Imagining value, imagining users: Academic technology transfer for health innovation

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 68, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1481-1488

  Miller, Fiona Alice ^a   Sanders, Carrie B ^b   Lehoux, Pascale ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Commercialization; Innovation; Technology design; Technology transfer; Technology users

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIALIZATION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH POLICY; INNOVATION; INVESTMENT; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC SECTOR; SUSTAINABILITY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; VALUATION;

ARTICLE; CANADA; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMMODIFICATION; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HUMANS; ONTARIO; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; UNIVERSITIES;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; ONTARIO [CANADA];

EID: 63349093213     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.043     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Addison R.B. A grounded hermeneutic editing approach. In: Crabtree B.F., and Miller W.L. (Eds). Doing qualitative research (1999), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi 145-161
2. Akrich M., and Bijker W.E. The description of technical objects. Shaping technology/building society (1992), MIT Press 205-224
3. AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers). Canadian licensing activity survey FY2006 (2007). http://www.autm.net/surveys/dsp.Detail.cfm?pid=216
4. Bergek A., Jacobsson S., Carlsson B., Lindmark S., and Rickne A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Research Policy 37 3 (2008) 407-429
5. Berg M. Rationalizing medical work: Decision-support techniques and medical practices (1997), The MIT Press, London
6. In: Bijker W.E. (Ed). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs. Toward a theory of sociotechnical change (1995) Cambridge
7. California Institute of Technology, Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of California, et al. In the public interest: nine points to consider in licensing university technology (2007). http://www.autm.net/ninepoints_endorsement.cfm Accessed 02.12.08
8. Charmaz K. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin N.K., and Lincoln Y.S. (Eds). The handbook of qualitative research (2000), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi 509-535
9. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2006), Sage Publications, London
10. Clarke A.E., and Montini T. The many faces of RU 486: tales of situated knowledges and technological contestations. Science, Technology and Human Values 18 (1993) 42-78
11. Clarke A.E., and Star S.L. Science, technology, and medicine studies. In: Reynolds L.T., and Herman-Kinney N.J. (Eds). Handbook of symbolic interactionism (2003), AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA 539-565
12. Clarke A., and Fujimura J. What tools? Which jobs? Why right?. In: Clarke A., and Fujimura J. (Eds). The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences (1992), Princeton University Press, NJ 3-43
13. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights Innovation and Public Health. Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights. Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (2006), World Health Organization, Geneva
14. Cooper R. Winning at new products (2001), Perseus Publishing
15. Dalhousie University Industry Liaison and Innovation. About ILI. http://innovation.dal.ca/aboutili.php Accessed 04.12.08
16. Dorf R., and Worthington K. Models of commercialization of technology from universities and research laboratories. Journal of Technology Transfer 12 1 (1987) 1-8
17. Eisenberg R.S. The shifting functional balance of patents and drug regulation. Health Affairs 19 4 (2001) 119-135
18. Etzkowitz H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy 27 (1998) 823-833
19. Fisher D., and Atkinson-Grosjean J. Brokers on the boundary: academic-industry liaison in Canadian Universities. Higher Education 44 (2002) 449-467
20. Galbraith C., Ehrlich S., and DeNoble A. Predicting technology success: identifying key predictors and assessing expert evaluation for advanced technologies. Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (2006) 673-684
21. Galbraith C., Merrill G., and Campbell K. The vertical transfer of technology in the Navy R&D community. Journal of High Technology Management Research 2 (1991) 15-33
22. Gelijns A.C., Zivin J.G., and Nelson R.R. Uncertainty and technological change in medicine. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 26 5 (2001) 913-924
23. Gelijns A., and Rosenberg N. The dynamics of technological change in medicine. Health Affairs 13 3 (1994) 29-46
24. Haffner M.E., Torrent-Farnell J., and Maher P. Does orphan drug legislation really answer the needs of patients. The Lancet 371 (2008) 2041-2044
25. Herder, M., & Johnston, J. (2007). Licensing for knowledge transfer in human genetics research: a study of business models for licensing and technology transfer in human genetics patents. In H. Canada (Ed.), (pp. 1-56).
26. Industry Canada. Mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage (2007) Ottawa
27. Introduction to Technology Transfer. (2007). Professional training workshop; held in association with the 3rd annual meeting of the Alliance for Commercialization of Canadian Technology, Toronto, Canada.
28. Jain S., and George G. Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: the case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells. Industrial and Corporate Change 16 4 (2007) 535-567
29. Lambert R. Lambert review of business - University collaboration (2003), HM Treasury
30. Latour B. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (1987), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
31. Laursen K. Horizontal diversification in the Danish national system of innovation: the case of pharmaceuticals. Research Policy 25 (1996) 1121-1137
32. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems (2006), Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York/Oxon
33. Lehoux P., Williams-Jones B., Miller F., Urbach D., and Tailliez S. What leads to better health innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 13 4 (2008) 251-254
34. Linton J., Walsh S., and Morabito J. Analysis, ranking, and selection of R&D projects in a portfolio. R&D Management 32 (2002) 139-148
35. McGrath M.E. Setting the PACE in product development: A guide to product and cycle-time excellence (1996), Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA
36. McMaster University McMaster Industry Liason Office. http://ip.mcmaster.ca/ Accessed 04.12.08
37. Marchildon G.P. Health systems in transition: Canada (2005), University of Toronto Press, Toronto/Buffalo/London
38. Morgan, S., & Hurley, J. (2002). Influences on the "health care technology cost-driver". Discussion Paper No. 14, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, August.
39. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Guidelines for the licensing of genetic inventions (2005), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris
40. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD high level forum - Medicines for neglected and emerging infectious diseases: Policy coherence to enhance their availability. Accelerating neglected diseases drug discovery (2007)
41. In: Oudshoorn N., and Pinch T. (Eds). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (2003), MIT Press, Cambridge
42. Owen-Smith J. Dockets, deals and sagas: commensuration and the rationalization of experience in university licensing. Social Studies of Science 35 1 (2005) 69-97
43. Owen-Smith J., and Powell W.W. The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy 32 (2003) 1695-1711
44. Owen-Smith J., Riccaboni M., Pammolli F., and Powell W.W. A comparison of U.S. and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 24-43
45. Patton M.Q. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (2002), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi
46. Powell W., Owen-Smith J., and Colyvas J. Innovation and emulation: lessons from American Universities in selling private rights to public knowledge. Minerva 45 2 (2007) 121-142
47. Prus R. Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research (1996), SUNY, New York
48. Queens University Parteq Innovations. About Parteq. http://www.parteqinnovations.com/ Accessed 04.12.08
49. Rasmussen E. Models for university technology transfer operation: patent agency and 2g. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 5 4 (2006) 291
50. Rasmussen E. Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: lessons from Canada. Technovation 28 8 (2008) 506-517
51. Raz T., Shenhar A., and Dov D. Risk management, project success, and technological uncertainty. R&D Management 32 2 (2002) 101-109
52. Rettig R. Medical innovation duels cost containment. Health Affairs Spring (1994) 7-27
53. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: a method of inquiry.
54. Rose D., and Blume S. Citizens as users of technology: an exploratory study of vaccines and vaccination. In: Oudshoorn N., and Pinch T.J. (Eds). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (2003), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 103-131
55. Rothaermel F.T., Agung S.D., and Jiang L. University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16 4 (2007) 691-791
56. Sage W.M. Funding fairness: public investment, proprietary rights and access to healthcare technology. Virginia Law Review 82 8 (1996) 1737-1752
57. In: Shaffir W., and Stebbins R. (Eds). Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (1991), Sage Publications, Newbury Park
58. Shenhar A., Tishler A., Dvir D., Lipovetsky S., and Lechler T. Refining the search for project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach. R&D Management 12 (2002) 111-126
59. Shergold M., and Grant J. Freedom and need: the evolution of public strategy for biomedical and health research in England. Health Research Policy and Systems 6 2 (2008)
60. Siegel D., Waldman D., and Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy 32 (2003) 27-48
61. Sorensen J., and Chambers D. Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated - defining an access metric. The Journal of Technology Transfer 33 5 (2008) 534-547
62. Swan J., Goussevskaia A., Newell S., Robertson M., Bresnen M., and Obembe A. Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities. Research Policy 36 4 (2007) 529-547
63. Thomas S. Intellectual property rights and the human genome. In: Caulfield T., and Williams-Jones B. (Eds). The commercialization of genetic research: Ethical, legal and policy issues (1999), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York 55-61
64. Thorsteinsdóttir H. The role of the health system in health biotechnology in developing countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19 5 (2007) 659-675
65. Thursby J.G., and Thursby M.C. University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23 4 (2007) 620-639
66. University of British Columbia UBC University-Industry Liaison Office. About UILO. http://www.uilo.ubc.ca/ Accessed 04.12.08
67. University of Ottawa Technology Transfer and Business Enterprise. From knowledge creation to value creation. http://www.ttbe.uottawa.ca/ Accessed 04.12.08
68. University of Saskatchewan Industry Liaison Office. Investing in ideas. http://www.usask.ca/research/ilo/ourservices.php Accessed 04.12.08
69. Willison D.J., and MacLeod S.M. Patenting of genetic material: are the benefits to society being realized?. CMAJ 167 3 (2002) 259-262
70. Woolgar S. Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. In: Law J. (Ed). A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination (1991), Routledge, London 58-100