Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists

Emerging technologies, including nanotechnologies, are generally seen as those latest scientific innovations which have a potential impact on industry structure, and commercialization and economic potential. Work in this area of emerging technologies has distinct boundary spanning characteristics from the perspective of academic science. First, many emerging technologies involve collaboration of scientists across disciplinary boundaries. Second, because of the commercializability of many emerging technologies, scientists may interact more often with industry throughout the research and commercialization process. We ask, what are the boundary-spanning characteristics of scientists engaged in emerging technology research and how do those characteristics matter in obtaining funding in this area? We examine the characteristics of academic scientists in the United States who are employed in research intensive institutions and who are engaged in funded research in the area of emerging technologies. We address the factors that predict their grant success in areas of emerging technology. Findings reveal that interdisciplinary activities and industry orientation are both important in predicting funding in areas of emerging technology. Moreover, the findings imply that the emergence of new technologies may offer opportunities for women in low representation fields.     

The Scientific Integrity of Applied Research

This paper reviews some of the threats to scientific independence in the Netherlands that have recently alerted the scientific community. The problems are not only apparent in research requested by the government or local authorities; they are also found in a variety of research fields. They are essentially related to the increasing dearth of research funding in the universities. In Europe in general, and the Netherlands in particular, there are no large, independent research foundations which exist elsewhere, so research funding generally depends on funding by government, local authorities or industry. The problem has long been underappreciated and no effective action has been taken. However, more recently and as a consequence of media reports, a number of drastic measures are being taken. This paper deals first with the nature of the threats to the integrity of scientific research, and then reviews the type of actions that have been, and could be taken.     

Signaling in academic ventures: the role of technology transfer offices and university funds

University spinoffs, an important subset of high-tech start-up companies, operate in a context characterized by marked information asymmetries that limit their chances of obtaining financing. Given the uncertainty and imperfect information that characterize these investment opportunities, signals about their potential value deserve further attention. We investigate the relationship between the main stakeholders involved in the process of creating a university spinoff—that is, the academic founders, the university technology-transfer office, and private investors—focusing on the role of public grants as effective signals that attract private venture capital (VC) funding. Using the database of all spinoff companies established to exploit inventions assigned to the University of Michigan from 1999 to 2010, we determine how the funds provided through the university technology-transfer office influence VC follow-on funding and consequent spinoff growth, controlling for the spinoff’s technology, the founders’ human capital, and the network’s resources. The empirical results support a signaling effect of the commercialization funds provided by the university and suggest an indirect impact on the growth of the spinoff’s sales through the mediating effect of VC financing.     

Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps™

In recent years, universities have seen an increasing amount of activity in entrepreneurship and commercialization, not only for students, but for faculty as well. Traditionally, these initiatives have been separate, such that programs and curriculum have been focused on supporting just students or just faculty. In 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the NSF I-Corps? program, an innovative funding program that not only offered principle investigators (PIs) funding, but also exposed PIs to an innovation/entrepreneurship curriculum as well. The University of Michigan (U-M) was one of the first two NSF I-Corps? Nodes funded in 2012 and has leveraged the program to catalyze the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This paper describes the growth of this entrepreneurial ecosystem since 1983, the call of entrepreneurship in the U-M College of Engineering and describes the role the U-M NSF I-Corps? program has played across the university. The paper concludes with lessons learned and recommendations to administrators and policy makers considering more active promotion of academic entrepreneurship and commercialization in universities.     

Growth factors of research-based spin-offs and the role of venture capital investing

Using a proprietary dataset of 98 German research-based spin-offs (RBSOs) founded between 1997 and 2012, we assess which firm-specific and system-inherent factors are decisive for the spin-offs’ growth drawing on the resource-based view. Specifically, we aim to evaluate whether venture capital-backed RBSOs outperform non venture capital-backed RBSOs and whether a performance difference is explained by venture capitalists’ scouting or coaching capabilities. Our empirical findings detect that a homogeneous educational background of the academic entrepreneurs is positively associated with RBSO growth. A training provided by the parent research organization intended to develop entrepreneurial skills and to establish a network to outside professionals as well as the commercialization of a novel technology have a positive impact on firm growth. Concerning the involvement of venture capitalists, venture capital-backed RBSOs show a superior employment and revenue growth compared to non-venture capital-backed RBSOs. Our results support the view that this superior performance is attributed to venture capitalists’ coaching rather than their scouting capabilities.     

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.     

Innovation in the public sphere: reimagining law and economics to solve the National Institutes of Health publishing controversy

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are responsible for the largest proportion of biological science funding in the United States. To protect the public interest in access to publicly funded scientific research, the NIH amended terms and conditions in funding agreements after 2009, requiring funded Principal Investigators to deposit published copies of research in PubMed, an Open Access repository. Principal Investigators have partially complied with this depository requirement, and the NIH have signaled an intent to enforce grant agreement terms and conditions by stopping funding deposits and engaging in legal action.The global economic value of accessible knowledge offers a unique opportunity for courts to evaluate the impact of enforcing ‘openness’ contract terms and conditions within domestic and international economies for public and economic benefit. Through judicial enforcement of Open Access terms and conditions, the United States can increase economic efficiency for university libraries, academic participants, and public consumers, while accelerating global innovation, improving financial returns on science funding investments, and advancing more efficient scientific publishing models.     

基金会资助绩效何以提升?——基于信任理论的多案例研究

【问题】基金会资助正日益成为我国草根公益组织继政府购买服务和社会捐赠之外的重要资金来源。资助关系建立的前提是组织间信任,但目前人们对于信任如何影响基金会资助绩效这一问题还所知甚少。【方法】基于信任理论,对国内3家资助型基金会展开多案例研究,借助质性研究工具NVivo进行资料分析了基金会与资助对象之间信任关系建立的影响因素,以及行为策略及对资助绩效的影响。【发现】(1)基金会与资助对象之间的信任建立受特征因素、过程因素及纽带因素的影响。不同因素的作用程度与基金会选择的资助形式有关。特征因素在公开招募方式中作用更突出,纽带因素与过程因素在推荐制和定向邀请中作用更明显。(2)不同的信任前因会影响基金会资助行为策略选择。对于特征因素建立的信任,基金会偏好采用契约行为;对于纽带因素建立的信任,基金会偏好采取关系行为;对于过程因素建立的信任,基金会则倾向双措并举。(3)在资助过程中,基金会综合运用契约行为和关系行为有利于促进项目目标实现、合作意愿强化及伙伴能力提升。【贡献】研究不仅从理论角度丰富了基金会相关研究,拓宽了组织间信任的研究领域;还从实践角度为基金会实现有效资助以及草根公益组织获得基金会资助提供了行动参考。     

Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing

Our research seeks to develop understanding of the factors explaining venture capital investment managers’ attitudes towards investment in the unique context of academic spin-outs. We provide a novel integration of both VC fund characteristics and investment managers’ human capital characteristics with a unique hand-collected dataset of 68 early stage VC investment managers in Europe. Attitudes toward academic spin-out investing are positively affected by the presence of public sector capital and by investment managers who are more intensively involved with the entrepreneur. Specific human capital in investment managers who had worked in an academic environment is more likely associated with investment in academic spin-outs. In terms of general human capital, financial experience is positively related while entrepreneurial experience is negatively associated with investment attitude towards academic spin-outs. There may be a need to facilitate the attraction of people from industry and investment banking into public VC funds in particular.     

Transferring superconductivity technology at a national-laboratory user center

Department of Energy national laboratories have long sought to expedite the transfer of commercially viable technologies to the private sector through publications and reports, workshops, the licensing of inventions, and personnel exchanges and other cooperative agreements between laboratories, industry, and universities. This article focuses on the transfer of patentable technologies through a case study of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory high temperature superconductivity Pilot Center (HTSC-PC). The Pilot Center was established in 1988 to encourage rapid incubation and commercialization of high temperature superconductivity technologies. The success of this venture will hinge upon assuring compatibility of objectives between the center and likely industrial participants and directing center efforts toward the aspirations of potential collaborators and the ultimate consumers of HTSC technologies. Lessons for general multi-program-laboratory technology transfer include the need for a model of collaboration that emphasizes openness and non-rigidity and facilitates the streamlining of information vital to the cross-fertilization of ideas, continuing reform of the licensing and royalty-sharing process, and simplifying the process of scientific exchange with external constituencies. David Lewis Feldman has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He serves on the staff of the Energy Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee where he does research on the environmental impacts of energy developments, international and comparative environmental policy, environmental regulation, and technology policy. He is the author of several articles and recently completed a book on natural resources policy in the US. He also serves as senior editor ofForum for Applied Research and Public Policy published at the University of Tennessee.     

Scientist entrepreneurship across scientific fields

Knowledge generated in universities can serve as an important base for the commercialization of innovation. One mechanism for commercialization is the creation of a new company by a scientist. We shed light on this process by examining the role of scientist characteristics, access to resources and key university conditions in driving the likelihood of a scientist to start a company. Our sample comprises 1,899 university scientists across six different scientific fields. We make a methodological contribution by using self-reported data from the scientists themselves, whereas most previous research relied on university or public data. Our consideration of six scientific fields is a substantive contribution and reveals that scientist startups are heterogeneous in nature. Our findings are largely consistent with extant research on the role of individual and university variables in scientist entrepreneurship; in addition, we uncover the novel finding that the type of research field is also a key driver of scientist startup activity.     

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.     

Patent-based investment funds: from invention to innovation

In the context of entrepreneurial ecosystems the transformation of inventions to innovations is a crucial measure of success. Yet, the exploitation of inventions stemming from academic or corporate research is not as extensive as we would wish leaving room for improvements. Drawing on the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship we investigate the phenomenon of patent-based investment funds as a new type of intermediary in the knowledge spillover process, which could facilitate the transformation from invention to innovation. Using a qualitative research design we analyze data from 21 expert interviews and complementary archival data. We find common characteristics of funds’ activities which decrease knowledge filters and fill the financing gap in the early stages of technology development. We propose a classification of commercialization strategies and link them to a specific set of invention characteristics. Our insights contribute to the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship and to the knowledge filter model by providing empirical evidence for the division of labor between knowledge creator and commercialization agent. This adds to our view on entrepreneurial ecosystems as we shed light on different players in the transition process from invention to innovation and thus enhance our understanding of the multifaceted aspects in such an ecosystem. In addition, we refine the literature on patent-based investment funds by providing a classification of the entire commercialization spectrum used by funds and add to extant theorizing on how the nature of a technology determines its commercialization.

     

Entrepreneurship, Secrecy, and Productivity: A Comparison of Clinical and Non-Clinical Life Sciences Faculty

This paper addresses research in the life sciences, responsible for significant national expenditures for scientific investigations funded by both the federal government and industry. Our investigation examines faculty members' involvement with industry in entrepreneurial ways that is, involved in translating their research into potentially marketable knowledge or products. First, this study examines whether there are differences in entrepreneurial behaviour between clinical and non-clinical faculty in the life sciences with industry relationships, and, second, to discover any linkage between entrepreneurship and secrecy or productivity in different ways for clinical and non-clinical faculty. The study is based on survey responses of a national sample of 4,000 clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty in 49 U.S. research universities. The results show non-clinical faculty as more involved at the back end. The more entrepreneurial end of commercialization while clinical faculty are involved at the back end. The more entrepreneurial faculty (non-clinical) are more likely to be secretive about their research. Clinical faculty are less likely to have been denied access to research results or products. Entrepreneurial faculty are not less productive in their faculty roles. This investigation is preliminary in that it addresses one large area of academic research but excludes fields with longer historical relationships with industry.     

Trends in Academic Research Spending, Alliances, and Commercialization

Widespread changes underway in the national R&D landscape are impacting how universities fund, conduct, and disseminate their own research efforts. The key components of these trends are revealed through a variety of indicators, including on financial resources, publishing and patenting metrics, and research partnerships. Many of the changes appear to be cost-driven. Particularly as funding increases from Government have slowed and expectations for cost-sharing increased during the past decade, universities increasingly have come to rely on nonfederal sources, notably industry and institutional self-funding. The shift in funding sources has impacted all major fields of study. As part of this system-wide transformation, universities have noticeably increased their collaborations with nonacademic researchers as evidenced by trends in publication data and information on the formation of centers, consortia, and cooperative agreements. Concurrently, and not coincidentally, the transfer of universities' research output also is expanding. Such transfers are increasing both indirectly (as indicated from patenting citation data) and directly (as documented by universities' own patenting/licensing commercialization endeavors). On all accounts are we unlikely to have yet reached the peak of such activities.     

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.     

Commercialization strategies of technology: lessons from Silicon Valley

Science and technology incubators play an increasing role in contributing to the entrepreneurial, venture and economic development. This paper is concerned with the strategies for technology commercialization and supports of new venture development. The study has applied the cluster-based strategies of the US Silicon Valley to the case of Thailand. The findings highlight the role of the National Science and Technology Development Agency’s Science Park and the National Innovation Agency’s Innovation Park in supporting technology commercialization and development of the national innovation system. The future challenges to create effective system for entrepreneurial development and implications for entrepreneurial business management are discussed herein.     

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D.