Industry relationships of DoD-funded academics and institutional changes in the US university system

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 474-489

  Libaers, Dirk ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Defense Innovation System; DoD; University industry relationships

Indexed keywords

CONTRACTING PRACTICES; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DOD; INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIP; INNOVATION SYSTEM; QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY INTERACTION; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS;

PUBLIC POLICY;

INDUSTRY;

EID: 67849132153     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-008-9099-6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (42)

1. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397-422. doi: 10.1016/ S0048-7333(98)00126-7.
2. Bozeman, B. (2006). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry. Working Paper, Georgia Institute of Technology.
3. Buchalter, A., Gibbs, J., & Lewis, M. (2004). Laws and regulations governing the protection of sensitive but unclassified information. A Report prepared by the Federal Research Division. Library of Congress: Washington DC.
4. Cole, J. (2003). The patriot act on campus: Defending the university post 9/11. Speech to a Seminar entitled "The Futures of Higher Education" held at the University of Chicago's Graham School of General Studies, May 9, 2003.
5. Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the US National Innovation System. New York: Columbia University Press.
6. Dagnino, R., & Velho, L. (1998). University-industry-government relations on the periphery: The University of Campinas Brazil. Minerva, 36(3), 229-251. doi: 10.1023/A:1004335804375.
7. de Solla-Price, D. (1984). The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation. Research Policy, 13(1), 3-20. doi: 10.1016/ 0048-7333(84)90003-9.
8. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
9. Freeman, C. (1992). Formal scientific and technical institutions in the National Innovation System. In B. A. Lundvall (Ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
10. Friedberg, A. L. (1991). The changing relationship between economics and national security. Political Science Quarterly, 106(2), 265-276. doi: 10.2307/2152229.
11. Gibbons, M., & Johnston, R. (1974). The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy, 3 (3), 220-242. doi: 10.1016/ 0048-7333(74)90008-0.
12. Goldemberg, J. (1998). What is the role of science in developing countries? Science, 279 (5354), 1140-1141. doi: 10.1126/ science.279.5354.1140.
13. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors' research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.004.
14. Hashimoto, T. (1999). The hesitant relationship reconsidered: University-industry cooperation in the post war era. In L. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States. Cambridge, Massasuchusetts: MIT Press.
15. Hicks, D., Breitzman, A., Hamilton, K., & Narin, F. (2000). Research excellence and patented innovation. Science & Public Policy, 27(5), 310-320. doi: 10.3152/147154300781781805.
16. Jacobsson, S. (2002). Universities and industrial transformation: An interpretive and selective literature study with special emphasis on Sweden' Mimeo. Sussex: SPRU.
17. Knezo, G. (2003). Sensitive but unclassified and other federal security controls on scientific and technical information. CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
18. Lee, S. (2004). Foreign-born scientists in the United States - Do they perform differently than native-born scientists. PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.
19. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The effects of scientific collaboration on productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35 (5), 673-702. doi: 10.1177/0306312705052359.
20. Lee, Y. S. (1998). University - industry collaboration on technology transfer: Views from the Ivory Tower. Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 26 (1), 69-84. doi: 10.1111/ j.1541-0072.1998.tb01925.x.
21. Levin, S., & Stephan, P. (1999). Sociology of science - Are the foreign-born a source of strength for US science. Science, 285(5431), 1213-1214. doi: 10.1126/science.285.5431.1213.
22. Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253-257. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.005.
23. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247-264. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00139-1.
24. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(91)90080-A.
25. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 773-776. doi: 10.1016/ S0048-7333(97)00043-7.
26. Markoff, J. (2005). Pentagon redirects its research dollars. New York Times, April 2.
27. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27 (8), 835-851. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00094-8.
28. Monjon, P., & Waelbroeck, P. (2003). Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1255-1270. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00082-1.
29. Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1991). Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Narin, F., Hamilton, K., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317-330. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9.
31. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: Linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 197-206. doi: 10.1016/ 0048-7333(92)90018-Y.
32. Nelson, R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455-471. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.008.
33. Norris, J. (2004). Restrictions on research awards: Troublesome clauses. Report of the AAU/COGR Task Force to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
34. NSF. (2004). National science and technology indicator handbook. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation.
35. Relyea, H. (1994). Silencing science: National Security Controls and scientific communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
36. Rosenberg, N. (1992). Scientific instrumentation and university research. Research Policy, 21(4), 381-390. doi: 10.1016/ 0048-7333(92)90035-3.
37. Rosenwald, M. (2003). Science+security=Trouble. Popular Science, 262(2), 41-42.
38. Smit, W. A. (1995). Science, technology, and the military: Relations in transition. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 598-626). London: Sage Publications.
39. Stowsky, J. (2004). Secrets to shield or share? New dilemmas for military R&D policy in the digital age. Research Policy, 33(2), 257-269. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.002.
40. Teich, A. H. (2006). Impact of post-September 11 security policies on US science. In A. D. James (Ed.), Science and technology policies for the anti-terrorism era. Amsterdam: NATO Science Series, IOS Press.
41. Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491-505. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00027-8.
42. Velho, L. (2004). Science and technology in Latin America and the Caribbean: An overview (p. 73). Mimeo, Maastricht: UNU/INTECH.