Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 979-1076

  Gerbin, Ani ^a   Drnovsek, Mateja ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RIJEKA   (Croatia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Academia industry; Determinants; Implications; Knowledge transfer; Life sciences

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC POLICY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS; DETERMINANTS; IMPLICATIONS; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER PERFORMANCE; LIFE-SCIENCES; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY INTERACTION;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EID: 84949554681     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-015-9457-0     Document Type: Article

References (159)

1. Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422.
2. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
3. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
4. Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Does policy influence the commercialization route? Evidence from national institutes of health funded scientists. Research Policy, 39(5), 583–588.
5. Arundel, A., Es-Sadki, N., Barjak, F., Perrett, P., Samuel, O., & Lilischkis, S. (2013). Knowledge transfer study 2010–2012—Final Report. European Commission: Brussels.
6. Aschhoff, B., & Grimpe, C. (2014). Contemporaneous peer effects, career age and the industry involvement of academics in biotechnology. Research Policy, 43(2), 367–381.
7. Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.
8. Audretsch, D., & Stephan, P. (1996). Company scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 641–652.
9. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1999). Knowledge spillovers in biotechnology: Sources and incentives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(1), 97–107.
10. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2006). The Impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (Public) research. Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 637–676.
11. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: demographics or opportunities. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63(4), 599–623.
12. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.
13. Baldini, N. (2008). Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics, 75(2), 289–311.
14. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.
15. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research—a systematic review. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454–465.
16. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.
17. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & 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(1–2), 21–35.
18. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. C., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a National Survey of Faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1224–1228.
19. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1996). Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine, 335(23), 1734–1739.
20. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., et al. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine, 81(2), 137–145.
21. Boardman, P., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(8), 142–153.
22. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.
23. Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39(1), 14–26.
24. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2008). University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review, 5(2), 91–109.
25. Buenstorf, G. (2009). Is academic entrepreneurship good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck society. Research Policy, 38(2), 281–292.
26. Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36(3), 303–319.
27. Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(4), 473–480.
28. Campbell, E. G., Powers, J. B., Blumenthal, D., & Biles, B. (2004). Inside the Triple Helix: Technology transfer and commercialization in the life sciences. Health Affairs, 23(1), 64–76.
29. Campbell, E. C., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29(2), 303–312.
30. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European University. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.
31. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A.-C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States Universities—A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1/2), 199–232.
32. Caulfield, T., & Ogbogu, U. (2008). Biomedical research and commercialization Agenda: A review of main considerations for neuroscience. Accountability in Research, 15(4), 303–320.
33. Caulfield, T., Ogbogu, U., Murdoch, C., & Einsiedel, E. (2008). Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community. Regenerative Medicine, 3(4), 483–496.
34. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of UK University Technology Transfer Offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.
35. Colyvas, J. A. (2007). from divergent meanings to common practices: the early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University. Research Policy, 36(4), 456–476.
36. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2000). How Do University Inventions Get into Practice? Conference on University-Industry Linkages, Georgia Tech.
37. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.
38. Crespi, G., D’este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2008). The impact of Academic Patenting on University research and its transfer. Research Policy, 40(1), 55–68.
39. Crespi, G. A., Geuna, A., Nomalere, Ö., & Verspagen, B. (2010). University IPRs and Knowledge transfer. Is University ownership more efficient? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7), 627–648.
40. Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26–34.
41. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.
42. Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2011). Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of University patenting on the conduct of Academic Research in the Life Sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 14–37.
43. Davis, L., & Lotz, P. (2006). Academic-Business Cooperations in Biotechnology. Who Cooperates with Firms, and Why? Biotech Business Working Paper No. 06-2006.
44. Del-Palacio, I., Sole, F., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2008). University entrepreneurship centres as service businesses. Service Industries Journal, 28(7), 939–951.
45. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.
46. Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. A. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34(7), 1091–1105.
47. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘Quasi-Firms’: The invention of the Entrepreneurial University. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.
48. European Commission. (2007). Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission.
49. European Commission. (2008). Commission recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and code of practice for universities and other public research organizations. Brussels: European Commission.
50. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. (2003). Accelerating technology transfer and commercialization in the life and health sciences. www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/TechTranPanel_Report.pdf. Accessed 03.07.2010.
51. Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914–931.
52. Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP System? Business Creation in Academia. Research Policy, 39(8), 1060–1069.
53. Forti, E., Franzoni, C., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Bridges or isolates? Investigating the social networks of academic inventors. Research Policy, 42(8), 1378–1388.
54. Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.
55. Gaughan, M., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Science faculty at US Research Universities: The impacts of University Research Center-Affiliation and Gender on Industrial Activities. Technovation, 30(3), 215–222.
56. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on Academic Research: The Emerging European Evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.
57. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to University IPR regulations in Europe and the Impact on Academic Patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068–1076.
58. Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy, 39(6), 748–761.
59. Gluck, M. E., Blumenthal, D., & Stoto, M. A. (1987). University industry relationships in the life sciences—Implications for Students and Post-Doctoral Fellows. Research Policy, 16(6), 327–336.
60. Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). Impact of collaborative research on academic science. Science and Public Policy, 27(1), 65–73.
61. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 640–658.
62. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.
63. Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41–54.
64. Haeussler, C., Jiang, L., Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2014). Specific and general information sharing among competing academic researchers. Research Policy, 43(3), 465–475.
65. Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., et al. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423–434.
66. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.
67. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.
68. Heslop, L. A., Mcgregor, E., & Griffith, M. (2001). Development of a technology readiness assessment measure: The cloverleaf model of technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(4), 369–384.
69. Hicks, D., & Hamilton, K. (1999). Does University-industry collaboration adversely affect university research? Issues in Science and Technology, 15(4), 74–75.
70. Hoedemaekers, R. (2001). Commercialization, patents and moral assessment of biotechnology products. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 26(3), 273–284.
71. Hong, W., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). For Money or Glory? Commercialization, competition, and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university. The Sociological Quarterly, 50(1), 145–171.
72. Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. Kyklos, 64(4), 534–555.
73. Jacobsson, S., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, A., & Elg, L. (2013). Is the commercialization of european academic R&D Weak?-A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses. Research Policy, 42(4), 874–885.
74. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or Entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.
75. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
76. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). The 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(9), 1271–1300.
77. Jong, S. (2008). Academic organizations and new industrial fields: Berkeley and Stanford after the rise of biotechnology. Research Policy, 37(8), 1267–1282.
78. Jonjic, T. (2010). Juggling between open science and the market: Public science responses to the patentability of biomedical research tools. Periodicum Biologorum, 112(4), 381–390.
79. Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at Uc Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33(5), 691–707.
80. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422.
81. Kneller, R. (2001). Technology transfer: A review for biomedical researchers. Clinical Cancer Research, 7(4), 761–774.
82. Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947–956.
83. Kruecken, G. (2003). Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46(3), 315–339.
84. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 252–264.
85. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Saihi, M. (2007). Patenting and spin-off creation by Canadian researchers in engineering and life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 217–249.
86. Large, D., Belinko, K., & Kalligatsi, K. (2000). Building successful technology commercialization teams: Pilot empirical support for the theory of cascading commitment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 169–180.
87. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.
88. Lerner, P. (2004). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 49–56.
89. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics, 83(2), 355–362.
90. Lin, M.-W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in University-Industry Research Centres: A “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” explanation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290.
91. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. The European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–181.
92. Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34(7), 981–993.
93. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.
94. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in Academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.
95. Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 233–245.
96. Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., & Campbell, E. (2002). Sharing in Science. American Scientist, 90(4), 304.
97. Lowe, R. A., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity: A first look. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 173–194.
98. Malik, T. H. (2013). National institutional differences and cross-border university—industry knowledge transfer. Research Policy, 42(3), 776–787.
99. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.
100. Markman, G. D., Gianodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 353–364.
101. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Vontunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.
102. Mazzoleni, R., & Nelson, R. R. (1998). The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27(3), 273–284.
103. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.
104. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy, 31(3), 399–418.
105. Murray, F. (2002). Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1389–1403.
106. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.
107. 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(4), 648–687.
108. Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 67–80.
109. Nelson, A. J. (2014). From the Ivory Tower to the startup garage: Organizational context and commercialization processes. Research Policy, 43(7), 1144–1156.
110. Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1391–1410.
111. Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333–359.
112. Oliver, A. L. (2004). Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations. Research Policy, 33(4), 583–597.
113. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US Universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.
114. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001a). Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work, 10, 109–140.
115. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001b). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 99–114.
116. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711.
117. Palmintera, D. (2005). Accelerating economic development through University Technology Transfer. www.innovationassoc.com/docs/CT_NatRpt.ExSumm.pdf. Accessed 19.08.2009.
118. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., Mckelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostrom, A., D’este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
119. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell.
120. Powers, J. B. (2004). R&D funding sources and university technology transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial? Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 1–23.
121. Powers, J. B., & Mcdougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291–311.
122. Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical test. Technovation, 30(5–6), 332–347.
123. Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2003). Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. American Scientist, 91(1), 52–59.
124. Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Vontunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.
125. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of University Departments on the Evolution of Entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43(1), 92–106.
126. Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.
127. Rodriguez, V., Janssens, F., Debackere, K., & De Moor, B. (2007a). Do material transfer agreements affect the choice of research agendas? The case of biotechnology in Belgium. Scientometrics, 71(2), 239–269.
128. Rodriguez, V., Janssens, F., Debackere, K., & Demoor, B. (2007b). Material transfer agreements and collaborative publication activity: The case of a biotechnology network. Research Evaluation, 16(2), 123–136.
129. Rogers, E. M., Yin, Y., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12(1), 47–80.
130. Rosell, C., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Have university knowledge flows narrowed? Evidence from Patent Data. Research Policy, 38(1), 1–13.
131. Rosenberg, N. (1998). Chemical engineering as a general purpose technology. In: Helpman, E. (Ed.), General purpose technologies and economic growth. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 167–192. In Czarnitzki, D., Glänzela, W. & Hussingere, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26–34.
132. Sampat, B. N., Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2003). Changes in University Patent Quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: A Re-Examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1371–1390.
133. Schuelke-Leech, B. A. (2013). Resources and research: An empirical study of the influence of departmental research resources on individual stem researchers involvement with industry. Research Policy, 42(9), 1667–1678.
134. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.
135. Shane, S. (2002). Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 122–137.
136. Shane, S., & Somaya, D. (2007). the effects of patent litigation on University licensing efforts. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63(4), 739–755.
137. Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of University Start-Ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.
138. Shibayama, S. (2012). Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 508–531.
139. Shibayama, S., Walsh, J. P., & Baba, Y. (2012). Academic entrepreneurship and exchange of scientific resources: Material transfer in life and materials sciences in Japanese Universities. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 804–830.
140. 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(1–2), 115–142.
141. Siegel, D. S., Waldmann, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.
142. Stephan, P., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A., & Black, G. (2007). Who’s patenting in the University? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 71–99.
143. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–114.
144. Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2014). In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy, 43(7), 1189–1203.
145. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of University licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–72.
146. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.
147. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of growth in University Licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.
148. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 207–213.
149. Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2010). Commercializing Science: Is there a university “Brain Drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science, 56(9), 1599–1614.
150. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or Merely Co-Existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608.
151. Van Looy, B., Callaert, M., Debackere, K., & Verbeek, A. (2003). Patent related indicators for assessing knowledge-generating institutions: Towards a contextualized approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 53–61.
152. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., Van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European Universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564.
153. Van Looy, B., Ranga, L. M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in Academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.
154. Vogeli, C., Yucel, R., Bendavid, E., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., et al. (2006). Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine, 81(2), 128–136.
155. Walsh, J. P., Arora, A., & Cohen, W. M. (2003). Research Tool Patenting and Licensing and Biomedical Innovation. In W. Cohen & S. Merrill (Eds.), Patents in the knowledge-based economy (pp. 285–340). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
156. Walsh, J. P., Cohen, W. M., & Cho, C. (2007). Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in Academic biomedical research. Research Policy, 36(8), 1184–1203.
157. Walsh, J. P., & Huang, H. (2014). Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists. Research Policy, 43(2), 245–260.
158. Warren, A., Hanke, R., & Trotzer, D. (2008). Models for University Technology Transfer: Resolving conflicts between mission and methods and the dependency on geographic location. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society, 1(2), 219–232.
159. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93(23), 12709–12716.