Accelerating commercialization: a new model of strategic foundation funding

Venture philanthropy presents a new model of research funding that is particularly helpful to those fighting orphan diseases, which actively manages the commercialization process to accelerate scientific progress and material outcomes. This paper begins by documenting the growing importance of foundations as a source of funding academic research as traditional funding from industry and government sources decline. Foundations are known for their innovative techniques and we consider the evolution of the ways that foundations fund academic research and form partnerships across academia and industry. We examine the example of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the development of the drug Kalydeco^® as a demonstration of the principals of strategic foundation funding. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation adapted to a venture philanthropy model and took an active role in drug development, stewarding the commercialization process from funding basic scientific work in academic institutions, to making an equity investment in a start-up firm. We conclude by evaluating the advantages and disadvantages to venture philanthropy for the academic researchers, industry partners, foundations, and universities and consider an agenda for future research.     

What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy

Over the last 20 years, universities have made steady progress in their efforts to foster the process of technology transfer through collaboration with industry. The establishment of technology transfer offices (TTO) has become routine for supporting the commercialization of academic research. However, the literature shows that there are many factors that affect the efficiency and effectiveness of these offices. Based on original data from interviews with 197 university departments in Italy, this paper investigates the determinants of universities university use of TTOs. We take account of the effects of universities’ and TTOs characteristics, of research and geographic indicators.     

The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions

Knowledge transfer from science to industry has been shown to be beneficial for the corporate partner. In order to get a better understanding of the reasons behind these positive effects, this study focuses on the junction of science and industry by comparing characteristics of academic inventions that are transferred to industry and those staying in the public sector. Academic inventions are identified via patent applications of German academic scientists. We find that academic patents assigned to corporations are more likely to enable firms reaping short term rather than, possibly more uncertain, long-run returns, in contrast to patents that stay in the public sector. Firms also strive for academic inventions with a high blocking potential in technology markets. Academic patents issued to corporations appear to reflect less complex inventions as compared to inventions that are patented by the public science sector.     

Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations

The debate on the entrepreneurial university has raised questions about what motivates academic scientists to engage with industry. This paper provides evidence based on survey data for a large sample of UK investigators in the physical and engineering sciences. The results suggest that most academics engage with industry to further their research rather than to commercialize their knowledge. However, there are differences in terms of the channels of engagement. Patenting and spin-off company formation are motivated exclusively by commercialization whilst joint research, contract research and consulting are strongly informed by research-related motives. We conclude that policy should refrain from overly focusing on monetary incentives for industry engagement and consider a broader range of incentives for promoting interaction between academia and industry.     

National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation

While there has been much emphasis over the last decade on the science of nanotechnology and on the implications and risks of potential applications, it is now timely to increase attention to the emerging dynamics of nanotechnology commercialization. This paper examines, from a global perspective, where and how corporations are entering into nanotechnology innovation. The paper tests the proposition that a significant shift has occurred in recent years in the orientation of corporate nanotechnology activities—from research discovery to patented applications. It also examines the extent to which the character and structure of corporate nanotechnology activity by country initially reflects national innovation system characteristics and prior public research funding inputs in the stage when discovery is most emphasized. The results indicate that national innovation systems characteristics are significant factors in the commercialization shift of nanotechnology and highlight the importance of innovation system policy factors. We also observe the influence of cross-border international invention linkages, suggesting that national innovation policies also need to be open and international in orientation.     

Mapping the nanotechnology enterprise: a multi-indicator analysis of emerging nanodistricts in the US South

Nanotechnology has attracted significant research, funding, and policy activity in recent years in the US and many other countries. Of particular interest are the locational characteristics of this emerging technology. This study examines the emergence of nanotechnology in the US South to explore questions of regional standing and spatial trajectory, using an exploratory multi-indicator approach. Our research employs an array of 10 indicators of knowledge generation, human capital, R&D funding, and patenting, to uncover developments, clusters, and linkages in nanotechnology emergence. Results indicate that although there is nanotechnology activity in every state in the US South, this activity agglomerates in a few locations. One emerging nanodistrict (North Carolina’s Research Triangle) has prior strengths in high technology research and commercialization, especially based on biotechnology; but other districts (e.g., Oak Ridge Tennessee and Atlanta, Georgia) that have strengths in certain aspects of the nanotechnology research ecosystem have weaknesses in commercialization. The study illustrates how multi-indicator approaches can be developed from existing databases, using customized search techniques, and how the insights from multi-indicator measurement can be used to provide insights for research and innovation policy.

How much does it cost to be a scientist?

We examine the academe–industry wage gap. Once self-selection and different personal characteristics of academic and industrial scientists have been taken into account the wage gap narrows from 28 to 13 %. The counterfactual wage faced by an academic scientist increases with time spent on development and decreases with time spent on research. This finding challenges the idea of a solely negative relationship between science and wages. We further find that preferences for science augment the relationship between research orientation and wages. Overall, the results have implications for policy makers that aim to increase development oriented research activities at universities, individual scientists thinking about whether to pursue a career in industry or academe, and managers trying to hire academic scientists.     

Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration

This paper examines the role of the federal government in shaping the relationship between academics scientists and industry. There exists a potential conflict between government policies encouraging collaboration within academia and the policies encouraging collaboration between academia and industry. To test and model these potential conflicts, this paper uses data collected in a 2004–2005 survey by the Research Valuing Mapping Project (a project based at Georgia Tech and led by Barry Bozeman) of more than 2000 academically based research scientists and engineers. The major finding in this paper shows that academic scientists working with industry collaborate more (with all types of collaborators) than those that do not collaborate with industry. However, when examining only those scientist that collaborate with industry, the results reveal a negative relationship between the amount of time spent collaborating with industry and the number of collaborators; implying that increasing collaboration with industry leads to less academic–academic collaboration.     

Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms

In the trend of academic entrepreneurship, practical and direct contribution of university research to the society has been emphasized, in which university scientists have increasingly engaged in commercial activities, university-industry relationships, and technology transfers. However, this trend has aroused concern about a potentially negative impact on the tradition of open science. Drawing on a survey data of 698 Japanese natural scientists, this study analyzes the behaviors and norms of university scientists under the influence of university interventions for entrepreneurship, whereby examining the compatibility between entrepreneurship and open science. The results indicate that entrepreneurial interventions have facilitated scientists?? norm for practical contribution, and consequently, their involvement in commercial activities and ties with industry. Then, some, but not all, of these entrepreneurial activities have deterred cooperative or open relationships between scientists. However, the results suggest that the entrepreneurial interventions have not deteriorated the traditional norm for open science. Further analyses indicate that the two norms for practical contribution and for open science are determined independently, implying that academic entrepreneurship can be promoted without deteriorating open science.     

Exploring public values implications of the I-Corps program

This paper examines how the concept of public values can be operationalized in an ongoing public initiative to stimulate innovation in an emerging technology. Our study focuses on Innovation Corps (I-Corps)—a program initiated in 2011 by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to accelerate the process of commercializing science-driven discoveries. The I-Corps method has since spread rapidly across multiple US agencies. Separately, there has also been heightened attention to the early anticipation and mitigation of the implications of emerging science and technology. Drawing on the case of nanotechnology, the paper considers how public values related to nanotechnology commercialization can be integrated alongside the fast start-up procedures embedded in I-Corps. We use a public values framework to pose societal impact questions that can be probed in parallel with the current I-Corps process, highlighting values such as identification of societal problems that the technology might potentially address; types of potential customers likely to be overlooked; groups who might oppose the application as well as those who might support it; and potential environmental, health, and safety risks. The paper discusses the challenges of adding specifications related to equity as well as safety in efforts to foster rapid commercialization and considers how these can be integrated within the I-Corps approach.     

Measuring the Economic Impact of University-Based Research

University research has propelled the United States into world-class leadership, but continuing that momentum in the 21st century requires major funding. Both the public and private sector have risen to meet that financial challenge through increased support of university-based research. Since 1995, New York Governor George E. Pataki and the New York Legislature have fostered the growth of high technology and biotechnology industries by investing more than $1 billion in superlative research laboratories and academic centers. However, with this increased outlay comes the demand for greater accountability. Both public and private stakeholders expect applied research to have economic impact through a unique combination of good science plus good business producing wealth and opportunity for all citizens. However, measuring the economic impact of university research proves difficult. This paper suggests a possible method for a public funding agency to quantify and tabulate research outputs such that economic impacts are reported as a percent return on investment or ROI. With this model, multiple stakeholders can evaluate divergent research technologies using a measurement that is familiar to scientists, business leaders, elected officials, and the public.     

Patenting and Invention Activity of U.S. Scientists and Engineers in the Academic Sector: Comparisons with Industry

Analyses have been performed of the patenting and invention activity of U.S. scientists and engineers (S&Es) in the academic sector and comparisons have been made with their counterparts in industry. The analyses are based upon survey questions concerning patent applications, grant awards and commercialization outcomes from two 1995 National Science Foundation (NSF) nationally representative workforce surveys. A series of new indicators – patent activity rates, patent activity shares and patent success rates – has been defined and utilized to examine patent activity by employment sector, educational field, demographic variables, status and location of university faculty, technological area, and selected S&E job characteristics. It is recommended that NSF collect data on patenting activity, including commercialization outcomes, in its surveys of the S&E workforce at least every four years. Data should also be collected on university-industry collaboration in patent activity in the U.S., and between S&Es in the U.S. and other countries.     

Effectiveness of university technology transfer: an organizational population ecology view of a maturing supplier industry

In this article, we propose that universities engaged in technology transfer activities can be viewed as the University Technology Commercialization (UTC) industry. We use an organizational population ecology perspective to outline an economic model for the analysis of the UTC industry. We introduce cohort analysis and time-lagged comparisons of multiple stages in the commercialization process to examine the efficiency and productivity of the industry. Our main source of data is the Association of University Technology Managers licensing surveys from 1991 through 2004. Results indicate that industry growth is slowing, and that the technology transfer process is becoming less efficient; opportunities for individual and/or collective action are noted.     

Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts

This paper provides a systematic review of the current literature on technology commercialization. It serves to establish a foundation for the following empirical and theoretical contributions. Technological inventions are fundamental for a country’s economic growth. However, in order to actually generate value for society and profits for the involved companies, these inventions need to be successfully transferred to the market. Therefore, newly developed technologies need to be integrated into products which sell. In particular, our study focuses on the different interaction channels through which technology commercialization occurs. We analyze main groups of institutions, which can either act as developers of technologies and/or organizations bringing these technologies to the market: Universities and research institutes, technology startups, and established companies. We propose a theoretical framework of possible interactions between these organizations and analyze the success factors within the respective channels. Based on the systematic review of 140 articles, key characteristics of the technology development organizations are analyzed with regard to the different possible channels available to commercialize their technology.     

The role of marketing activities in the fuzzy front end of innovation: a study of the biotech industry

In this paper we explore the importance of marketing activities during the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation (FFEI), which in product life cycle management is described as the phase between R&D and the beginning of formal new product development. The FFEI is characterized by informal processes and many industry specific conditions. The particular context in which the study was conducted involved research emerging from a US government sponsored institution. Firms obtain licenses for technology from the government sponsored institution with the purpose of advancing them towards commercialization. But, the process of development often gets stalled, especially during the initial stages due to the lack of a number of resources (financial, key personnel, etc.). The specific interest in this study was, therefore, to understand the extent to which various marketing efforts by the licensees enabled the survival of early stage biotech innovations. Licensees would be expected to seek resources by undertaking a number of marketing activities designed to communicate a value proposition to potential resource providers. The study involved qualitative data collection among licensees to uncover marketing activities in which they engaged during the FFEI phase. The data was coded to develop the specific types of marketing activities that had been employed so as to provide insight into which activities were important in enabling early stage innovation survival. Future research can build upon this study’s findings in industries other than biotech and involving different sources of technology transfer (universities, etc.).     

The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study

The Proof of Concept phase in university technology transfer is considered to be critical for the success of both licensing and the creation of spin-off companies. In the United States, Proof of Concept Centers are emerging as successful structures to address the challenges of this phase. In this paper, we present a framework to assess the role for such a structure in a university ecosystem. The framework is built from previous references that we use to explicitly link the features of Proof of Concept Centers with the challenges of the Proof of Concept phase, and establish their specific contributions to the overall technology commercialization efforts of a university. We illustrate the application of this framework in a case study of the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, and develop a characterization that is representative of the role that a Proof of Concept Center can play in comparable university ecosystems that feature conventional technology commercialization structures, and struggle with the challenges of the Proof of Concept phase. Our study suggests that there is in fact a possible role for a Proof of Concept Center in the regional ecosystem of the University of Coimbra, with a potentially very relevant impact in the technology commercialization process, through networking outside academia and research environments, funding of Proof of Concept activities, and technology entrepreneurship education for the development of entrepreneurial skills for researchers.     

Researchers’ Industry Experience and Productivity in University–Industry Research Centers: A “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” Explanation

We examine the impact of researchers’ previous industry experience on the research outputs and outcomes of university faculty affiliated with NSF and DOE research centers. Using a dataset combining curriculum vita and surveys, our results indicate significant differences between the researchers who have previous industry experience and those who do not. Using a simple model of research productivity, we found that academic researchers who had prior industry exposure produce fewer total career publications, but they support more students. Most important, and perhaps surprising, we could not establish any difference between the two groups’ publication activity when focusing on a five-year cross-section (years 1996–2000) rather than total career publications. We found statistical evidence that previous industry experience raised the annual publication productivity of junior faculty members and women researchers in our sample of research center personnel. We believe the unique blend of research center affiliation, academic post, and past industry experience gives an individual who embodies or possesses all three characteristics a diverse source of scientific and technical human capital and particular advantages over those who have no industry experience (though the “academic-only” set also has particular advantages in cumulative publishing productivity).     

University-industry linkages in nanotechnology and biotechnology: evidence on collaborative patterns for new methods of inventing

The nanotechnology and biotechnology “revolutions” are so-called because their enabling technological breakthroughs were not simply inventions, but discoveries of entirely new methods of inventing. We hypothesize that university participants in either or both of these areas will exhibit greater collaboration with industry than researchers in other areas. We explore this hypothesis for 454 faculty members who conducted research that was patented during the period 1994–1999. Because our data include patents, publications, and funding at the individual level, we are able to examine the industry interaction of faculty who participated in the nanotechnology and biotechnology revolutions, as well as the interaction of faculty contributing to other areas of patentable science. We examine a variety of linkages, including sponsored research, consulting, publication with firm employees and measures of the potential for cross-campus collaboration. The results are striking in that they show significant differences in collaborative behavior across patent types and across the major program areas biological sciences, physical sciences and engineering. The results are consistent with a greater degree of tacit knowledge within the new methods of inventing. We also find significant differences in the embryonic nature and importance of patents across areas.     

The growth of China’s technology transfer industry over the next decade: implications for global markets

China has moved mightily over the last 30 years to increase its capacity to develop indigenous technology to invigorate its industrial base and shift it from the world’s factory to the world’s developer and manufacturer of products. To achieve this requires buttressing an emerging intellectual property system, increasing university research while encouraging scientists to patent and commercialize their discoveries. Additionally, the development of a functioning and agile venture capital system to invest in these new technologies, coupled with liquid equity markets for consummating IPO’s have been developed in record time. Will these remarkable efforts be sufficient to allow China to dominate the technology transfer market domestically or internationally over the next 10 years? The conclusions are twofold: on one hand, China undoubtedly will become the world’s largest customer for technology transfers both domestically and internationally, but global leadership in new technology development and licensing from research institutions is unlikely to be achieved over the next 10 years. Foreign firms, especially those within the US or with strong ties to the US are most likely to dominate this sector due to the US’s comprehensive university network coupled with its well established IP technology transfer industry.