Technology Commercialization Effects on the Conduct of Research in Higher Education

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 245-260

  Powers, Joshua B ^a   Campbell, Eric G ^b  

^a INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Commercialization; Patenting; Technology transfer in higher education

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952705439     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-010-9195-y     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Angell, M. (2000). Is academic medicine for sale? The New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1516-1518.
2. Angell, M. & Relman, A. S. (2002). Patents, profits, & American medicine: Conflicts of interest in the testing & marketing of a new drug. Daedalus, 131, 1-2-111.
3. Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35, 427-454.
4. Association of American Medical Colleges and Consortium of Eleven Universities. (2007). In the public interest: Nine points to consider in licensing university technology. Palo Alto: Stanford University.
5. Barton, R. (2002). Patents, genomics, research and diagnostics. Academic Medicine, 77, 2039-2047.
6. Cho, M. K., Illangasekare, S., Weaver, M. A., Leonard, D. G., & Merz, J. F. (2003). Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 5(1), 3-8.
7. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R& D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
8. Eisenberg, R. S. (2000). Genomics in the public domain: Strategy and policy. Nature Reviews Genetics, 1, 70-74.
9. Eisenhardt, K. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31, 134-149.
10. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-833.
11. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
12. Feller, I. (1990). Universities as engines of R& D-based economic growth: They think they can. Research Policy, 19, 335-348.
13. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition, and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32, 1343-1365.
14. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698-701.
15. Henry, M. R., Cho, M. K., Weaver, M. A., & Merz, J. F. (2002). DNA patenting and licensing. Science, 297, 1279.
16. Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740-760.
17. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics, 25, 319-333.
18. Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579-595.
19. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643-659.
20. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 648-687.
21. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U. S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317-330.
22. O'Neill, H., Pouder, R. W., & Buchholtz, A. K. (1998). Patterns in the diffusion of strategies across organizations: Insights from the innovation diffusion literature. Academy of Management Review, 23, 98-115.
23. Powers, J. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26-50.
24. Powers, J. (2004a). Inside the IPO black box: University licensing to companies that go public. AUTM Journal, 76(1), 11-28.
25. Powers, J. (2004b). R& D funding sources and university technology transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial? Research in Higher Education, 45, 1-23.
26. Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2003). Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. American Scientist, 91, 52-59.
27. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
28. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advances in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
29. Schissel, A., Merz, J. F., & Cho, M. K. (1999). Survey confirms fears about licensing of genetic tests. Nature, 402, 118.
30. Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47, 205-220.
31. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115-142.
32. Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & DiGregorio, D. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49, 478-496.
33. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism-politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns-Hopkins.
34. Thursby, J. M., & Thusby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22, 162-178.
35. Tornquist, K. M., & Hoenack, S. A. (1996). Firm utilization of university scientific research. Research in Higher Education, 37, 509-534.