探如何提升政府補助國立生醫研究單位－台灣國家衛生研究院（NHRI）之授權績效。本研究將採用美國國家衛生研究院（NIH）之授權績效和授權執行方式當參考指標。為了得到精準和可信的數據，本研究僅截取官方之年報和網站的資料。與此同時，本研究末將會提供如何提升授權績效之建議。 此研究發現就2010年而言，NIH和NHRI之授權績效可謂旗鼓相當。儘管台灣立法規定「政府資訊公開法」，此研究發現台灣國家衛生研究院有選擇性的發表其授權績效的跡象。由於政府所有開銷均從其預算而來，而政府預算部分自人民納稅所得，因此監督政府績效是普羅大眾的基本權利。人民有權監督，並且要求政府就其管理、執行成效做出解釋。然而，台灣國家衛生研究院之資訊不透明舉動，限制了人民監督的權利，此舉將會因缺乏監督而惡性循環的造成授權績效更為疲弱。此外，此研究亦發現較少的授權契約種類、授權策略在地化、研發成果披露之不明確性、智慧財產委員會專利申請和授權策略失衡是造成NHRI授權成果疲弱的因素。 / Since the passage of U.S. Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, government-funded research inventions were no longer considered as government property. Invention could be patented and be licensed to industry through the process of commercialization for revenue return. Commercialization will create revenue in the form of royalty and taxes to the government, further driving scientific improvement and increase job opportunities. Technology commercialization is a very delicate process and there are a lot of factors that might alter the success, including but not limited to i) the quality of invention, ii) legislation restriction, iii) policy incentives, iv) industry interest, v) availability of information and etc. If managed properly, technology commercialization could bring high value to the academic institutes that developed an invention, to government that financially support academic research and to general public that could benefit from the invention itself. This study intends to identify the factors of the weak licensing performance in Taiwan government-funded national biomedical research organization, National Health Research Institute (NHRI). To evaluate the licensing performance of NHRI, this study will compare the licensing performance of NHRI with National Institute of Health (NIH) in the United States. To get accurate and formal data, this study will mainly retrieve data from official annual report and website. By comparing the practice of technology commercialization process of both institutes, this study could suggest possible flaws in NHRI’s licensing process in comparison to NIH. At the same time, this study will give suggestions to achieve a better licensing performance. This study concluded that both institute performed equally in FY 2010, but it has been noticed that NHRI were selectively in disclosing its licensing performance statistics and it is difficult to retrieve general information from NHRI, despite the availability of Freedom of Government Information Law (Taiwan). It’s the basic right for the general public to be able to supervise and surveillance a government agency’s performance as it utilizes the taxes contributed by a citizen in a country. The limitation of information disclosure by NHRI has made it difficult for general public supervise its licensing performance, of which might further contribute to even weaker licensing performance due to lack of supervision. This research also concluded that few options of licensing contracts, localization in licensing strategy, confusion in technology disclosure, possible misalignment of patenting & licensing strategy of the IP Management Committee contributes to weak licensing performance in the NHRI.

The Paris Principles, a UN document adopted in 1993, requires that states establish NationalHuman Rights Institutions [cit. NHRI] for the protection and promotion of human rights. AlthoughSweden was one of the countries that promoted the adoption of the Paris Principlesinternationally, on a national level there is a still ongoing debate on the necessity of such aninstitution. This paper aims to present arguments for and against the establishment of a NHRIin Sweden in accordance with the binding and additional provisions of the Paris Principles.The Swedish system for promotion and protection of human rights is discussed in this paper,including the issue of access to justice.The main purpose of the paper is to draw conclusions as to how the legal norms shouldbe formed. Primary sources being used are therefore legal literature (both Swedish and foreign)and Swedish preparatory works. The paper contains a comparative section where thecomparative method is used.The paper concludes that Sweden is in need of a NHRI established in accordance withthe binding provisions of the Paris Principles. In addition, in order to promote individuals’access to justice the additional principles should be implemented as well. Since there is arange of obstacles for that, both practical and constitutional, the author of the paper goes on todiscuss how the protection of human rights in Sweden can be reinforced in other ways.