Furthering America's research enterprise

Furthering America's Research Enterprise

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 1-200

  Celeste, Richard F ^a   Griswold, Ann ^b   Straf, Miron L ^c  

^a Department of Psychology   (United States)

^b National Research Council ^*

^c NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84989180866     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.17226/18804     Document Type: Book

References (229)

1. Abrams, I., Leung, G., and Stevens, A.J. (2009). How are U.S. technology transfer offices tasked and motivated: Is it all about the money? Research Management Review, 17(1), 1-34.
2. Access Economics. (2003). Exceptional Returns: The Value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia. Canberra: Australian Society for Medical Research.
3. Access Economics. (2008). Exceptional Returns: The Value of Investing in Health R&D in Australia II. Canberra: Australian Society for Medical Research.
4. Adams, J. (2009). The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 1, 19-32.
5. Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office. (2013). National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design. Gaithersburg, MD: National Science and Technology Council. Available: http://manufacturing.gov/docs/NNMI_prelim_design.pdf [April 2014].
6. Advanced Technology Program. (2005). Survey of ATP Applicants 2002. GCR 05-876. Washington, DC: Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available: http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/2002survey/contents.htm [February 2014].
7. Alberts, B. (2013). Editorial: Impact factor distortions. Science, 340(6134), 787.
8. Alberts, B., Kirschner, M.W., Tilghman, S., and Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing U.S. biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(16), 5773-5777.
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2013). Guide to R&D Funding Data: Historical Data. Available: http://www.aaas.org/page/guide-rd-funding-data- %E2%80%93-historical-data [December 2013].
10. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2013). Historical Trends in Federal R&D. AAAS R&D analyses of OMB and agency R&D budget data (includes conduct of R&D and R&D facilities). Available: http://www.aaas.org/page/historial-trendsfederal- rd. [June 2014].
11. Amsden, A. (1989). Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Australian Government. (2011). Improvements to Excellence in Research for Australia. Available: http://minister.innovation.gov.au/carr/mediareleases/pages/improvementsto excellenceinresearchforaustralia.aspx [December 2013].
13. Australian Research Council. (2008). ERA Indicator Descriptors. Canberra: Author.
14. Azoulay, P., Graff, Z.J., and Manso, G. (2010). Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences. Available: http://pazoulay.scripts.mit.edu/docs/hhmi.pdf [December 2013].
15. Battelle. (2013). Updated Battelle Study Shows that the Genetics and Genomics Industry in the U.S. Has a Trillion Dollar Impact. Press Release. Available: http://battelle.org/media/pressreleases/ updated-battelle-study-genetics-and-genomics-industry [December 2013].
16. Belkhodja, O., Amara, N., Landry, R., and Ouimet, M. (2007). The extent and organizational determinants of research utilization in Canadian health services organizations. Science Communication, 28, 377-417.
17. Bellis, M. (2013). History of the Microscope. Available: http://inventors.about.com/od/ mstartinventions/a/microscope_2.htm [September 2013].
18. Benhabib, J, and Spiegel, M.M. (2005). Human capital and technology diffusion. In P. Aghion and S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (Ed. 1, Vol. 1, Ch. 13, pp. 935-966). Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.
19. Bloom, N., and van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, real options, and firm performance. Economic Journal, 112, 97-116.
20. Blumenstyk, G. (2012). U. of Maryland to count patents and commercialization in tenure reviews. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available: http://chronicle.com/article/ U-of-Maryland-to-Count/132261/ [May 2014].
21. Bonney, R., Shirk, J.L., Phillips, T.B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H.L., Miller-Rushing, A.J., and Parrish, J.K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343, 1436-1437.
22. Brice, P. (2013). Billion [sic] dollar impact of the Human Genome Project? PHG Foundation News. Available: http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/14104/ [December 2013].
23. Broad, W. (2014). Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science. New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-withbig- ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=1 [May 2014].
24. Buchanan, A. (2013). Impact and knowledge mobilization: What I have learnt as Chair of the Economic and Social Research Council Evaluation Committee. Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 8(3), 176-190.
25. Burns, D.D. (1999). Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. New York: Harper Collins.
26. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The Endless Frontier. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/ vbush1945.htm [December 2013].
27. Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications: The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143-155.
28. Buxton, M., Hanney, S., and Jones, T. (2004). Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: A critical review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82(10), 733-739.
29. Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. (2009). Making an Impact: A Preferred Framework and Indicators to Measure Returns on Investment in Health Research. Ottawa, ON: Author.
30. Chang, H-J. (2008). Kicking Away the Ladder: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. New York: Bloomsbury.
31. Chubin, D.E., Derrick, E., Feller, I., and Phartiyal, P. (2010). AAAS Review of the NSF Science and Technology Centers Integrative Partnerships (STC) Program, 2000-2009. Final Report. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available: http://php.aaas.org/programs/centers/capacity/documents/stc_aaas_full_report. pdf [February 2014].
32. Coffee, T., Dahlburg, J., and Zimet, E. (2005). The S&T Innovation Conundrum. Center for Technology and National Security Policy. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press. Available: http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA450194 [May 2014].
33. Cooper, R.G. (1986). Winning at New Products: Creating Value Through Innovation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34. Corrado, C., Hulten C., and Sichel, D. (2006). Intangible Capital and Economic Growth. Working Paper No. 11948. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11948 [May 2014].
35. Council of Canadian Academies. (2012). Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment. The Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding. Ottawa, ON: Author.
36. Council of Canadian Academies. (2014). Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada. The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction. Ottawa, ON: Author. Available: http:// www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx [August 2014].
37. Darby, M., and Zucker, L. (2003). Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology. Working Paper No. 9825. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
38. Dawid, A.P., Faigman, D.L., and Fienberg, S.E. (2013). Fitting science into legal contexts: Assessing effects of causes or causes of effects? Sociological Methods & Research. Available: http://smr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/23/0049124113515188 [August 2014].
39. Dehning, B., and Richardson, V. (2002). Returns on investments in information technology: A research synthesis. Journal of Information Systems, 16, 7-30.
40. Ding, W.W., and Choi, E. (2011). Divergent paths to commercial science: A comparison of scientists' founding and advising activities. Research Policy, 40, 69-80.
41. Donovan, C., and Butler, L. (2007). Testing novel quantitative indicators of research "quality," esteem and "user engagement": An economics pilot study. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 231-242.
42. Economic and Social Research Council. (2009). Taking Stock. A Summary of ESRC's Work to Evaluate the Impact of Research on Policy and Practice. Swindon, UK: Author.
43. Economic and Social Research Council. (2012). Knowledge Exchange Opportunities Scheme. Swindon, UK: Author.
44. The Economist. (2011). How a new manufacturing technology will change the world. The Economist. Available: http://www.economist.com/node/18114327 [April 2014].
45. Evaluation Associates, Ltd. (1999). Interdisciplinary Research and the Research Assessment Exercise. Bristol, UK: Higher Education Funding Council of England.
46. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. (2009). Entrepreneurial Impact: The Role of MIT. Kansas City, MO: Author. Available: http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/ research/2009/08/entrepreneurial-impact-the-role-of-mit [December 2013].
47. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. (2012). University Technology Transfer Through Entrepreneurship: Faculty and Students in Spinoffs. Kansas City, MO: Author. Available: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/University-technology-transfer-throughentrepreneurship- faculty-and-students-in-spinoffs.PDF [December 2013].
48. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London, UK: Pinter.
49. Freeman, R.B., and van Reenen, J. (2008). Be careful what you wish for: A cautionary tale about budget doubling. Issues in Science and Technology, (Fall), 27-31.
50. Gardiner, B. (2012). Glass Works: How Corning Created the Ultrathin, Ultrastrong Material of the Future. Available: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/ff-corning-gorillaglass/ all/ [December 2013].
51. Gertner, J. (2012). The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. New York: Penguin Press.
52. Golden Goose Award. (2014). The Maser. Available: http://www.goldengooseaward.org/ portfolio-view/the-maser/ [January 2014].
53. Gordon, R.J. (2014). The Demise of U.S. Economic Growth: Restatement, Rebuttal, and Reflections. Working Paper No. 19895. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19895 [April 2014].
54. GOV.cn. (2010). China Aims to Increase Talent Pool. Available: http://www.gov.cn/ english/2010-06/07/content_1622015.htm [April 2014].
55. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. (2012). Reimagining the University. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: http://sites.national academies.org/PGA/guirr/PGA_081002 [April 2014].
56. Graham, M. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341, 1455-1456.
57. Griffith, R., Redding, S., and van Reenen, J. (2001). Measuring the cost-effectiveness of an R&D tax credit for the UK. Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 22(3), 375-399.
58. Griffith, R., Harrison, R., and van Reenen, J. (2004). How Special is the Special Relationship?: Using the Impact of R&D Spillovers on UK Firms as a Test of Technology Sourcing. Discussion Paper No. 659. London, UK: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science.
59. Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, 25(4), 501-522.
60. Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 92-116.
61. Griliches, Z. (1980). Returns to research and development expenditures in the private sector. In J.W. Kendrick and B.N. Vaccara (Eds.), New Developments in Productivity Measurement (pp. 419-462). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62. Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(Suppl.), 29-47.
63. Griliches, Z. (1994). Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint. American Economic Review, 84(1), 1-23.
64. Guellec, D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2001). R&D and productivity growth: Panel data analysis of 16 OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies, 33(2), 103-126.
65. Guellec, D., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2004). From R&D to productivity growth: Do the institutional settings and the source of funds of R&D matter? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), 353-378.
66. Guthrie, S., Wamae, W., Diepeveen, S., Wooding, S., and Grant, J. (2013). Measuring Research: A Guide to Research Evaluation Frameworks and Tools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1217.html [December 2013].
67. Hall, B.H. (1996). The private and social returns to research and development. In B. Smith and C. Barfield (Eds.), Technology, R&D, and the Economy (pp. 140-183). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute.
68. Hall, B.H. (2005). Measuring the returns to R&D: The depreciation problem. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, (79-80), 341-381.
69. Hall, B.H., Mairesse, J., and Mohnen. P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In B.H. Hall and N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (pp. 1034-1076). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
70. Hall, M.J., Layson, S.K., and Link, A.N. (2014). The returns to R&D: Division of Policy Research and Analysis at the National Science Foundation. Science and Public Policy, 41, 458-463.
71. Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, and RAND Europe. (2008). Medical Research: What's it Worth? Estimating the Economic Benefits from Medical Research in the UK. London: UK Evaluation Forum.
72. Higher Education Funding Council of England. (1997). The Impact of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise on Higher Education Institutions in England. London: Higher Education Funding Council of England.
73. Hughes, A., and Martin, B. (2012). Enhancing Impact: The Value of Public Sector R&D. Cambridge: UK Innovation Research Centre. Available: http://ukirc.ac.uk/docs/CIHE_enhancing_ Impact_Report.pdf [December 2013].
74. Ittelson, T., and Nelsen, L. (2003). Incubation without walls. Nature Biotechnology. Available: http://www.nature.com/bioent/2003/030101/full/nbt0602supp-BE26.html [June 2014].
75. Jacob, B.A., and Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1168-1177.
76. Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
77. Johnson, A. (2007). Insulin flop costs Pfizer $2.8 billion. The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119269071993163273.html [December 2013].
78. Kerwin, J., and Campbell, S. (2007). Findings from the Advanced Technology Program's Survey of ATP Applicants 2004. GCR 07-908. Washington, DC: Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available: http://www.atp.nist.gov/ eao/gcr07-908.pdf [December 2013].
79. Lal, B., Wilson, A.G., Jonas, S., Lee, E.C., Richards, A.M., and Peña, V.I. (2012). An Outcome Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director's Pioneer Award (NDPA) Program, FY 2004-2006. IDA Paper P-4899. Washington, DC: IDA Science and Technology Institute. Available: https://www.ida.org/upload/stpi/pdfs/ida-paper-p-4899%20 final.pdf [December 2013].
80. Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. The New Yorker, 86(40), 52f. Available: http://www. newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?printable=true¤t Page=all#ixzz28FPzQ66V [April 2014].
81. Lichtenberg, F. (2013). The Impact of Biomedical Knowledge Accumulation on Mortality: A Bibliometric Analysis of Cancer Data. Working Paper No. 19593. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
82. Little, R. (2011). A letter in response to Jonah Lehrer's article (December 13, 2010). The New Yorker. Available: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2011/01/10/110110mama_ mail3?printable=true#ixzz1zCstZ6If [December 2013].
83. Lundvall, B-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
84. Manca, F. (2011). The Farthest Needs the Best. Human Capital Composition and Development Specific Economic Growth. Working Paper No. 201117. Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics.
85. Mansfield, E. (1965). Rates of return from industrial research and development. American Economic Review, 70, 863-873.
86. Martin, B.R., and Tang, P. (2006). The Benefits from Publicly Funded Research. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex, Science and Technology Policy Research. Available: http://www. erawatch-network.eu/reports/sewp161.pdf [December 2013].
87. Mazzucato, M. (2011). The Entrepeneurial State. London: Demos.
88. McGrath, R.G., and Nerkar, A. (2004). Real options reasoning and a new look at the R&D investment strategies of pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1-21.
89. McNay, I. (1998). The RAE and after: "You never know how it will all turn out." Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 2(1), 19-22.
90. Meadows, D.H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
91. Merrill, S.A. (2013). A perpetual imbalance? Federal funding of physical sciences and engineering research. Issues in Science and Technology, 1, 87-89.
92. Metcalfe, S. (1995). The economic foundations of technology policy: Equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change (pp. 409-512). Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
93. Miller, C.J., Nichol, R.C., and Batuski, D.J. (2001). Acoustic oscillations in the early universe and today. Science, 292(5525), 2302-2303.
94. Miller, C.J., Genovese, C., Nichol, R.C., Wasserman, L., Connolly, A., Reichart, D., Hopkins, A., Schneider, J., and Moore, A. (2001b). Controlling the false-discovery rate in astrophysical data analysis. The Astronomical Journal, 122(6), 3492-3505.
95. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China. (2007). S&T Statistics Data Book 2007. Beijing: Author. Available: http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/statistics/ 2007/index.htm [December 2013].
96. Moed, H.F., Burger, W.J.M., Frankfort, J.G., and van Raan, A.F.J. (1985). The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics, 8(3-4), 177-203.
97. Mote, C.D., Jr. (2013). Characteristics of Cultures of Innovation. Presentation at Engineering 2.0: Rekindling American Ingenuity, September 11, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Washington, DC. Available: http://www.itif.org/events/ engineering-20-rekindling-american-ingenuity [April 2014].
98. Mowery, D., and Rosenberg, N. (1982). The commercial aircraft industry. In R. Nelson (Ed.), Government and Technical Progress (pp. 101-102). New York: Pergamon.
99. Mowery, D., and Simcoe, T. (2002). Is the Internet a U.S. invention? An economic and technological history of computer networking. Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1369-1387.
100. Murphy, K., and Topel, R. (Eds.). (2003). Measuring the Gains from Medical Research: An Economic Approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
101. Murray, F.E. (2012). Evaluating the Role of Science Philanthropy in American Research Universities. Working Paper No. 18146. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
102. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2012). Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape: Summary of a Summit. S. Olson and J.B. Labov, Rapporteurs. Planning Committee on Evolving Relationships and Dynamics Between Two- and Four-Year Colleges, and Universities. Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Division on Policy and Global Affairs. Board on Life Sciences, Division on Eath and Life Studies. Board on Science Education, Teacher Advisory Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Engineering Education Program Office, National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
103. National Academy of Sciences. (1995). Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
104. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (1993). Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
105. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (1999). Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
106. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2000). Experiments in International Benchmarking of U.S. Research Fields. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
107. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011). Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
108. National Institutes of Health. (2013). Working Group on Approaches to Assess the Value of Biomedical Research Supported by NIH. Bethesda, MD: Author.
109. National Research Council. (2001). Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978-2000. Committee on Benefits of DOE R&D on Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
110. National Research Council. (2005). Measuring Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S. Economy. L.D. Brown, T.J. Plewes, and M.A. Gerstein (Eds.), Panel on Research and Development Statistics at the National Science Foundation, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
111. National Research Council. (2005). Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward. Committee on Prospective Benefits of DOE's Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy R&D Programs, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
112. National Research Council. (2006). A Strategy for Assessing Science: Behavioral and Social Research on Aging. I. Feller and P.C. Stern (Eds.), Committee on Assessing Behavioral and Social Science Research on Aging, Center for Studies of Behavior and Development, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
113. National Research Council. (2007). Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics: The Science of the World Around Us. Committee on CMMP 2010, Solid State Sciences Committee, Board on Physics and Astronomy, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
114. National Research Council. (2007). Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two). Committee on Prospective Benefits of DOE's Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy R&D Programs (Phase Two), Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
115. National Research Council. (2008). Research on Future Skill Demands: A Workshop Summary. M. Hilton, Rapporteur, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
116. National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop Summary. M. Hilton, Rapporteur, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
117. National Research Council. (2010). Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. S.A. Merrill and A.M. Mazza (Eds.), Committee on Management of University Intellectual Property: Lessons from a Generation of Experience, Research, and Dialogue, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, Policy and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
118. National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop. J. Anderson Koenig, Rapporteur, Committee on the Assessment of 21st Century Skills, Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
119. National Research Council. (2011). Measuring the Impacts of Federal Investments in Research: A Workshop Summary. S. Olson and S. Merrill, Rapporteurs, Committee on Measuring Economic and Other Returns on Federal Research Investments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
120. National Research Council. (2012). Continuing Innovation in Information Technology. Committee on Depicting Innovation in Information Technology, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
121. National Research Council. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. J.W. Pellegrino and M.L. Hilton (Eds.), Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
122. National Research Council. (2012). Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation's Prosperity and Security. Committee on Research Universities, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Policy and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
123. National Research Council. (2012). Rising to the Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policy for Global Economy. C.W. Wessner and A.W. Wolff (Eds.), Committee on Comparative National Innovation Policies: Best Practice for the 21st Century, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Policy and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
124. National Research Council. (2012). Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. K. Prewitt, T.A. Schwandt, and M.L. Straf (Eds.), Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
125. National Research Council. (2013). Frontiers in Massive Data Analysis. Committee on the Analysis of Massive Data, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, Board on Mathematical Sciences and Their Applications, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
126. National Research Council. (2013). Managing for High-Quality Science and Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories. Committee to Review the Quality of the Management and of the Science and Engineering Research at the Department of Energy's National Security Laboratories-Phase 1, Laboratory Assessments Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
127. National Research Council. (2013). National Patterns of R&D Resources: Future Directions for Content and Methods: Summary of a Workshop. M.L. Cohen and E. Sinha, Rapporteurs, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
128. National Research Council. (2013). The Quality of Science and Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories. Committee to Review the Quality of the Management and of the Science and Engineering Research at the Department of Energy s National Security Laboratories-Phase II, Laboratory Assessments Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
129. National Research Council. (2013). Workshop on Governance of Risks of Unconventional Shale Gas Development. Board on Environmental Change and Society, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
130. National Research Council. (2013). Workshop on Risks of Unconventional Shale Gas Development. Board on Environmental Change and Society, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
131. National Research Council. (2014). Capturing Change in Science, Technology, and Innovation: Improving Indicators to Inform Policy. R.E. Litan, A.W. Wyckoff, and K.H. Fealing (Eds.), Panel on Developing Science, Technology, and Innovation Indicators for the Future, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Division of Policy and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
132. National Science and Technology Council. (2012). A National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ ostp/iam_advancedmanufacturing_strategicplan_2012.pdf [December 2013].
133. National Science Foundation. (2003). Fact Sheet: A Brief History of NSF and the Internet. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=103050 [January 2014].
134. National Science Foundation. (2007). Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004. Arlington, VA: Author.
135. National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010. Appendix Tables. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/appendix.htm [October 2013].
136. National Science Foundation. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. NSB 12-01. Arlington, VA: Author. Available: http://www.scifun.org/readings/SEind12.pdf [January 2014].
137. National Science Foundation. (2013). Federal Funding for Research Drops by 9% in FY 2011. NSF 13-336. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13336/nsf13336.pdf [April 2014].
138. National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014: Appendix Tables. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/appendix [April 2014].
139. National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and Technology Centers (STCs): Integrative Partnerships. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/od/iia/programs/stc/ [April 2014].
140. National Science Foundation. (2014). U.S. Lead in Science and Technology Shrinking. Press Release 14-022. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_ id=130380&org=NSF&from=news [February 2014].
141. Nelsen, L. (2007). Ten Things Heads of Institutions Should Know about Setting up a Technology Transfer Office. Bangkok, Thailand: Concept Foundation. Available: http://www. iphandbook.org/handbook/ch06/p01/ [April 2014].
142. Nelson, R.R. (Ed.). (1993). National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
143. NobelPrize.org. (2008). Press release. Available: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ chemistry/laureates/2008/press.html [January 2014].
144. OECD. (1997). National Innovation Systems. Paris, France: Author. Available: http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/35/56/2101733.pdf [April 2014].
145. OECD. (2002). The Frascati Manual. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris, France: Author.
146. OECD. (2002). The Global Competition for Talent: Mobility of the Highly Skilled. Paris, France: Author.
147. OECD. (2010). Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings. Paris, France: Author.
148. OECD. (2012). Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives: A Strategic Approach to Skills Policies. Paris, France: Author. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264177338-en [May 2014].
149. OECD. (2012). OECD Science, Technology, Industry Outlook 2012. Paris France: Author. http:// www.oecd.org/sti/oecdsciencetechnologyandindustryoutlook.htm [April 2014].
150. OECD. (2013). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013: United States Highlights. Paris, France: Author. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2013-en [April 2014].
151. Passell, P. (2000). Exceptional Returns: The Economic Value of America's Investment in Medical Research. New York: Lasker Charitable Trust/Funding First. Available: http://www. laskerfoundation.org/media/pdf/exceptional.pdf [April 2014].
152. Patel, P., and Pavitt, K. (1994). The nature and economic importance of national innovation systems. STI Review, 14. Paris, France: OECD.
153. Pisano, G.P., and Shih, W.C. (2012). Producing Prosperity: Why America Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
154. Polenske, K.R., and Rockler, N.O. (2004). Closing the Competitive Gap: A Retrospective Analysis of the ATP 2mm Project. NIST GCR 03-856. Gaithersburg, MD: Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
155. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Transformation and Opportunity: The Future of the U.S. Research Enterprise. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ ostp/pcast_future_research_enterprise_20121130.pdf [June 2014].
156. Qiu, J. (2010). Publish or perish in China. Nature, 463, 142-143.
157. Research Evaluation and Policy Project. (2005). Quantitative Indicators for Research Assessment: A Literature Review. Canberra: Australian National University.
158. The Research Universities Futures Consortium. (2012). The Current Health and Future Well-being of the American University. Washington, DC: Elsevier. Available: http:// www.researchuniversitiesfutures.org/RIM_Report_Research%20Future%27s%20 Consortium%20.pdf [April 2014].
159. Ruttan, V. (2001). Technology, Growth, and Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Rymer, L. (2011). Go8 Backgrounder 23: Measuring the Impact of research-the Context of Metric Development. Turner, Australia: Group of Eight.
160. Rymer, L. (2011). Go8 Backgrounder 23: Measuring the Impact of research-the Context of Metric Development. Turner, Australia: Group of Eight.
161. Salzman, H., Kuehn, D., and Lowell, B.L. (2013). Current and Proposed High-Skilled Guestworker Policies Discourage STEM Students and Grads from Entering IT. Available: http:// www.epi.org/publication/current-proposed-high-skilled-guestworker/ [April 2014 ].
162. Scott, A., Steyn, G., Geuna, A., Brusoni, S., and Steinmueller, E. (2001). The Economic Returns to Basic Research and the Benefits of University-Industry Relationships: A Literature Review and Update of Findings. Brighton, UK: Science and Technology Policy Research.
163. Shao, J., and Shen, H. (2011). The outflow of academic papers from China: Why is it happening and can it be stemmed? Learned Publishing, 24(2), 95-97.
164. Shipp, S., Mitchell, N., and Lal, B. (2009). Portfolio Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Grants Program for the Department-Level Reform (DLR) of Undergraduate Engineering Education. IDA Document D-3724. Washington, DC: Institute for Defense Analyses Science and Technology Policy Institute.
165. Siegfried, T. (2013). Science's significant stats problem. Nautilus, 4. Available: http://nautil. us/issue/4/the-unlikely/sciences-significant-stats-problem [April 2014].
166. Simmons, A. (2013). Carnegie Mellon, Elected Officials Announce Record Year for Startup Company Creation. Press Release, Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Carnegie Mellon University. Available: http://www.cmu.edu/cie/news/november/carnegie-mellonelected- officials-announce-record-year-for-startup-company-creation.html [June 2014].
167. Sloan Digital Sky Survey. (2008). The SDSS Science Legacy. Available: http://www.sdss.org/ signature.html [April 2014].
168. Stephan, P. (2012). How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
169. Tassey, G. (2014). Competing in advanced manufacturing: The need for improved growth models and policies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 27-48.
170. Terleckyj, N. (1980). Direct and indirect effects of industrial research and development on the productivity growth of industries. In J.W. Kendrick and B.N. Vaccara (Eds.), Productivity Measurement (pp. 357-386). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
171. The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, Networks, and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century. London: The Royal Society.
172. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2010). Research and Development Satellite Account: 2010 Satellite Account Underscores Importance of R&D. Available: http://bea.gov/newsreleases/ general/rd/2010/rdspend10.htm [January 2014].
173. U.S. Department of Energy. (2007). Overview of Evaluation Methods for R&D Programs: A Directory of Evaluation Methods Relevant to Technology Development Programs. Washington, DC: Author.
174. Universities UK. (2007). The Use of Bibliometrics to Measure Research Quality in UK Higher Education Institutions. London: Author.
175. Vandenbusche, J., Aghion P., and Meghir, C. (2006). Growth, distance to frontier and composition of human capital. Journal of Economic Growth, 11(2), 97-127.
176. Wadman, M. (2013). Economic return from Human Genome Project grows: Report finds genomics effort has added U.S. $1 trillion to U.S. economy. Nature News. Available: http://www.nature.com/news/economic-return-from-human-genome-projectgrows- 1.13187 [April 2014].
177. Wadman, M. (2013). NIH mulls rules for validating key results: U.S. biomedical agency could enlist independent labs for verification. Nature, 500, 14-16.
178. Walsh, P., Arora, A., and Cohen, W. (2003). Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation. In National Research Council, Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (pp. 285-340). W.M. Cohen and S. Merrill (Eds.), Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Policy and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
179. Walsh, P., Arora, A., and Cohen, W. (2003). Working through the patent problem. Science, 299(5609), 1021.
180. Warren, A., Hanke, R., and Trotzer, D. (2006). Models for University Technology Transfer: Resolving Conflicts between Mission and Methods and the Dependency on Geographic Location. Available: http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/usasbe/2006/pdffiles/papers/ cases/092.pdf [June 2014].
181. Warry Report. (2006). Increasing the Economic Impact of Research Councils. Advice to the Director General of Science and Innovation. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file32802.pdf [November 2012].
182. Westmore, B. (2013). Innovation and growth: Considerations for public policy. Review of Economics and Institutions, 4(3), Article 3.
183. White, M. (2013). How we're unintentionally defunding the National Institutes of Health. Pacific Standard. Available: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/ unintenionally-defunded-nation-institutes-health-70470/ [June 2014].
184. Xie, Y., and Killewald, A.A. (2012). Is American science in decline? Science Education, 97(3), 494-496.
185. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System, 2013-2014. Available: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ [May 2014].
186. National Science Foundation. (2009). Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyrdexpenditures/ [May 2014].
187. Weinberg B., Owen-Smith, J., Rosen, R.F., Schwarz, L., McFadden Allen, B., Weiss, R.E., and Lane, J. (2014). Science funding and short-term economic activity. Science, 344(6179), 41-43.
188. Agrawal, A., and Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44-60.
189. Association of University Technology Managers. (2001). Licensing Survey FY2001. Available: http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?section=FY_2001_Licensing_ Survey&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10196 [May 2014].
190. Association of University Technology Managers. (2002). Licensing Survey FY2002. Available: http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?section=FY_2002_Licensing_Survey&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10195 [May 2014].
191. Association of University Technology Managers. (2003). Licensing Survey FY2003. Available: http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?section=FY_2003_Licensing_Survey&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10194 [May 2014].
192. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., and Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 637-676.
193. Broad, W. (1979). Patent bill returns bright idea to inventor. Science, 205(4405), 473-476.
194. Cesaroni, F., di Minin, A., and Piccaluga, A. (2005). Exploration and exploitation strategies in industrial R&D. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 222-232.
195. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., and Walsh, J.P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
196. DiGregorio D., and Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209-227.
197. Ding, W., and Choi, E. (2011). Divergent paths to commercial science: A comparison of scientists' founding and advising activities. Research Policy, 40(1), 69-80.
198. Eskridge, N. (1978). Dole blasts HEW for 'stonewalling' patent applications. Bioscience, 28(9), 605-606.
199. Geiger, R.L. (1986). To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900- 1940. New York: Oxford University Press.
200. Geiger, R.L. (1993). Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press.
201. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. (1991). Industrial Perspectives on Innovation and Interactions with Universities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
202. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. (2003). Background Paper Articulating the Need for a New Approach to University-Industry Relations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
203. Hughes, S. (2001). Making dollars out of DNA. Isis, 92(3), 541-575.
204. Jensen, R., and Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-258.
205. Katz, M.L., and Ordover, J.A. (1990). R&D competition and cooperation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 137-192.
206. Kenney, M., and Mowery, D.C. (Eds.). (Forthcoming). Regional Economic Development, Public Universities, and Technology Transfer: Studies of the University of California's Contributions to Knowledge-based Growth. University of California, Davis.
207. Lécuyer, C. (2005). What do universities really owe industry? The case of solid state electronics at Stanford. Minerva, 43, 51-71.
208. Lécuyer, C., and Brock, D.C. (2006). The materiality of microelectronics. History and Technology, 22, 301-325.
209. Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783-820.
210. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovations. Research Policy, 20, 1-12.
211. Mowery, D.C. (2007). University-industry research collaboration and technology transfer in the United States since 1980. In S. Yusuf and K. Nabeshima (Eds.), How Universities Promote Economic Growth (pp. 165-181). Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Available: https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6631/383330Universi101OFFICIAL0USE0O NLY1.txt?sequence=2 [May 2014].
212. Mowery, D.C. (2009). Plus ca change: Industrial R&D in the "third industrial revolution." Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(1), 1-50.
213. Mowery, D.C. (2009). University-Industry Collaboration and Technology Transfer in Hong Kong and Knowledge-based Economic Growth. Working Paper. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Available: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source =web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.savantas.org%2Fcmsimg %2Ffiles%2FResearch%2FHKIP%2FReport%2F1_mowery.pdf&ei=LHFxU-6pLonvoAT A9oDABg&usg=AFQjCNHz6wwAqV1reOgHmW9at3u38DDHHQ&sig2=_KTsgdR3U f5PTbUyqgZFQQ&bvm=bv.66699033,d.cGU [May 2014]
214. Mowery D.C. (2011). Learning from one another? International policy "emulation" and university- industry technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1827-1853.
215. Mowery, D.C., and Sampat, B.N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 115-127.
216. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N., and Ziedonis, A.A. (2004). 'Ivory Tower' and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
217. National Research Council. (2010). Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. S.A. Merrill and A. Mazza (Eds.). Committee on Management of University Intellectual Property: Lessons from a Generation of Experience, Research, and Dialogue. Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, Policy and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
218. Nelson, A. (2012). Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford. Research Policy, 41(4), 678-691.
219. Nerkar, A., and Shane, S. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1391-1410.
220. OECD. (2002). Benchmarking Science-Industry Relationships. Paris, France: Author.
221. Reimers, N. (1998). Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing and the Cohen/Boyer Cloning Patents. Berkeley: University of California, The Bancroft Library.
222. Shane, S., and Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154-170.
223. Stevens, A.J. (2004). The enactment of Bayh-Dole. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 93-99.
224. Thursby, M., and Thursby, J. (2007). U.S. Faculty Patenting Inside and Outside of the University. Working Paper No. 13256. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
225. Trow, M. (1979). Aspects of diversity in American higher education. In H. Gans (Ed.), On the Making of Americans (pp. 271-290). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
226. Trow, M. (1991). American higher education: 'Exceptional' or just different. In B.E. Shafer (Ed.), Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism (pp. 138-186). New York: Oxford University Press.
227. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. (1979). The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act: Hearings on S. 414, May 16 and June 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
228. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., and Armstrong, J.S. (1998). Geographically localized knowledge: Spillovers or markets? Economic Inquiry, 36(1), 65-86.
229. 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(1), 138-153.