Is there a trade-off between academic research and faculty entrepreneurship? Evidence from US NIH supported biomedical researchers

Economics of Innovation and New Technology

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 505-520

  Czarnitzki, Dirk ^a,b,c   Toole, Andrew A ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic entrepreneurship; Biomedical research; Life scientist productivity; NIH; SBIR

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954586794     PISSN: 10438599     EISSN: 14768364     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10438590903432848     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Azoulay, P., W. Ding, and T. Stuart. 2006. The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research output. NBER Working Paper No. 11917, Cambridge, MA. (Forthcoming in the Journal of Industrial Economics.)
2. Azoulay, P., A. Stellman, and J.G. Zivin. 2006. Publication Harvester: An open-source software tool for science policy research. Research Policy 35: 970-4.
3. Breschi, S., F. Lissoni, and F. Montobbio. 2008. University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review 5: 91-109.
4. Buenstorf, G. 2009. Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Research Policy 38: 281-92.
5. Cameron, A.C., and P.K. Trivedi. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Czarnitzki, D., W. Glänzel, and K. Hussinger. 2009. Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy 38: 26-34.
7. Diamond, A.M. 1986. The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. Journal of Gerontology 41: 520-5.
8. Gittelman, M., and B. Kogut. 2003. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science 49: 366-82.
9. Goldfarb, B., G. Marschke, and A. Smith. 2009. Scholarship and inventive activity in the university: Complement sorsubstitutes? Economics of Innovationand NewTechnology 18,nos.7-8:743-56.
10. Hall, B.H., J. Mairesse, and L. Turner. 2007. Identifying age, cohort and period effects in scientific research productivity: Discussion and illustration using simulated and actual data on French physicists. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16: 159-77.
11. Levin, S.G., and P.E. Stephan. 1991. Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review 81: 114-32.
12. Louis, K.S., D. Blumenthal, M.E. Gluck, and M.A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 110-31.
13. Lowe, R.A., and C. Gonzalez-Brambila. 2007. Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer 32: 173-94.
14. Stern, S. 2004. Do scientist pay to be scientists? Management Science 50: 835-53.
15. Stuart, T., and W. Ding. 2006. When do scientists become entrepreneurs: The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110: 97-144.
16. Toole, A.A., and D. Czarnitzki. 2007a. Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 716-38.
17. Toole, A.A., and D. Czarnitzki. 2007b. Life scientist mobility from academe to industry: Does academic entrepreneurship induce a costly 'brain drain' on the not-for-profit research sector? ZEW Discussion Paper 07-072, Mannheim, Germany.
18. Toole, A.A., and D. Czarnitzki. 2009. Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical AEs in the SBIR program. Management Science 55: 101-14.
19. Wooldridge, J.M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Zucker, L.G., and M.R. Darby. 2007. Virtuous circles in science and commerce. Papers in Regional Science 86: 445-470.