Improving or impairing? Following technology transfer changes at the University of Cambridge;Améliorer ou affaiblir? Suivre l'évolution du transfert technologique à l'Université de Cambridge

Regional Studies

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 463-478

  Breznitz, Shiri M ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Regional economic development; Technology transfer; Universities

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC GROWTH; HIGHER EDUCATION; INNOVATION; REGIONAL ECONOMY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

CAMBRIDGE; CAMBRIDGESHIRE; ENGLAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 79952928129     PISSN: 00343404     EISSN: 13600591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00343401003601909     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. BERCOVITZ J. and FELDMAN M. (2005) Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level. Technology Transfer Society, Kansas City, MI.
2. BERCOVITZ J. and FELDMAN M. (2008) Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level, Organization Science 19, 69-89.
3. BERCOVITZ J., FELDMAN M., FELLER I. and BURTON R. (2001) Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State universities, Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 21-35.
4. BOK D. (2003) Universities in the Market Place. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
5. BOUCHER G., CONWAY C. and VAN DERMEER E. (2003) Tiers of engagement by universities in their region's development, Regional Studies 37, 887-897.
6. BREZNITZ S. M. and ANDERSON W. (2006) Boston metropolitan area biotechnology cluster, Canadian Journal of Regional Science 28, 249-264.
7. BREZNITZ S. M., O'SHEA R. P. and ALAN T. J. (2008) University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters, Journal of Product Innovation Management 25, 129-142.
8. CAMBRIDGE ENTERPRISE (2009) About Us (available at: http://www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk/).
9. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY REPORTER (2001) Ownership of intellectual property rights generated by externally funded research, Cambridge University Reporter 131(No. 16).
10. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY REPORTER (2005) Third Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the ownership of intellectual property rights (IPRs): Notice, Cambridge University Reporter 135(No. 36).
11. CASPER S. and KARMANOS A. (2003) Commercializing science in Europe: the Cambridge biotechnology cluster, European Planning Studies 11, 805-822.
12. CASPER S. and MURRAY F. (2003) Examining the marketplace for ideas: how local are Europe's biotechnology clusters?, in MCKELVEY M. D., RICKNE A. and LAAGE J. (Eds) The Economic Dynamics of Modern Biotechnology. Edward Elgar, London.
13. CHAPPLE W., LOCKETT A., SIEGEL D. and WRIGHT M. (2005) Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence, Research Policy 34, 369-384.
14. CHARLES D. and CONWAY C. (2001) Higher Education-Business Interaction Survey, Report to the UK Higher Education Funding Bodies and the Office of Science and Technology, Center for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne.
15. CHATTERTON P. and GODDARD J. (2000) The response of higher education institutions to regional needs, European Journal of Education 35, 475-496.
16. CLARK B. R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford, Pergamon.
17. CLARYSSE B., WRIGHT M., LOCKETT A. and BINKS M. (2005) Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions, Journal of Business Venturing 20, 183-216.
18. COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION (1967) Higher Education Report. Committee on Higher Education Under the Chairmanship of Professor Nevill Mott, Cambridge.
19. COOKE P. (2002) Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters, Journal of Technology Transfer 27, 133-145.
20. COOKE P. and MORGAN K. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
21. DEARING R. S. (1997) The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) Publications Centre, London (available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe).
22. DI GREGORIO D. and SHANE S. (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?, Research Policy 32, 209-227.
23. DRUILHE C. and GARNSEY E. (2004) Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter?, Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 269-285.
24. DUN & BRADSTREET (2005) D&B Million Dollar Database. Dun & Bradstreet.
25. EASTERN REGION BIOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE (ERBI) (2005-2006) Directory (available at: http://www.erbi.co.uk).
26. ERNST & YOUNG (2005) Beyond Borders: Global Biotechnology Report, 2005. Ernst & Young, London.
27. ERNST & YOUNG LLP (2002) Beyond Borders: The Global Biotechnology Report 2002. Ernst & Young, London.
28. ETZKOWITZ H. (1995) The triple helix-university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development, EASST Review 14, 9-14.
29. ETZKOWITZ H. (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages, Research Policy 27, 823-833.
30. ETZKOWITZ H.,WEBSTER A., GEBHARDT C. and CANTISANO TERRA B.-R. (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy 29, 313-330.
31. FELDMAN M. P. and DESROCHERS P. (2003) Research universities and local economic development: lessons from the history of Johns Hopkins University, Industry and Innovation 10, 5-24.
32. FELSENSTEIN D. (1996) The university in the metropolitan arena: impacts and public policy implications, Urban Studies 33, 1565-1580.
33. FINN V. and LUND J. R. (2006) Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Paper presented at the Science and Policy Research Unit (SPRU) 40th Anniversary Conference, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, UK.
34. FREEMAN C. (1995) The national innovation systems is historical perspective, Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, 5-24.
35. FUJISUE K. (1998) Promotion of academia-industry cooperation in Japan-establishing the 'law of promoting technology transfer from university to industry' in Japan, Technovation 18, 371-381.
36. GARNSEY E. and HEFFERMAN P. (2005) High-technology clustering through spin-out and attraction: the Cambridge case, Regional Studies 39, 1127-1144.
37. GLASSON J. (2003) The widening local and regional development impact of the modern universities-a tale of two cities (and north-south perspectives), Local Economy 18, 21-37.
38. GOLDSTEIN H. A. and RENAULT C. S. (2004) Contributions of universities to regional economic development: a quasi-experimental approach, Regional Studies 38, 733-746.
39. HATAKENAKA S. (2002) Flux and flexibility: a comparative institutional analysis of evolving university-industry relationships in MIT, Cambridge and Tokyo. PhD thesis. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
40. HOLFORD W. and WRIGHT H. M. (1950) Cambridge Planning Proposals: A Report to the Cambridgeshire County Council. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41. ISIS (2009) Spin Out Companies. ISIS, University of Oxford, Oxford.
42. KEEBLE D. (2001) University and Technology: Science and Technology Parks in the Cambridge Region. Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
43. KEEBLE D., LAWSON C.,MOORE B. andWILKINSON F. (1999) Collective learning processes, networking and 'institutional thickness' in the Cambridge region, Regional Studies 33, 319-332.
44. KENNEY M. (1986) Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
45. KENNEY M. and GOE R. W. (2004) The role of social embeddedness in professional entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford, Research Policy 33, 691-707.
46. LAWSON C. and LORENZ E. (1999) Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity, Regional Studies 33, 305-317.
47. LAWTON SMITH H. (2000) Technology Transfer and Industrial Change in Europe. Macmillan, Basingstoke.
48. LAWTON SMITH H. (2006) Universities, Innovation, and the Economy. Routledge, Abingdon.
49. LAWTON SMITH H. (2007) Universities, innovation, and territorial development: a review of the evidence, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25, 98-114.
50. LAWTON SMITH H. and HO K. (2006) Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories' spin-off companies, Research Policy 35, 1554-1568.
51. LAWTON SMITH H., KEEBLE D., LAWSON C.,MOORE B. andWILKINSON F. (2001) University-business interaction in the Oxford and Cambridge Regions, Tijschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 92, 88-99.
52. LERNER J. (2004) The university and the start-up: lessons from the past two decades, Journal of Technology Transfer 30, 49-56.
53. LINK A. and SIEGEL D. (2005) Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer, European Journal of Finance 11, 169-181.
54. LINK A. N. and SCOTT J. T. (2005) Opening the ivory tower's door: an analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies, Research Policy 34, 1106-1112.
55. LITAN R. E., MITCHELL L. and REEDY E. J. (2007) Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches. Working Paper JEL Number 018. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
56. LOCKETT A. and WRIGHT M. (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies, Research Policy 34, 1043-1057.
57. MINSHALL T., DRUILHE C. and PROBERT D. (2004) The evolution of 'Third Mission' activities at the University of Cambridge: balancing strategic and operational considerations. Paper presented at the 12th High-Tech Small Firms Conference, University of Twente, Twente, the Netherlands.
58. MORGAN K. (1997) The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal, Regional Studies 31, 491-503.
59. MOWERY D. C. and SAMPAT B. N. (2001a) Patenting and licensing university inventions: lessons from the history of the research corporation, Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 317-355.
60. MOWERY D. C. and SAMPAT B. N. (2001b) University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980, Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 781-814.
61. MYINT Y. M., VYAKARNAM S. and NEW M. J. (2005) The effect of social capital in new venture creation: the Cambridge hightechnology cluster, Strategic Change 14, 165-177.
62. NELSON R. R. (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
63. O'SHEA R. P., ALLEN T. J., CHEVALIER A. and ROCHE F. (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities, Research Policy 34, 994-1009.
64. OWEN-SMITH J. and POWELL W. (2001) To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success in academic patenting, Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 99-114.
65. OWEN-SMITH J., RICCABONI M., PAMMOLLI F. and POWELL W. W. (2002) A comparison of U.S. and European university-industry relations in the life sciences, Management Science 48, 24-43.
66. PIKE A. (2002) Post-devolution Blues? Economic development in the Anglo-Scottish Borders, Regional Studies 36, 1069-1084.
67. POWELL W. W., OWEN-SMITH J. and COLYVAS J. A. (2007) Innovation and emulation: lessons from the experiences of US universities in selling private rights to public knowledge, Minerva 45, 143-159.
68. PUTNAM R. D., LEONARDI R. and NANETTI R. (1994) Making DemocracyWork: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
69. RAHM D., KIRKLAND J. and BOZEMAN B. (2000) University-Industry R&D Collaboration in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
70. ROBERTS E. B. and MALONE D. E. (1996) Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations, R&D Management 26, 17-48.
71. SAINSBURY, LORD (1999) Biotechnology Clusters. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), London.
72. SEGAL QUINCE & PARTNERS (1985) The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town. Segal Quince & Partners, Cambridge.
73. SEGAL QUINCE WICKSTEED (2000) The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited. Segal Quince Wicksteed, Histon.
74. SHANE S. (2002) Selling university technology: patterns from MIT, Management Science 48, 122-137.
75. SHANE S. (2004) Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
76. SIEGEL D. S. and PHAN H. P. (2005) Analysing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: implications for entrepreneurship education, in LIBECAP D. G. (Ed.) University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process, Design, and Intellectual Property, pp. 1-38. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
77. SIEGEL D. S., WALDMAN D., ATWATER L. E. and LINK A. N. (2003) Improving the effectiveness of commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms, Journal of High Technology Management Research 14, 111-133.
78. SOLOMON J. (2005) The cluster of Cambridge, in CHIESA V. and CHIARONI D. (Eds) Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology, pp. 49-66. Imperial College Press, London.
79. THE TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION (2004) World university rankings, The Times Higher Education (available at: http://www.thes.co. uk/worldrankings).
80. VAN EVERA S. (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
81. ZUCKER L. G., DARBY M. R. and ARMSTRONG J. S. (2002) Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology, Management Science 48, 138-153.
82. ZUCKER L. G., DARBY M. R. and PENG Y. (1998) Fundamentals or Population Dynamics and the Geographic Distribution of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises, 1976-1989. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.