Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 577-598

  Thursby, Marie ^a   Thursby, Jerry ^b   Gupta Mukherjee, Swasti ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Base model; Life cycle model; No licensing versus licensing; Tenure system

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249049575     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.016     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adams J. Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy 98 (1990) 673-702
2. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Stein, J., 2005. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. NBER Working Paper 11542.
3. Alchian A. In: Bradley P.D. (Ed). Private Property and the Relative Cost of Tenure. In the Public Stake in Union Power (1953), University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville 350-371
4. Beath J., Owen R., Poyago-Theotoky J., and Ulph D. Optimal incentives for income-generation within universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (2003) 1301-1322
5. Boyd E., Cho M., and Bero L. Financial conflict of interest policies in clinical research: issues for clinical investigators. Academic Medicine 78 (2003) 769-774
6. Carmichael H.L. Inventives in academics: why is there tenure?. Journal of Political Economy 96 (1988) 453-472
7. Cohen W., Florida R., Randazzese L., and Walsh J. Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In: Noll R. (Ed). Challenges to Research Universities (1998), The Brookings Institution, Washington 171-199
8. Dasgupta P., and David P. Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In: Feiwel G.R. (Ed). Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory (1987), New York University Press, New York
9. Dasgupta P., and David P. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23 (1994) 487-521
10. Dasgupta P., and Maskin E. The simple economics of research portfolios. The Economic Journal 97 (1987) 581-595
11. Hagstrom W. The Scientific Community (1965), Basic Books, New York
12. Jensen R., and Thursby M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review 91 (2001) 240-259
13. Jensen, R., Thursby, M., 2004. The academic effects of patentable research. NBER Working Paper 10758.
14. Jensen R., Thursby J., and Thursby M. The disclosure and licensing of inventions in US universities. International Journal of International Organization 21 (2003) 1271-1300
15. Jensen, R., Thursby, J., Thursby, M., 2006. In or out: University research and faculty consulting. Working paper.
16. Killingsworth M. Learning by doing and investment in training: a synthesis of two rival models of the life cycle. Review of Economic Studies 49 (1982) 263-271
17. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
18. Lach, S., Schankerman, M., 2003. Incentives and inventive activity in universities. CEPR Discussion Paper 3916.
19. Lazear E.P. The Peter Principle: a theory of decline. Journal of Political Economy 112 (2004) 141-163
20. Levin S., and Stephan P. Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for American scientists. American Economic Review 81 (1991) 114-132
21. Li S., and Ou-Yang H. Incentives, Performance, and Academic Tenure (2003), Duke University, Mimeo
22. Mansfield E. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics 77 (1995) 55-65
23. McDowell J. Obsolescence of knowledge and career publication profiles: some evidence of differences among fields in costs of interrupted careers. American Economic Review 72 (1982) 752-768
24. McPherson M., and Winston G. The economics of academic tenure: a relational perspective. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 4 (1983) 163-184
25. Merton R. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review 22 (1957) 635-659
26. Merton R. In: Storer N.W. (Ed). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1973), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
27. Morgan R., Kannankutty N., and Strickland D. Future directions for university-based engineering research. ASEE PRISM 6 (1997) 33-36
28. Mowery D., Nelson R., Sampat B., and Ziedonis A. The effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology Transfer: an analysis of data from Columbia University, the University of California, and Stanford University. In: Branscomb L.M., Kodama F., and Florida R. (Eds). Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States (1999), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
29. Mowery, D., Ziedonis, A., 2002. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States, Research Policy 31, 399-418.
30. Mukherjee A., and Stern S. Disclosure or Secrecy? The Economics of Open Science (2005), Northwestern University, Mimeo
31. Murray F. Innovation as coevolution of science and technology: exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy 31 (2002) 1389-1403
32. Murray, F., Stern, S., 2005. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the Anti-Commons hypothesis. NBER Working Paper 11465.
33. Nelson R. What is 'commercial' and what is 'public'. In: Rosenberg N., Landau R., and Mowery D. (Eds). Technology and the Wealth of Nations (1992), Stanford University Press, Stanford
34. Oster S., and Hammermesh D. Aging and productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics (1998) 154-156
35. Rahm D. U.S. universities and technology transfer: perspectives of academic administrators and researchers. Industry and Higher Education 8 (1994) 72-78
36. Rosenberg N., and Nelson R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23 (1994) 323-348
37. Ryder H., Stafford F., and Stephan P. Labor, leisure and training over the life cycle. International Economic Review 17 (1976) 651-674
38. Siow A. Occupational choice under uncertainty. Econometrica 52 (1984) 631-645
39. Siow A. Tenure and other unusual personnel practices in academia. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 14 (1998) 152-173
40. Stephan P. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature 34 (1996) 1199-1235
41. Stephan P., and Levin S. Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time (1992), Oxford University Press, New York
42. Stephan P., and Levin S. Property rights and entrepreneurship in science. Small Business Economics 8 (1996) 177-188
43. Stephan, P., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A.J., Black, G., in press. Who's patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of earned doctorates. Economics of Innovation and New Technology.
44. Stern S. Do scientists pay to be scientists?. Management Science 50 (2004) 835-853
45. Thursby J., Jensen R., and Thursby M. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (2002) 59-72
46. Thursby J., and Thursby M. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science 48 (2002) 90-104
47. Thursby J., and Thursby M. University licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act. Science 301 (2003) 1052
48. Thursby, J., Thursby, M., in press. Patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. In: Ehrenberg, R., Stephan, P. (Eds.), Science and the University. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
49. Thursby, J., Fuller, A., Thursby, M., 2007. U.S. faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Working paper, January 2007.
50. Zerhouni, E. W., 2004. NIH ethics concerns: consulting arrangement and outside awards. In: Testimony Before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Commerce. US House of Representatives.
51. Zucker L., Darby M., and Armstrong J. Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or markets. Economic Inquiry 36 (1994) 65-86
52. Zucker L., Darby M., and Brewer M. Intellectual capital and the birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises. American Economic Review 88 (1998) 290-306