Creating a Transnational Green Knowledge Commons for a Socially Just Sustainability Transition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,  

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Creating a Transnational Knowledge Commons to Address the Global Polycrisis." I have carefully reviewed your paper and provide below a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing the clarity and depth of your research:

Length Reduction of Abstract: The abstract could be made more concise. Specific statistics, particularly at the end (line 27), could be omitted to streamline the presentation of core ideas. Theoretical Background of Conceptual Nature: Since your paper is conceptual, it would be beneficial to focus on defining and extending the theoretical background regarding your subject. Explain which theory supports the statement, "We propose the creation of a transnational knowledge commons (TKC)." This will provide a robust theoretical foundation and extend the current understanding of the subject matter.

IPR Focus of Section 2 : In section 2, you discuss "its implications for the just distribution of rewards for innovation" (line 78). Since your article is about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), it would be more appropriate to focus on intellectual property rights rather than this broader topic. This will enhance the relevance and coherence of the arguments presented.

Clarification of Sustainability Connection: Please explain how your paper relates to sustainability. Link the TKC to specific sustainable development goals or practices to contextualize its relevance within the broader sustainability discourse.

Main Subject Focus of Global Polycrisis: While the context of a global polycrisis underscores the urgency and relevance of the TKC, the manuscript might benefit from a more focused discussion on the establishment and management of the TKC independently of the global polycrisis scenario. This would help in emphasizing the intrinsic value of the TKC.

Main Question Addressed: Clearly state the primary research question the manuscript seeks to answer early in the introduction to guide the reader's understanding of the study’s objectives. I think you explain in line 66-75 but it not clear . please in this section Highlight the novel aspects of your research and its relevance to current challenges in the field. Specify the gap in the field that your paper addresses. Clarify the unique contributions of your study compared to existing literature.

Contribution to the Field: Discuss in detail how your findings contribute to the academic discourse on knowledge commons and intellectual property rights. Explain what your research adds to the subject area compared with other published material.

Methodology of the research :I can not find how you can reach to your model,  Consider elaborating on the methodology, possibly by incorporating additional frameworks that could strengthen the study's conclusions.  

Consistency of Conclusions: I can not find in the conclsuon that you discuss your results with pervious one, please Describe how the conclusions are consistent (or not) with the evidence and arguments presented.

Appropriate References: Evaluate if the references are appropriate and relevant to your study. Ensure that all references are current and directly pertinent to the study's claims, bolstering the manuscript's academic rigor. Thank you for your attention to these suggestions, and I look forward to your revised manuscript. I hope these points assist in enhancing the quality and impact of your work.  

 

Best regards

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Authors,   

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Creating a Transnational Knowledge Commons to Address the Global Polycrisis." I have carefully reviewed your paper and provide below a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing the clarity and depth of your research: 

Thank you for your helpful comments.  We have done our best to incorporate all of them 

Length Reduction of Abstract: The abstract could be made more concise. Specific statistics, particularly at the end (line 27), could be omitted to streamline the presentation of core ideas.  

We made the abstract more concise, as you suggested, and hope it reads better.   

Theoretical Background of Conceptual Nature: Since your paper is conceptual, it would be beneficial to focus on defining and extending the theoretical background regarding your subject. Explain which theory supports the statement, "We propose the creation of a transnational knowledge commons (TKC)." This will provide a robust theoretical foundation and extend the current understanding of the subject matter. 

We now specifically state that we will build on the theories of the commons, anti-commons and market failures to support the creation o f a TGKC.  We also elaborate more on the problem of market failures throughout the article.   

In the introduction, we added the following: 

Proposed solutions to many components of the polycrisis frequently stress technological innovations driven by market-based approaches. By the 1950s, there was a growing fear that resource depletion posed a major threat to sustainability [2, 3]. Economists, however, argued that as resources grew scarce, their prices would increase, reducing demand and stimulating the innovation of substitutes.  Falling real prices of most resources supported this view [4]. Similar mechanisms had disproven Malthus’ [5] predictions of imminent widespread starvation by increasing food production faster than population growth, and would later disprove Ehrlich’s similar predictions [6].  In the 1960s and 70s, environmentalists increasingly feared that pollution and resource extraction threatened the continued provision of critical environmental amenities, including life-sustaining ecosystem services, which were not reflected in market prices [7-9].  Economists diagnosed the problem as market failure, defined in general as situations in which unregulated markets generate inefficient outcomes, and specifically as the lack of private property rights and the presence of externalities, defined as unintended and uncompensated impacts of one economic actor’s production or consumption on another. [10, 11].  Favored solutions included private property rights [12, 13] or internalizing social costs into market prices [14], for example through pollution taxes.  This in turn would theoretically stimulate technological innovations that reduce ecological costs or produce substitutes for environmental amenities [15]. Solow’s Nobel Prize winning work suggested that technological progress accounts for nearly two thirds of economic growth in the US [16, 17].  Technology is applied knowledge.  We clearly live in a knowledge economy [18].   

IPR Focus of Section 2 : In section 2, you discuss "its implications for the just distribution of rewards for innovation" (line 78). Since your article is about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), it would be more appropriate to focus on intellectual property rights rather than this broader topic. This will enhance the relevance and coherence of the arguments presented. 

Section 2 provides much of the empirical and theoretical background required to support our call for a TGKC.   We consider just distribution to be an important criterion when deciding on optimal allocation mechanisms, though far from the only one.  We now introduce section two by stating that it “discusses the collective and cumulative nature of human knowledge, the market failures affecting its production and consumption, and the just distribution of rewards for the production and use of knowledge, all in the context of IPRs.” 

 

 

Clarification of Sustainability Connection: Please explain how your paper relates to sustainability. Link the TKC to specific sustainable development goals or practices to contextualize its relevance within the broader sustainability discourse. 

We now refer explicitly to the SDGs throughout the article. Some of the connections are so obvious we did not feel compelled to elaborate. In the conclusions, we added: 

The UN SDGs recognize that we must “mobilize both existing and additional resources” to achieve success, which requires “a strong commitment to global partnership and cooperation” (SDG 17). One of the most important resources required to achieve the SDGs is knowledge.  The SDGs also call for “effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” (SDG 16) (https://sdgs.un.org/goals, accessed 8/12/2024).  We propose the TGKC as an institution dedicated to mobilizing knowledge for the achievement of all the SDGs.    

Main Subject Focus of Global Polycrisis: While the context of a global polycrisis underscores the urgency and relevance of the TKC, the manuscript might benefit from a more focused discussion on the establishment and management of the TKC independently of the global polycrisis scenario. This would help in emphasizing the intrinsic value of the TKC. 

We thought the focus or our article on sustainability was self-evident, in that it seeks to tackle the numerous interconnected crises currently faced by humanity, all of which affect sustainability.  However, we have now made this much more explicit. We begin in the first paragraph by introducing the sustainable development goals, stressing their systemic, interconnected nature, and the impossibility of achieving them without also addressing the polycrisis.  In the conclusion, we stress that the SDGs call for mobilizing our existing resources, which much include knowledge; recognize the need for global cooperation; and acknowledge the need for building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.  We now refer to the SDGs in various places throughout the article.  

Main Question Addressed: Clearly state the primary research question the manuscript seeks to answer early in the introduction to guide the reader's understanding of the study’s objectives. I think you explain in line 66-75 but it not clear . please in this section Highlight the novel aspects of your research and its relevance to current challenges in the field. Specify the gap in the field that your paper addresses. Clarify the unique contributions of your study compared to existing literature. 

Contribution to the Field: Discuss in detail how your findings contribute to the academic discourse on knowledge commons and intellectual property rights. Explain what your research adds to the subject area compared with other published material. 

These are excellent recommendations for almost any article. Thank you for calling attention to our failure to make these clear in the first draft.   

In lines 78-95, we now state that: 

The premise of this article is that if knowledge is to play an important role in overcoming the polycrisis and achieving the SDGs, we require policies and institutions that produce the necessary knowledge at the lowest possible cost then maximize the likelihood of its adoption. 

In practice, the past few centuries have witnessed increasing privatization of knowledge through intellectual property rights and integration into the market economy, despite serious questions about the theoretical justifications and empirical outcomes. Recognizing that knowledge is collectively created and improves through use, there is a strong argument that it should instead be managed as a global commons [22, 24-29].  In this article, we will summarize these findings and draw on the theory of market failures to explain why IPRs are particularly ill-suited to confronting the polycrisis.  As an alternative to private IPRs, we propose a transnational green knowledge commons (TGKC) as a no-cost policy (when compared to the status quo) designed to minimize the costs of producing the knowledge required to address the polycrisis and maximize its benefits. The TGKC would make all knowledge that contributes to a socially just sustainability transition available to all.  While the idea of a knowledge commons is far from original, our contribution to this discussion is to outline a viable, simple to initiate, low-cost institution for creating and governing a global knowledge commons. 

 

Methodology of the research :I can not find how you can reach to your model,  Consider elaborating on the methodology, possibly by incorporating additional frameworks that could strengthen the study's conclusions.   

We struggle with precisely defining our methods for this type of communication.  We would similarly be unable to define Adam Smith’s methods, or Charles Darwin’s. I have stressed that we are applying market failure analysis.   

The section on The Economics of knowledge now begins: 

Markets are only possible for excludable resources accessible only to paying customers, and are only efficient for rival resources (use by one person leaves less for others) whose production and consumption generate no externalities, defined as unintended and uncompensated impacts on others[40].  We have already explained that knowledge is non-rival; in the age of the Internet and reverse engineering, it is increasingly difficult to make excludable [20].  The production or use of knowledge that reduces ecological costs or increases social benefits generates positive externalities. Private monopolies are also inefficient. Intellectual property rights create temporary monopolies, and as we explain below, knowledge has the characteristics of a natural monopoly.  Non-rivalry, non-excludability, externalities, and monopolies are all considered market failures [40, 41] raising serious questions about the efficiency of IPRs.  Some of the literature on market failures seeks market solutions, but we believe appropriate allocative institutions should be determined by the desired goals and the physical characteristics of the resources in question. 

 

Consistency of Conclusions: I can not find in the conclsuon that you discuss your results with pervious one, please Describe how the conclusions are consistent (or not) with the evidence and arguments presented. 

We have revised the conclusions to read: 

The UN SDGs recognize that we must “mobilize both existing and additional resources” to achieve success, which requires “a strong commitment to global partnership and cooperation” (SDG 17). One of the most important resources required to achieve the SDGs is knowledge.  The SDGs also call for “effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” (SDG 16) (https://sdgs.un.org/goals, accessed 8/12/2024).  We propose the TGKC as an institution dedicated to mobilizing knowledge for the achievement of all the SDGs.    

There is little empirical or theoretical evidence that the institution of IPRs stimulates innovation in general, and compelling evidence that IPRs are even less likely to contribute to the production and widespread dissemination of knowledge required to confront the polycrisis.  New laws forcing the private sector to account for the ecological and social costs of their activities might help direct R&D towards solutions to the polycrisis, but such legislative changes are difficult to achieve, especially in the current era of extreme political polarization and money in politics [104].  Furthermore, the internalization of social costs would do nothing to address the high costs of IPRs and the high risk to a single firm investing in green technology R&D.  In distinct contrast, a single visionary university or a consortium of such universities could launch a TGKC at no cost or even negative cost, with no changes to current laws, and little need for new governance mechanisms.  Such a consortium could quickly attract new members. If governments and philanthropies hoping to maximize research impacts explicitly favor consortium members, it could grow rapidly.   

While we believe our arguments support an end to IPRs in general, we are proposing the more conservative and entirely voluntary approach of initiating a TGKC alongside the current system of IPRs.  We do not believe it is possible to theorize new institutions at our desks then expect them to perform precisely as described. However, implementing a TGKC will generate new knowledge about its strengths and weaknesses, allowing for its continual improvement through a process of adaptive management.  If the TGKC proves effective at producing the knowledge we need to address the sustainability crisis at a low cost and increasing its adoption by making it free, we can then consider expanding the TGKC to all knowledge, thus freeing up the associated expenses of creating and defending IPRs.  A TGKC is not a panacea, but if successful, it could help stimulate the global cooperation necessary to confront the polycrisis and achieve a socially just sustainability transition.   

Appropriate References: Evaluate if the references are appropriate and relevant to your study. Ensure that all references are current and directly pertinent to the study's claims, bolstering the manuscript's academic rigor. Thank you for your attention to these suggestions, and I look forward to your revised manuscript. I hope these points assist in enhancing the quality and impact of your work.   

We have added numerous additional references. I typically download citations from the journals or from Google Scholar. I have learned that these are not always sufficient for Sustainability. I have fixed those I noticed were incomplete but rely on Sustainability’s thorough copy-editing to identify the rest.  

  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes the use of Transnational Knowledge Commons to face Global Polycrisis.

The criticism of the manuscript begins with its attempt to undermine the benefits of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) system in order to highlight the proposal’s advantages.

The authors should contrast the proposal with other alternatives, such as improving Open Access for research, Open Innovation, and the government breaking or compulsory licensing patents. Examples in the literature:

https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.1924223

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84193-5_5

Improving IPR regulation is another aspect that can provide similar benefits without the necessity of creating a global consortium to face polycrisis. More effective regulation could, for example, reduce the IPR monopoly time for specific technologies, propose a licensing arbitration model in which the IP licensee discusses with the government the values instead of the IP owners in certain circumstances, and allow the use of anti-trust laws in case of abuse of IPR, among others. These alternatives (or similar) should be explored to highlight the benefits of the manuscript proposal.

Some specific problems in the text:

1) In section 2.1, the authors state that “Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple would be worth little to nothing without the Internet.” The authors may be right about Google, Amazon, and Facebook. However, Microsoft and Apple predate the broad use of the Internet. They could be worth less but far from “little to nothing without the Internet.”

2) In section 3, line 214, the “IPRs’ guarantee of monopoly ownership” is temporary.

3) In section 3.1, the authors state that “Firms are likely to underinvest in R&D if their inventions can be copied by others.” How likely are firms to underinvest in a TKC scenario?

4) In section 4, the authors state that “In a flourishing TKC, research agendas would be driven by the common good, not private profit.” This drive is good in some aspects. However, without profits, less research would be done. What are the impacts of this reduction? Could we accommodate all these researchers into the TKC agenda?

5) The authors’ contribution should use the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy).

6) There are several problems to be fixed in the citation format. See lines 116, 127, 230, 233, 280, 320, 338, 512, and 583.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is good. However, in the introduction, the authors use both "polycrisis" and "poly-crisis".

Author Response

The manuscript proposes the use of Transnational Knowledge Commons to face Global Polycrisis. 

Thank you for your thoughtful review.  

The criticism of the manuscript begins with its attempt to undermine the benefits of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) system in order to highlight the proposal’s advantages. 

 

The authors should contrast the proposal with other alternatives, such as improving Open Access for research, Open Innovation, and the government breaking or compulsory licensing patents. Examples in the literature: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.1924223 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84193-5_5 

Improving IPR regulation is another aspect that can provide similar benefits without the necessity of creating a global consortium to face polycrisis. More effective regulation could, for example, reduce the IPR monopoly time for specific technologies, propose a licensing arbitration model in which the IP licensee discusses with the government the values instead of the IP owners in certain circumstances, and allow the use of anti-trust laws in case of abuse of IPR, among others. These alternatives (or similar) should be explored to highlight the benefits of the manuscript proposal. 

Thank you for this excellent suggestion.  We have alluded to the continuing debate over IPRs and cite numerous highly respected authors and articles, including from Nobel Prize winners, who share our criticisms.  We have more explicitly framed  our criticisms of IPRs—especially ones related to sustainability— within the theory of market failures, adding a new paragraph to the start of section 2.2: 

Markets are only possible for excludable resources accessible only to paying customers, and are only efficient for rival resources (use by one person leaves less for others) whose production and consumption generate no externalities, defined as unintended and uncompensated impacts on others[40].  We have already explained that knowledge is non-rival; in the age of the Internet and reverse engineering, it is increasingly difficult to make excludable [20].  The production or use of knowledge that reduces ecological costs or increases social benefits generates positive externalities. Private monopolies are also inefficient. Intellectual property rights create temporary monopolies, and as we explain below, knowledge has the characteristics of a natural monopoly.  Non-rivalry, non-excludability, externalities, and monopolies are all considered market failures [40, 41] raising serious questions about the efficiency of IPRs.  Some of the literature on market failures seeks market solutions, but we believe appropriate allocative institutions should be determined by the desired goals and the physical characteristics of the resources in question. 

 We have read the articles you recommend and other related ones and added the following discussion to section 3.3: Why IPRs reduce the benefits from existing knowledge.   Rather than discussing reduced monopoly time, a licensing arbitration model, are greater use of anti-trust laws, we cited literature showing that that power of the corporate elite and business lobbies make such outcomes unlikely.   

This problem with IPRs is widely recognized, and much of the legislation protecting IPRs includes pathways for making the IPRs less restrictive.  The World Trade Organization’s Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) allows compulsory licensing and parallel importation under certain situations.  Compulsory licensing allows countries to produce patented drugs domestically without the patent holder’s permission, which is only possible in countries that have the capacity to manufacture drugs.  Parallel importation allows countries to import drugs from other countries where it is available at a lower cost.  March-in rights allow governments to break patents when it is deemed in the public interest.  The previously mentioned Bayh-Dole act allows march-in rights in situations when patented products are not made commercially available on incompletely defined “reasonable terms,” though they have yet to be successfully applied [103].  Specific case studies help illustrate the problems with these policies. 

In the late 1990s, AIDS was spreading rapidly worldwide, and especially in South Africa, where infection rates had climbed to well over 500,000 people per year and death tolls to about 150,000, over 50% of adult mortality [104].  In 1997, South Africa enacted a law to allow compulsory licensing for AIDS treatments, whereupon it was sued by over 40 multinational corporations for violating TRIPS.  The US threatened trade sanctions and denied preferential tariff treatments for South African imports.  Vice-President and Presidential candidate Al Gore, who received substantial donations from pharmaceutical corporations, was a key player in this effort [105].  The US similarly opened a case against Brazil in 2000 to challenges Brazil’s compulsory licensing law.  Brazil aggressively challenged the US, framing the dispute as a North-South conflict, and received enough international support to get the US to drop its suit. Brazil subsequently used the threat of compulsory licensing to get corporations to provide AIDS treatments at a lower cost.  In response to these threats, however, the US again threatened trade sanctions, and even the termination of Brazilian scientific projects at US universities [103].  While in both cases law suits were dropped, it was no doubt obvious to other countries that pursuing compulsory licensing risked retaliation from powerful countries [106].   

March-in rights have fared no better.  In June, 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Part D legislation, which explicitly prohibited the federal government from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies .  Shortly afterwards, Abbot Industries quintupled the price of ritonavir, an important AIDS drug developed with federal funding.  AIDS activists pressured the government to impose March-in rights but were rejected on the grounds that the drug was still commercially available.  Subsequent efforts to apply March-in rights met with similar outcomes, and they have never been used in the US[103].  As one study concludes, “compulsory licensing does not appear as a healthy long-term policy.” [106] (p. 138)  A similar study discussing both compulsory licensing and march-in rights concludes that “over the last four decades, the relationship between governments and corporations … have given more power to corporations” but suggests that activists and public health advocates could help pressure the government to act in the public interest”. [103] (p.11)  However, other research has found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” [107] (p. 564).  It is time to look to alternatives. 

 

 

Some specific problems in the text: 

1) In section 2.1, the authors state that “Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple would be worth little to nothing without the Internet.” The authors may be right about Google, Amazon, and Facebook. However, Microsoft and Apple predate the broad use of the Internet. They could be worth less but far from “little to nothing without the Internet.” 

Excellent point.  We have removed Microsoft and Apple from the list.  

2) In section 3, line 214, the “IPRs’ guarantee of monopoly ownership” is temporary. 

We now refer to them as temporary monopolies.  

3) In section 3.1, the authors state that “Firms are likely to underinvest in R&D if their inventions can be copied by others.” How likely are firms to underinvest in a TKC scenario? 

See our reply to 4) below.  

4) In section 4, the authors state that “In a flourishing TKC, research agendas would be driven by the common good, not private profit.” This drive is good in some aspects. However, without profits, less research would be done. What are the impacts of this reduction? Could we accommodate all these researchers into the TKC agenda? 

We have modified this sentence to read: 

In a flourishing TGKC, we expect research agendas would increasingly be driven by the common good, not private profit, though nothing would prevent the private sector from conducting and patenting its own research with its own funding.  

However, we believe that many of our arguments justify the elimination of IPRs all together.  We therefore added the following to our conclusions: 

While we believe our arguments support an end to IPRs in general, we are proposing the more conservative and entirely voluntary approach of initiating a TGKC alongside the current system of IPRs.  We do not believe it is possible to theorize new institutions at our desks then expect them to perform precisely as described. However, implementing a TGKC will generate new knowledge about its strengths and weaknesses, allowing for its continual improvement through a process of adaptive management.  If the TGKC proves effective at producing the knowledge we need to address the sustainability crisis at a low cost and increasing its adoption by making it free, we can then consider expanding the TGKC to all knowledge, thus freeing up the associated expenses of creating and defending IPRs.  A TGKC is not a panacea, but if successful, it could help stimulate the global cooperation necessary to confront the polycrisis and achieve a socially just sustainability transition.   

5) The authors’ contribution should use the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). 

This is an excellent suggestion.  I will discuss it with the Sustainability editors.  I want to give my students credit for their efforts without exaggerating their contributions.  

6) There are several problems to be fixed in the citation format. See lines 116, 127, 230, 233, 280, 320, 338, 512, and 583. 

Thank you for pointing out these errors.  When we shifted from Google Drive to Word, I failed to re-insert all the Endnote links.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language 

The quality of the English language is good. However, in the introduction, the authors use both "polycrisis" and "poly-crisis". 

We now stick to polycrisis throughout.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript makes a compelling case for the global knowledge crisis. Although the manuscript shows solid arguments for creating a transnational knowledge commons, it poses major challenges in its implementation, both in the business and academic spheres and in the entities that finance knowledge creation. The dilemma is how and when to start the creation of a transnational knowledge commons.

The proposal is correct and clearly and argumentatively shows the need to contribute to creating a common transnational knowledge.

It has been a pleasure to review this manuscript proposal and reflection.

Kind regards,

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review.  We have made considerable improvements to the text based on the comments from our other two reviewers, which we hope strengthens our case for a TGKC.  

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article proposes an alternative to the intellectual property rights (IPR) system, called Transnational Green Knowledge Commons (TGKC), focused on building a sustainable future and confronting polycrysis.

 

The changes made have satisfactorily changed the framing of the article toward a constructive discussion. All points of criticism have been improved, meaning I have no new criticisms to make. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper presents a few problems regarding formatting that can be fixed during publishing process. However, if a new review round occurs, I suggest the authors to make a thorough reading of the article.