Technology Transfer via the Internet: A Way to Link Public Science and Enterprises?

The Internet is receiving increasing attention as a medium for technology transfer between public research and the business sector. Technology policy hopes that Internet presentations of research activities at public institutions will facilitate the exploitation of research results, particularly from those institutions not engaged in technology transfer so far. Based on a survey of public research units in natural sciences and engineering in Germany, we analyze the determinants of firm contacts established via the Internet. Special attention is paid to the effect of experiences in firm interaction in the past. Estimation results suggest that Internet contact to firms is more likely to be established by public research units that are already well situated in the transfer market. Research units that orient their homepage design towards the business sector are more likely to build Internet-based contact with firms. However, there is no evidence that public research units that have not been engaged with firms so far, use the Internet more intensively to get into the transfer business. Our results show that the Internet has a certain potential for advancing technology transfer at public research, although this potential is not fully utilized yet, at least in the case of Germany.     

Maintaining the high-tech edge: Governmentindustry technology transfer and the federal laboratory system in California

One of the important resources to any state, such as California, is the technology that is available from the many federally operated and/or funded laboratories within its borders. In this age of technology a state needs to take advantage of applications of modern technology and innovative exploitation of human and natural resources. This article illuminates the importance of the Federal Government research laboratories. Many examples are presented to support the argument that the Federal Government research laboratories can be and often are substantial contributors to the storehouse of technology that finds its way to the private sector and public sector. Several types of technology transfer are discussed, i.e. primary technology, secondary applications, mission related, technical assistance and cooperative. In addition the article discusses the structure and logic of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC). The legislaltion that has helped to make the FLC effective is discussed. Included in the discussion are insights of how the FLC operates and how the private sector and public sector may use the FLC in order to locate process, product and service technology.     

National laboratories as business incubators and region builders

Public sector labs do not appear to have generated as much regional business spinoff as universities and research-intensive businesses. This difference may be explained in large part by the disparate capabilities for and attitudes toward new-firm incubation on the part of parent institutions and other anchor tenants. We believe that federal lab personnel systems, research cultures, geographical isolation, management preferences, and complex public interest issues are responsible. These phenomena are explored in an intensive case study of startups associated with Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. Interviews conducted with 33 firms confirm many barriers to incubation, but also reveal some advantages offered by public labs and suggest that changes in attitude, culture, and policy can make a difference. We explore the difficult issues of property rights assignment, public employee conflict-of-interest rules, and the use of public sector equity in spinoffs, and we conclude that startup efforts have been underfunded. Lab partnerships with large corporations in comparison are expensive, hoard labor, and are less effective at transferring technology. Recommendations for improvement of the incubation process include entrepreneurial leave and training, streamlining of conflict-of-interest, patent, and licensing procedures, and lab based efforts to connect would be entrepreneurs with sources of business assistance, space and capital.     

Transferring Public Research: The Patent Licensing Mechanism in Agriculture

Technology transfer policies can bring public R&D to potential users, reduce burdens on public resources, and influence technology development. Patent licensing offers transparency, potentially higher research returns, and possible increased adoption of socially desirable technologies. However, it limits access to research results, and raises concerns that public institutions will alter their agendas. A review of the US Department of Agriculture's patent and licensing program addresses the types of technologies disseminated, social benefits associated with them, institutions licensing technologies, the importance of exclusivity, and whether research priorities have become oriented to private interests. Results suggest that USDA's patent licensing is not revenue driven, and its research agenda has not changed in response to the program. Licenses vary with respect to four important social benefits. Licensing program priorities are closer to those of the private sector than the USDA's research program. Partial or limited exclusivity may be sufficient to attract technology developers.     

Technology transfer at land-grant universities

Improvement in the ability of universities in the United States to transfer technology to the private sector is seen as a factor in strengthening American competitiveness. To better understand the university's role in this process, a survey of formal university programs in technology transfer was performed through personal interviews at four midwestern land-grant universities. There are six basic types of programs in place: technical assistance, affiliate, licensing, business development, incubators and research parks, and information networks. For purposes of classifying these programs, we used the model developed by Janis et al. (1) It was found that, of the six modes of technology transfer, two could be considered active, three semi-active and one passive.     

Bringing science to life in Australia: the need for a new approach in human health biotechnology policy

This paper discusses the development of the biotechnology industry in the context of Australia’s industrial and policy structure. The paper outlines the size and structure and ‘stage’ of development of the biotechnology sector in Australia and argues for a policy approach that recognises the specific dynamics of the industry sector as it presently stands. It argues that government in a small country with a patchy industrial structure and where the local market is highly regulated and dominated by public sector institutions must play a central but more sophisticated policy role in the development of effective mechanisms for both knowledge generation and transfer in the emerging biomedical sciences.     

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.     

Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework

There is a considerable interest of scholars in benefits and challenges arising from involvement of academic researchers and their institutions in knowledge transfer activities with the business sector. The emerging questions have resulted in a number of studies, yielding rich but mixed findings. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review this body of investigative work, with a particular emphasis on life sciences. Based on the systematic analysis and synthesis of 135 articles published between 1980 and 2014, we discuss the most interesting findings for each of the six identified principal academic-industry research topics: involvement predictors and motivators, role of incentives, institutional performance determinants, knowledge transfer institutionalization, relationship with scientific output and impact on open science. Whereas many studies reach consensus regarding the particular personal and contextual predictors of researchers’ knowledge transfer involvement, we also find substantial evidence that depending on empirical setting, variables such as scientific productivity and institutional technology transfer support policies can act both as enablers and inhibitors in the process. We find no straightforward evidence regarding the role of the size, age and structure of technology transfer offices in the knowledge transfer performance of academic institutions. We also show that most studies agree that engagement in knowledge transfer activities does not negatively affect the researchers’ scientific output. Yet, it is less clear to what extent university-industry interactions can be detrimental for the norms of open science. We draw several policy implications for academic settings and emphasize interesting avenues for further research in this field.     

Government procurement law and hacking technology: The role of public contracting in regulating an invisible market

This article considers the purchasing of hacking technology by governments and the role of government procurement processes in regulating the hacking market and reducing risks to the buyer. While the proliferation of hacking technology for government actors has led to various proposed solutions for accountability, little consideration has been given to public purchasing of this technology. This article explores whether public contracting processes could be used to help minimize the risks that arise from the use of government hacking technology, and, if so, the types of contractual clauses and institutional supports that might be useful to achieve that goal. In exploring this issue, this article considers theories of government by contract and the publicization of the private sector. These theories posit that public contracting can be used as a vehicle to impose public considerations—for example, certain policy goals—on the private sector. It argues that requirements of transparency and accountability that inhere on the public sector could be transferred in part to the private sector through the vehicle of a public contract and explores how public contracts for government hacking technology could be structured in order to reduce risks posed by the use of this technology.     

Grant programs for schools and hospitals and for buildings owned by units of local government and public care institutions, amendment of regulations: Department of Energy. Final rule

The Department of Energy (DOE) today issues a final rulemaking amending existing regulations for the administration of the grant programs providing schools, hospitals, units of local government, and public care institutions with financial assistance for the purpose of reducing energy consumption. The revisions are made as a result of experience obtained during the operation of two grant cycles, and are made for the purpose of reducing the administrative burdens on institutions and States participating in these programs and providing greater flexibility to States and institutions in their implementation of the program.     

Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies*

Commercial success in universities in the USA and Canada has resulted in many other countries taking steps to emulate this performance and major technology transfer and commercialisation support programmes have been launched in UK, Europe, Australia, Japan and many other countries—including South Africa. Unrealistic expectations have, however, been generated by the spectacular successes of a relatively few institutions and it is not always realised that the success from commercialisation is proportional to the magnitude of the investment in research. Without a well funded, high quality research system, it is not possible for technology transfer to make any significant contribution to economic development. The possible economic returns to higher education institutions from commercialisation of research can be estimated using international benchmarks. This forecast uses a combination of an institutional return on investment model and a simple economic projection. The model is generic and can be adapted for use in any institution. As more data becomes available from local (and international) sources, the model will be refined to give better estimates. The model is dynamic and shows, quantitatively, why it can take up to 10 years for an institution, and 20 years nationally, to attain a positive rate of return from an investment in research and technology transfer. The model enables the long-term impact of policy decisions, in an institution and nationally, to be examined and alternative scenarios explored. The performance of individual institutions is, however, highly variable and unpredictable. This is even for those institutions that are comparable in size and maturity. A large portfolio of patents and licences is required to give a reasonable probability of positive returns. This may be possible at a national level, but is problematic in smaller institutions—and smaller countries. Because the benefits of the innovation system are captured largely at national level, with institutions having a high uncertainty, public sector support to reduce the institutional risk is necessary to assist institutions to make the necessary investments. Technology transfer is of course only one element of the overall research and innovation value chain. All elements must be functioning effectively to derive the economic and social benefits from research. In addition to a strong research system, adequate incentives must exist to encourage academics to participate, particularly with regard to the crucial initial step of invention disclosure. After disclosure, sufficient institutional capacity must be in place to take an idea, evaluate it, protect the intellectual property appropriately and then seek a path to commercialisation through either licensing or start-up company formation. *Based on the paper “Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies” presented at The First Globelics Conference on Innovation Systems and Development Strategies for the Third Millennium, Rio de Janeiro, November 2003.     

The need for performance auditing in the public sector and the best-practice frontier

The article is organized as follows. In Section 2 the arguments for performance auditing in the public sector are reviewed along the lines of the public-choice approach. An international comparison of the functions of supreme auditing institutions (Section 3) reveals that the BelgianRekenhof-Cour des Comptes lags behind, lacking a mandate for performance auditing. In Section 4 the notions of efficiency and effectiveness are clarified. Section S compares the concept of the best-practice frontier with a standard production function. In the public sector one is often confronted with a weak knowledge of the underlying technology. This poses problems of specification for a parametric estimation. Therefore a nonparametric frontier may be recommended. In Section 6 the Farrell method and the free disposal hull are presented. Moreover, when several inputs are transformed into a multiple output (instead of one single homogeneous output), data-envelopment analysis offers a solution (Section 7). These latter methods are also illustrated by an international empirical comparison of the efficiency of public enterprises: postal services in Section 6 and railway companies in Section 7. Some conclusions are reported in the final Section 8.     

Reconsideration of the agricultural transfer model

The cooperative extension system in American agriculture is widely viewed as the paradigmatic public sector technology transfer system. Empirical evidence supports the view that research and extension are complementary inputs in increasing agricultural productivity. Cooperative extension, however, does not perceive itself as a technology transfer system; but as an informal education system. Many participants at the federal, landgrant university, or county levels in cooperative extension would not recognize their work within a technology transfer framework. Moreover, many would object to such a characterization of their work. The differences in perspective is accounted for, in part, by the fact that agricultural extension is part of the larger system of cooperative extension. This system, which encompasses agriculture, home economics, 4-H and community and rural development, requires a more encompassing framework than technology transfer to provide an integrated rationals for its program elements. Within the technology transfer framework, the roles of the different components of the system across the states are both highly variable and changing. Based on site interviews in nine states, analysis is presented of the current and prospective roles of extension specialists and county agents.     

Analysis and Classification of Problem Statements in Technology Transfer

For many years, the U.S. Government has encouraged the transfer of technologies developed through taxpayer funded endeavors to the commercial sector of the U.S. economy. The Regional Technology Applications Board, based at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, is an organization with technology transfer responsibilities. The Board receives technology transfer assistance (TTA) requests from many private-sector firms. The Board relies heavily on a problem statement from the requestor of technology assistance in determining an appropriate solution to the requestor's needs. However, the problem statements contained in these requests are often vague, ambiguous, or repetitive. This study reports on a method developed to analyze and classify problem statements that have been received by the Board so that additional understanding of the nature of these problems is obtained. One thousand one hundred past problem statements were analyzed using a content analysis method. The hierarchical classification structure developed during this project includes classes, sub-classes, and sub-sub-classes, allowing for differentiation of problem statements based upon key elements contained within the statements. Previously, no method for analysis and classification of problem statements had been documented. The results of the study indicate that problem statements can be analyzed and classified. The problem statement classification structure created through this project provides a vehicle for problem statement assignment, thereby lending additional form to the problem definition process. The study also provides an understanding of the frequency and distribution of TTA problem statements received by the Board.     

Profiles of State Technological Transfer Structure and Its Impact on Small Manufacturers

This paper presents the results of an empirical examination of the methods 10 state agencies use in coordinating technology assistance to small manufacturers. The strategies that agencies use to transfer technology are evaluated in light of 15 economic variables. Where appropriate, regression analysis was used to measure the impact of these variables on the growth rate of small manufacturers. State assistance strategies were determined by mailing a questionnaire to the chief technology transfer officer in each of the states. Survey participants were asked to discuss the mission, goals, degree of goal accomplishment, and size of budget/staff. The study compares their responses and discusses how these agencies might improve the transfer process.Five economic variables were found to be significantly related to the number of small manufacturers in a state. However when growth rates of the significant variables and small manufacturers were compared the results were not as clear. The states with the fastest growth rates of small manufacturers did focus their technical assistance on small firms. These states tended to place a priority on providing technical assistance to small manufacturers.     

Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated––defining an access metric

Why should research institutions engage in technology transfer? Some say it is about the money. Others say it is about public service and benefit. In the end, we measure what we value. If we only measure money, we confound the non-profit mission of the research institution. If we measure economic impact, the non-profit technology transfer office is often expected to become the economic developer, confusing real estate and business development with technology transfer, often without additional funding. These mission strains lead to overwhelm, fatigue, service shortcomings, and unhappy customers across all classes of stakeholders. This article suggests a return to center for academic technology transfer offices (TTOs) by focusing on a most important question for drivers of our present global knowledge economy––how well does a TTO facilitate access to knowledge protected by intellectual property of its faculty and institution? This article proposes that academic technology transfer performance should be evaluated by how well a TTO avails access to knowledge. Given that performance measures are also referred to as “metrics,” we call this preferred outcomes orientation an access metric.     

Promoting small business through public-sector technology transfer

It is generally concluded that small businesses are the most effective institutional mechanism for the execution of technological innovation in the United States. Federal legislation provides for special considerations to be rendered to small businesses when public-sector technology is to be transferred to the private sector. Nevertheless, the activities of many federal laboratories lag in the transfer of technology to small businesses relative to large businesses. This paper examines the reasons for the current low level of interaction between federal laboratories and small businesses including the constraints typically encountered in working with small businesses. Recommendations are made to enhance the lab/small-business relationship. Finally, a sample program at Sandia National Laboratory for assistance to small businesses is described.     

Technology transfer in the Americas: common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions

The present article presents the results of a qualitative study whose purpose was to compare the structure and operation of the programs for intellectual property management and technology transfer, and the mechanisms through which to foster entrepreneurship, in five high-profile research institutions across the Americas. The institutions of focus included Stanford University and the University of California, Davis in the United States; the Universidad Católica and the Universidad de Concepción in Chile; and the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Argentina. The purpose of the study was to elucidate commonalities and differences among these institutions with respect to their technology transfer practices, and to distill methodologies that could be used to establish or refine technology transfer offices in American regions. Research revealed common goals and core activities, shared and implemented in similar ways among all five institutions. However, the analysis also identified divergent areas within the structure and operation of the various technology transfer programs, representing significant differences between the five institutions.     

The politics of managed competition: public abuse of the private interest

The doctrine of managed competition in health care sought to achieve the social goals of access and efficiency using market incentives and consumer choice rather than governmental regulation and public administration. In retrospect, it demanded too much from both the public and the private sectors. Rather than develop choice-supporting rules and institutions, the public sector has promoted process regulation and benefit mandates. The private health insurance sector has pursued short-term profitability rather than cooperate in the development of fair competition and informed consumer choice. Purchasers have subsidized inefficient insurance designs in order to exploit tax and regulatory loopholes and to retain an image of corporate paternalism. America's health care system suffers from the public abuse of private interests and the private abuse of the public interest.