Read on Twitter
The technology that produced the Moderna vaccine started being developed under NIH grants before being spun off into, as it was then capitalized, ModeRNA. NIH doesn't assert a rights to IP funded by its grants, they are open to be commercialized by others. A paper thread 
https://twitter.com/dhsandler/status/1335923055781089282
https://twitter.com/dhsandler/status/1335923055781089282
As private funding is rising share funding for university R&D we ask: How does changing out a dollar of federal funding for a dollar of private funding change researcher's career outcomes?
What happens to patenting when there is a large negative shock in federal funding? It goes up! One often expects federal funning to be "better," so this increase in "innovation." is surprising.
What about startups? They go down! If just viewed as "innovation" this is the opposite result from patents.
But, of course, I told the story in the first tweet. When private companies fund R&D they do their best to contract and capture the IP. From and NYU contract:
“Institution understands and agrees that the underlying intellectual property rights to any Company Technology that is the subject of the Research are owned solely by Company…Institution agrees not to seek or obtain patent protection directed to or covering Company Technology"
This means commercialization, if done, will be done by the funder. Is this good? OTOH, the funder was likely interested in the R&D and has money to continue the development. OTOH, incumbent companies are not know for being nimble and often can gain from simply owning the IP.
