The American experience in university technology transfer

Learning to Compete in European Universities: From Social Institution to Knowledge Business

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 161-186

  Feldman, Maryann P ^a   Breznitz, Shiri M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881943740     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781848446106.00014     Document Type: Chapter

References (63)

1. Apple, R.D. (1989), ‘Patenting university research: Harry Steenbock and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’, ISIS, 80, 375-94.
2. Association of University Technology Managers (2007), ‘Building a Stronger Economy: Profiles of 25 Companies Rooted in Academic Research’, Technology Transfer Works: 100 Innovations from Academic Research to Real-World Application’, Better World Report series.
3. Barnes, M., D.C. Mowery and A.A. Ziedonis (1997), ‘The geographic reach of market and nonmarket channels of technology transfer: comparing citations and licenses of university patents’, conference paper prepared for the Academy of Management annual meeting, Boston, MA.
4. Bercovitz, J. and M. Feldman (2008), ‘Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level’, Organization Science, 19 (1), 69-89.
5. Bercovitz, J. and M. Feldman (2007b), ‘Fishing upstream: firm innovation strategy and university research alliances’, Research Policy 36, 930-48.
6. Bercovitz, J., M. Feldman, I. Feller and R. Burton (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.
7. Blumenstyk, G. (2001), ‘Turning patent royalties into a sure thing’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 October.
8. Breznitz, S.M. (2000), ‘The geography of industrial districts: why does the biotechnology industry in Massachusetts cluster in Cambridge?', master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
9. Breznitz, Shiri M. (2007), ‘What’s wrong with technology transfer model adaptation?'
10. Breznitz, Shiri M., Rory P. O’Shea and Thomas J Allen (2008), ‘University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (3), 129-42.
11. Casper, S. and A. Karmanos (2003), ‘Commercializing science in Europe: the Cambridge biotechnology cluster’, European Planning Studies 11, 805-22.
12. Colyvas, J., M. Crow, A. Gelijns, R. Mazzoleni, R. R. Nelson, N. Rosenberg and B. N. Sampat (2002), ‘How do university inventions get into practice?, Management Science, 48 (1), 61-72.
13. Di Gregorio, D. and Shane, S. (2003), ‘Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?', Research Policy, 32: 209-27.
14. Etzkowitz, H. (1995), ‘The triple helix-university-industry-government relations:a laboratory for knowledge based economic development’, EASST Review. 14, 9-14.
15. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt and B.R.C. Terra (2000), ‘The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’, Research Policy, 29 (2), 313-30.
16. Feldman, M. and R. Owens (2007), ‘Bringing science to life: introduction to the special issue’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 127-30.
17. Feldman, M. and H. Schipper (2007), ‘Bringing science to life: an overview of countries outside of North America’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 297-302.
18. Feldman, M.P., I. Feller, J.E.L. Bercovitz and R.M. Burton (2002), ‘Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities’, Management ScienceI, 48, 105-21.
19. Garnsey, E. and P. Hefferman (2005), ‘High-technology clustering through spin-out and attraction: the Cambridge case’, Regional Studies, 39 (8), 1127-44.
20. Geiger, R.L. (1986), To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940, New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Geiger, R.L. (1988), ‘Milking the sacred cow: research and the quest for useful knowledge in the American university since 1920', Science, Technology, & Human Values, 13, 332-48.
22. Gunderman, R.D. and J.M. Hammond (2007), ‘File now, pay later’, IEEE Spectrum, 44 (6), 77-8.
23. IASP International Board (2002), ‘About science and technology parks - definitions’, accessed 6 February at www.iasp.ws.
24. Investorwords.com (2006), ‘Definition’, accessed 8 April, 2008 at www.investorwords. com/2418/incubator.html.
25. Jaffe, Adam B. and Josh Lerner (2004), Innovation and its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What To Do About It, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Jensen, R.A., J.G. Thursby and M.C. Thursby (2003), ‘Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: “The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with” ', International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1271-300.
27. Levin, S.G. and P.E. Stephan (1991), ‘Research productivity over the life cycle:evidence for academic scientists’, American Economic Review, 81, 114-32.
28. Link, A. and D. Siegel (2005), ‘Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer’, European Journal of Finance, 11, 169-81.
29. Litan, R.E., L. Mitchell and E.J. Reedy (2007), ‘Commercializing university innovations:alternative approaches’, NBER working paper JEL no. 018.
30. Markusen, Ann R. (1991), The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial America, New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Massey, Doreen, Paul Quintas and David Wield (1992), High-Tech Fantasies:Science Parks in Society, Science and Space, London and New York: Routledge.
32. MIT Industial Liaison Program (2007), Consortia, accessed November at http://ilpwww. mit.edu.
33. Mowery, D.C. and B.N. Sampat (2001a), ‘Patenting and licensing university inventions:lessons from the history of the research corporation’, Industrial & Corporate Change, 10, 317-55.
34. Mowery, D.C. and B.N. Sampat (2001b), ‘University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980', Industrial & Corporate Change 10, 781-814.
35. Mowery, D., R.R. Rosenberg, B.N. Sampat and A.A. Ziedonis (1999), ‘The effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. university research and technology transfer’, in L.M Branscomb, F. Kodoma and R.L. Florida (eds), Industrializing Knowledge:University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
36. National Science Foundation (2005), ‘Table 31: R&D expenditures at universities and colleges, by source of funds FY 2005'. accessed September at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics.
37. National Science Foundation (2005a), National Science Foundation Website, accessed September at www.nsf.gov.
38. National Science Foundation (2005b), ‘R&D expenditures at universities and colleges, by source of funds FY 1953-2005', accessed September at www.nsf.gov.
39. National Science Foundation (2007), ‘Info brief: universities report stalled growth in deferal R&D funding in FY 2006', accessed November at www.nsf.gov.
40. National Science Foundation (2007), ‘US R&D expenditures 2006', accessed November at www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07317/.
41. Nelsen, Lita (2003), ‘The role of university technology transfer operations in assuring access to medicines and vaccines in developing countries’, Yale Journal of Health, Policy, Law and Ethics, III (2), 301-8.
42. Nelson, R.R. (2001), ‘Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 (1-2), 13-19.
43. Owen-Smith, J. and W.W. Powell (2001), ‘To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success in academic patenting’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99-114.
44. Powell, W.W. and J. Owen-Smith (1998), ‘Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 227-53.
45. Press, E. and J. Washburn (2000), The Kept University, Boston, MA: Atlantic Monthly Group.
46. Rahm, Diane, John Kirkland and Barry Bozeman (2000), University-Industry R&D Collaboration in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47. Raider, H. (1998), ‘Repeated exchange and evidence of trust in the substance contract’, working paper, Columbia University.
48. Research Corporation (2007), ‘About us’, accessed at www.rescorp.org.
49. Rothaermel, F.T. and M.C. Thursby (2005), ‘University-incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance’, Research Policy, 34, 305-20.
50. Sampat, B.N. (2006), ‘Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole’, Research Policy, 35, 772-89.
51. Segal Quince Wicksteed (1985), The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town, 3rd edn 1990, Cambridge: Segal Quince Wicksteed.
52. Segal Quince Wicksteed (2000), The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited, Histon:Segal Quince Wicksteed.
53. Shane, Scott (2004), Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
54. Sharon, A. (1994), ‘Fostering technology transfer through industry-university cooperation: a practitioner’s view at MIT’, Empirica, 21, 285-296.
55. Slaughter Sheila and Larry L. Leslie (1997), Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
56. Strout, E. (2007), ‘Harvard’s endowment grows to $34.9-billion’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, p. A38.
57. Thursby, J.G. and M.C. Thursby (2000), ‘Industry perspectives on licensing university technologies: sources and problems’, Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12, 9-23.
58. Thursby, J.G. and M.C. Thursby (2003), ‘Intellectual property: enhanced:‘University licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act’, Science, 301, 1052.
59. Thursby, Jerry G. and Marie C. Thursby (2006), Here or There? A Survey of Factors in Multinational R&D Location, report to the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR), Washington D.C: National Academies Press.
60. Thursby, J.G., R. Jensen and M.C. Thursby (2001), ‘Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.
61. US House of Representatives (2007), ‘Testimony of Susan B. Butts, Senior Director, External Science and Technology Programs, The Dow Chemical Company, before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, Bayh-Dole - The Next 25 Years’, accessed at http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:_oXKKmzF31MJ:gop. science.house.gov/hearings/ets 07/July%252017/Butts.pdf+Susan+Butts+July+1 7+testimony+to+Congress&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a.
62. US Patent and Trademark Office (2007), General Information Concerning Patents, Washington, DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.
63. Zacks, R. (2000), ‘The TR university research scorecard’, accessed at www.techreview. com/articles/july00/zacks.htm