Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 91
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
91
study of U.S. industrial innovation by the NSF and the U.S. Bureau of the Census
found that the three most important sources of information leading to the devel-
opment and commercial introduction of new products (according to the "innovat-
ing firms"3i that responded to the survey) were internal sources, clients and cus-
tomers, and suppliers of materials and components (National Science Board,
1996~. This study found that the least important sources of such information
were government laboratories, technical institutes, and consulting firms.
The NSF/Census study also revealed that the channels used most frequently
by innovating firms to access new technology were hiring skilled employees,
purchasing equipment, and using consultants. Likewise, the channels used most
often by innovating firms to transfer new technologies to other organizations
included communication with other companies, mobility of skilled employees,
and R&D performed for others (National Science Board, 1996~.
The following sections explore in greater detail the organization and dy-
namic of technology transfer to U.S. industry within the three major sectors of the
nation's nonindustrial R&D enterprise: research universities and colleges, fed-
eral government laboratories, and the diverse population of privately held, non-
academic, mostly nonprofit organizations (e.g., independent and affiliated R&D
institutes, consortia, incubators and research parks, and technical and professional
associations).
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM HIGHER
EDUCATION TO INDUSTRY
There are over 3,600 publicly and privately funded colleges and universities
as well as 6,900 vocational and technical institutions offering post-secondary edu-
cation in the United States. Only about 875 public and private universities and
colleges conduct science and/or engineering research, and of these, the 100 larg-
est account for 80 percent of all academic R&D (National Science Board, 1996~.
It is this latter, highly diverse subset of 100 public and private institutions that
constitute the heart of the U.S. basic research enterprise and the main object of
analysis in this chapter.
To understand the structure and dynamic of technology transfer from these
institutions of higher education to industry, it is useful to review briefly several
major distinguishing characteristics of the U.S. academic research enterprise as
well as an overview and the history of university-industry technology transfer in
the United States.
Distinguishing Characteristics of the Enterprise
SCALE
One major distinguishing feature of the U.S. academic research enterprise is
its size. In 1995, U.S. universities and colleges performed $21.6 billion worth of
OCR for page 92
92 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMSIN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
research and development,32 or 12.6 percent of all R&D conducted in the United
States that year. This expenditure was roughly the same as that by all federal
laboratories and FFRDCs ($25 billion in 1995) and was nearly half of total Ger-
man R&D spending in 1994. Academic institutions performed 49 percent of all
basic research, 14 percent of all applied research, and less than 2 percent of all
development work performed in the United States in 1995. In 1993, U.S. univer-
sities and colleges employed over 149,800 doctoral scientists and engineers
(S&E), 10,500 individuals with professional degrees, and 5,500 S&Es with S&E
degrees at the masters and bachelors levels in R&D activities. In addition, nearly
90,000 full-time graduate students (27 percent of total full-time enrollment) re-
lied on research assistantships as their primary source of support (National Sci-
ence Board, 1996~.
U.S. universities and colleges graduate roughly 24,000 Ph.D. scientists and
engineers each year. In 1993, these institutions received nearly 6,600 invention
disclosures and applied for over 3,000 patents (including roughly 2,000 new pat-
ents). In 1993, U.S. academic researchers authored nearly 100,000 articles in
professional journals, representing 25 percent of the world's scientific and tech-
nical literature.33
DIVERSITY
A second distinguishing feature of U.S. research colleges and universities is
their diversity. There is no U.S. university "system" in the formal sense of the
term. Rather, the academic research enterprise is a heterogeneous, highly au-
tonomous population of research colleges and universities, each of which was
established and has evolved in response to a unique combination of local, re-
gional (state), and national needs. Some are public, state-owned institutions;
others are privately owned. Although all institutions that receive federal funding
must comply with common federal rules and regulations, each institution, or state-
run system of institutions, has a distinct governing body, administration, account-
ing practices, and mission statement.
U.S. academic research institutions differ greatly in size and research focus.
Some institutions perform significant amounts of industry-sponsored research,
while others do very little (Table 2.8~. The distribution of R&D spending by
science and engineering field of the top 20 research universities illustrates how
diverse their research portfolios are (Table 2.9~. (These 20 institutions conducted
roughly a third of all U.S. academic research in 1993.) Some universities main-
tain research portfolios that are more national or international in scope and repu-
tation. Others conduct research that is more heavily weighted to the needs of
local industries or their region's or state's economy. Some remain focused al-
most exclusively on their traditional missions of education and research, while
others have become deeply involved in a broad spectrum of technology transfer
and outreach activities.
OCR for page 93
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
TABLE 2.8 Industry-Sponsored Research as a Share of Total Academic
Research Expenditures at the Top 20 Research Universities, Fiscal Year 1994
93
Industry
Industry Sponsored as
Total Research Sponsored Percentage of
Expenditures Research Total Research
Institution and Ranking (thousands of $) (thousands of $) Expenditures
Johns Hopkins University 784,043 10,418 1.33
University of Michigan 430,778 26,732 6.21
University of Wisconsin-Madison 392,718 13,729 3.50
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 363,918 55,500 15.25
Texas A&M University 355,750 28,576 8.03
University of Washington 343,910 33,199 9.65
University of California-San Diego 331,901 9,764 2.94
Stanford University 318,561 14,714 4.62
University of Minnesota 317,865 23,726 7.46
Cornell University 312,683 17,199 5.50
University of California-San Francisco 312,393 10,977 3.51
Pennsylvania State University 302,997 45,408 14.99
University of California-Berkeley 289,632 12,547 4.33
University of California-Los Angeles 279,869 13,394 4.79
Harvard University 289,459a 10,228 3.53
University of Arizona 269,939 15,053 5.58
University of Texas-Austin 260,602 4,268 1.64
University of Pennsylvania 251,461 12,107 4.81
University of Illinois-Urbana 245,407 13,527 5.51
Columbia University 236,417 1,632 0.69
TOTAL 6,679,303 372,698 5.58
NOTE: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.
aEstimated
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (1996a).
SPONSORED RESEARCH
A third distinguishing feature of U.S. academic research is the way in which
it is funded. The vast majority of U.S. academic research in science and engi-
neering is sponsored directly via grants or contracts from federal mission agen-
cies. In other words, it is not supported by public "general university" or "base
institutional" funds as is the case in Germany, Japan, and other advanced indus-
trialized countries. In 1995, federal government agencies funded 60.2 percent of
OCR for page 94
94 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMSIN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
TABLE 2.9 R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, by Science and
Engineering Field, Fiscal Year 1994 (dollars in thousands)
PhysicalEnvironmentalMath & Cor
Institution and Ranking TotalEngineering SciencesSciencesputer Scienc
Johns Hopkins University 784,043210,522 117,18840,593119,297
University of Michigan 430,77888,837 22,97220,82319,186
University of Wisconsin-Madison 392,71855,021 39,83821,89810,031
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 363,918153,530 95,15416,09418,514
Texas A&M University 355,75082,565 21,89080,8786,963
University of Washington 343,91020,332 19,37557,9126,516
University of California-San Diego 331,90115,806 35,450102,26613,542
Stanford University 318,56192,946 44,0306,19214,513
University of Minnesota 317,86530,625 15,80211,560218
Cornell University 312,68341,416 45,2114,38923,614
University of California-San Francisco 312,3930 000
Pennsylvania State University 302,997129,313 22,48621,3603,518
University of California-Berkeley 289,63261,654 59,9964,4664,836
University of California-Los Angeles 279,86929,544 24,06914,1308,291
Harvard University 278,459a6,027a 31,718a9,714a4,169a
University of Arizona 269,93920,659 91,76520,8617,296
University of Texas-Austin 260,602106,743 64,10825,82615,897
University of Pennsylvania 251,46111,918 23,2458018,408
University of Illinois-Urbana 245,40751,634 38,50027,05215,395
Columbia University 236,41714,407 21,43339,7864,637
TOTAL 6,679,3031,223,499 834,230526,601326,438
NOTE: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.
aEstimated
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (1996a).
U.S. academic R&D, state and local governments 7.4 percent, industry 6.9 per-
cent, individuals and nonprofit institutions 7.4 percent, with the remaining 18.1
percent coming directly from academic institutions themselves.34 Most federal
funds for academic research are awarded on a competitive basis to individual
investigators or to research teams. Researchers submit project proposals that are
then peer reviewed according to "best-science" principles. This approach de-
mands that principal investigators invest a great deal of time in grant manage-
ment (i.e., non-research-related) activities, both as grant applicants and "volun-
teer" reviewers of the grant proposals of other researchers. However, it also
fosters intensive and valuable competition among ideas and rapid exploitation of
new research directions and concepts within the academic research community.
OCR for page 95
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
nce and
95
EnvironmentalMath & Com-Life SocialOther
Sciencesputer SciencesSciencesPsychologySciencesSciences
40,593119,297270,3141,0219,78415,324
20,82319,186212,1989,09851,0946,570
21,89810,031222,48211,54031,028880
16,09418,51437,6908,5038,17926,254
80,8786,963141,1301,57017,5473,207
57,9126,516218,9987,32110,6752,781
102,26613,542156,7243,9984,1150
6,19214,513152,1043,7105,0660
11,560218219,2416,97011,8520
4,38923,614184,4253,6709,9580
00312,393000
21,3603,51896,5206,39310,40912,998
4,4664,836122,1826,61724,8305,051
14,1308,291178,0147,51418,3070
9,714a4,169a168,143a3,117a46,480a9,091a
20,8617,296116,2022,5468,6661,944
25,82615,89723,5843,96116,1834,300
8018,408183,5022,29621,2910
27,05215,39555,5196,30514,09636,906
39,7864,637148,1002,3865,6680
526,601326,4383,219,46598,536325,228125,306
Most research performed by U.S. universities and colleges is basic or long-
term applied in nature. Basic research accounted for 67 percent of total academic
R&D in 1995, applied research 25 percent, and development only 8 percent.
Nevertheless, because of the way it is funded, U.S. academic research (even so-
called basic research) in many fields is shaped largely by the applied needs of
federal agency missions.
The distribution of U.S. academic research expenditures by field shows a
heavy emphasis on the life sciences, particularly the medical sciences (Table
2.10~. In 1993, the medical and biological sciences consumed 45 percent of all
academic research dollars. All engineering disciplines together accounted for
less than 16 percent of the total.
Despite the fact that U.S. funding of academic research has not kept pace
with the financial demands of a growing population of academic researchers,
U.S. academic research expenditures grew faster than those of any other major
OCR for page 96
96 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
TABLE 2.10 R&D Expenditures at Universities and
Colleges, Percent Share by Major Science and Engineering
Field, Fiscal Year 1994
Source arid Field
1994
Engineenng, total
Aeronautical and Astronautical
Chemical
Civil
Electncal
Mechanical
Metallurgical and materials
Other, n.e.c.
All sciences, total
Physical sciences
Environmental sciences
Mathematical sciences
Computer sciences
Life sciences
Psychology
Social sciences
Other sciences, n.e.c.
15.77
1.03
1.31
1.86
3.44
2.34
1.51
4.27
84.23
10.30
6.76
1.32
3.13
54.65
1.70
4.51
1.86
NOTE: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (1996a).
R&D performing sector during the 1984-1994 period. During this period, aca-
demic research grew at an average annual rate of 5.8 percent, compared with 2.8
percent for FFRDCs and other nonprofit laboratories, 1.4 percent for industrial
laboratories, and 0.7 percent for all federal laboratories (National Science Board,
1996).
History of University-Industry Relations
The history of U.S. university-industry interaction with respect to research
and development and technology transfer can be divided roughly into three peri-
ods: from the mid- 1800s to the eve of World War II; from the early 1940s through
the mid-1970s; and from the late-1970s to the present.
During the first of these periods, the development of U.S. higher education
and research was influenced heavily by the more immediate, practice-oriented
training and technical problem-solving needs of U.S. agriculture and industry.
Although this era witnessed the emergence of a small number of elite research
universities whose faculties engaged in basic research, it was during this period
OCR for page 97
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
97
that U.S. colleges and universities made their greatest strides in the applied sci-
ences and engineering disciplines, largely in response to the demands of local or
regional industries.
Government at both the state and federal levels had a strong hand in shaping
the practical, regional economic orientation of higher education and research dur-
ing the period. Indeed, many public universities were founded by state govern-
ments with an explicit mandate to support the technical needs of the regional
economy. In 1936, state governments funded 14 percent of all U.S. academic
research. Throughout this time, federal government support of academic research,
education, and extension activities was concentrated in areas critical to the tech-
nological development of large sectors of the U.S. economy that lacked a pri-
vately funded R&D base, in particular agriculture, forestry, and mining.35 Uni-
versity-based agricultural research and extension activity alone claimed about 40
percent of federal research funds during the mid-1930s (Matkin, 1990; Mowery
and Rosenberg, 1993~.
By the eve of World War II, the federal government accounted for no more
than one-quarter of total academic research funding. Private foundations funded
the majority of academic R&D during this second period. The it&D-intensive
industries of the day, such as electrical manufacturing and chemicals, helped to
develop the research and training capabilities of select U.S. universities, but
mainly as a complement to the extensive in-house R&D efforts of the companies
themselves (Matkin, 1990~.
World War II represented a watershed in the relationship between U.S. re-
search universities and the federal government. Academic research was enlisted
very effectively in service of the war effort and was instrumental in the develop-
ment of new technologies such as atomic energy and radar, and new fields like
aeronautics. This greatly enhanced the public reputation of academic research
institutions and engendered a new appreciation for the importance of basic and
long-term applied research for U.S. military security and economic prosperity, as
well as other national interests. Accordingly, academic research assumed a cen-
tral role in the new federal science policy articulated during the mid-1940s a
policy based on a new "social contract" that explicitly harnessed the academic
science community in service of national objectives through greatly increased
federal support for academic research and its associated infrastructure (Bush,
1945~.
By the early 1950s, agencies of the federal government, led by the Depart-
ment of Defense, had become the principal patrons of U.S. academic research,
sponsoring 60 percent of all academic R&D in 1955. In the decades to follow,
the academic research community would be enlisted in support of a broad range
of federal agency missions, including national defense, energy independence, the
cure of disease, space exploration, as well as the broader goal of achieving U.S.
preeminence in virtually all fields of science and engineering.
With the shift in the funding base of U.S. academic research came a corre
OCR for page 98
98 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
spending shift in the orientation of much academic research and graduate educa-
tion in science and engineering. Rather than focusing on the more immediate
practical and applied R&D needs of private industry, academic research became
more concerned with the basic and long-term applied research agendas of the
federal agencies.36 A majority of academic research funds were now allocated
by federal agencies through a system of peer-review evaluation, which was
guided by "best-science" principles. This new funding environment fostered a
more pronounced division of labor between universities and industry with re-
gard to basic and applied research, and reinforced differences between the two
sectors' research cultures.37 Academia rewarded research faculty primarily for
the originality of their research; the quality, number, and timeliness of their re-
search publications; and their success in competing for research funding from
government agencies and nonprofit foundations. Accordingly, the academic re-
search community placed a premium on the openness, free exchange, and rapid
dissemination of new knowledge and ideas. By contrast, industry-based re-
searchers continued to be rewarded according to the standards of the market-
place (e.g., the number and value of patents received, the successful commer-
cialization of technologies). In short, private industry concerned itself with
capturing and protecting the economic value embodied in new ideas through
intellectual property and trade secrets.
Throughout this second period, the transfer of technology from academic
research institutions to industry was treated generally as an ancillary activity by
most major research universities. These institutions considered their primary
contributions to the technological capabilities of American industry to be well-
trained graduates, published research results, and faculty consultants.
The third and current phase of university-industry interaction dates from the
late 1970s and is characterized by a renewed interest in collaborative research
and technology transfer between the two sectors. This changing dynamic is the
result of several factors. First, the 1970s heralded the commercial take-off of
industries with strong technological roots in academic research, including micro-
electronics, software, and biotechnology. These successes generated a new wave
of industrial interest in particular areas of academic research and expertise. Sec-
ond, the emergence of major new challenges to the competitiveness of many U.S.
technology-intensive industries during the 1970s prompted federal and state ef-
forts to harness the capabilities and outputs of the U.S. academic research enter-
prise to serve the R&D and technology needs of American industry more effec-
tively. Finally, although federal funding of academic research has grown rapidly
in absolute terms throughout the period, the increased cost of research and an
expanding population of academic researchers have made competition for federal
support tighter than ever. These trends have encouraged university-based re-
searchers to look increasingly to the private sector for sources of research support.
At the federal level, two changes in policy fostered the shift to a more col-
laborative era in U.S. university-industry relations. First, in 1980, Congress
OCR for page 99
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
99
passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which made it possible for universities, other
nonprofit organizations, and small businesses to retain rights to most of their
federally funded inventions. Under the terms of the act, academic research
institutions are granted considerable autonomy in licensing or otherwise com-
mercializing intellectual property they develop with public funds, as long as
they (a) give preference to businesses located in the United States, particularly
small companies, when licensing such intellectual property; and (b) grant exclu-
sive rights or sell this intellectual property to companies willing and able to
manufacture substantially in the United States products embodying the inven-
tion or produced through application of the invention (U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1992~.38
The federal government has also sought to promote greater university-indus-
try collaboration by funding university-based research centers that engage aca-
demic and industrial researchers in collaborative, often multidisciplinary, re-
search. Most prominent among these are the National Science Foundation's
Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (begun in 1973), Science and
Technology Centers (1987), Engineering Research Centers (1985), and Materials
Research Science and Engineering Centers (1993~.39 Recent federal industrial
technology initiatives such as the Advanced Technology Program of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology or the multiagency Technology Reinvest-
ment Project have also included provisions supportive of university-industry col-
laborative research.40
State governments, too, have tried to promote closer ties between public uni-
versities and their host region's economies and industrial base. The 1980s wit-
nessed a shift to increasingly science-and-technology-driven economic develop-
ment strategies among most of the 50 states. Public universities stand at the
center of many of these new initiatives, as state governments seek to recreate the
success of Route 128, the high-tech corridor around Boston said to have been
spawned and nurtured by the technical capabilities of MIT (Etzkowitz, 1988;
Feller, 1990~.
Technology Transfer by Research Universities and Colleges
Recent surveys of it&D-performing companies attest to the fact that the most
valued output of U.S. research universities from the perspective of corporate
America is the human capital they generate in the form of well-trained scientists
and engineers.4i For the most part, the value of science and engineering gradu-
ates to a firm (or the economy at large) is defined by the research and learning
skills these individuals have acquired through their academic training, rather than
by the volume of specific (and often rapidly outdated) knowledge they have
amassed during their course of studies.
Researchers based at universities and colleges account for over 70 percent of
all U.S. scientific and technical articles (see Figure 2.10~. In certain fields the
OCR for page 100
100 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMSIN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
Nonprofit 7% Other 2%
_ ~
_ ~
= = ~ ~ Oo/ ~ _
~ J - O ~ /0
Federal
government 8%
Industr 8%
~, _
f:::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:~
,::::::::::::::::::::::
1.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.::
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::`
t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:`
,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::`
f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:N
,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::N
t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:N
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::x
f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:N
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::X
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::`
t.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::: :\
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
t:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :\
f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.\
1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
1.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::: :\
1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
1.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
r::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::l
f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
, . . .
1:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::] A^~^ ^~1~ 7~ 0/
~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 A~CtLJ =1 1 IICt ~/0
f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1
l . ... .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l
~ ~ - ... ..... .:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
A- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ - : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
N::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
N:.:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
x::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
N.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'
W.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'
at: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :'
W:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
;~- :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . - - ;;
FIGURE 2.10 Distribution of U.S. scientific and technical articles, by sector, 1993.
FFRDC = federally funded research and development center. SOURCE: National Science
Board (1996~.
research literature represents an important source of highly specialized knowl-
edge of direct relevance and value to the technology strategies of companies in
some industries. In recent years, citations of research literature on the first page
of U.S. patent applications (an indication of the potential contribution of pub-
lished research to patentable inventions) have risen rapidly. About half of all
publications cited were papers from academic institutions (National Science
Board, 1996~. In most industry sectors, the most valuable contribution of funda-
mental academic research is its role in helping companies understand existing
technologies better and in exposing promising paths for and enhancing the pro-
ductivity of industrial applied research and development (David et al., 1992;
Pavitt, 1991~. Indeed, university research is usually more useful for improving
on inventions already made than for making them (i.e., one has to thoroughly
understand how and why an invention works before one can have a strategy,
other than pure trial and error, for improving on it).
The U.S. panel accepts that the production of graduates and new knowledge
remain the primary contribution of American higher education to the technical
needs of U.S. industry. It also acknowledges the important role academic re-
search publications play in the transfer of highly specialized knowledge in a num-
ber of industries. However, in this report, the panel focuses primarily on those
OCR for page 101
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
101
activities that, though related to the missions of education and research, involve
the intentional or "directed" transfer of intellectual property or specific knowl-
edge (i.e., "proto-technology") from universities and colleges to industry.
Even within this narrower definition, university technology transfer encom-
passes a wide range of transfer mechanisms. Some can be defined and measured
relatively easily (e.g., the transfer of codified technology or proto-technology via
patents, copyrights, and research publications). Others are little more than prox-
ies for actual technology transfer and are very difficult, if not impossible, to quan-
tify. These mechanisms include faculty consulting; the movement of graduates
and faculty from academia to industry; university investments in the transfer and
commercialization of technology; industry-sponsored or collaborative academic-
industrial R&D; and a range of other market-making activities by industry and
academia directed at the commercially valuable outputs of academic research.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MECHANISMS
There are three types of mechanisms for technology transfer from academia
to industry in the United States.42 The first includes such things as faculty con-
sulting and the transfer of university intellectual property and proto-technology
embodied in graduates and faculty who are hired by private companies. These
mechanisms, closely related to the education and research missions of universi-
ties and colleges, were the predominant modes of technology transfer prior to the
mid-to-late 1970s. The second type, also linked to the traditional missions of
universities, has only seen extensive use or significant growth in use since the late
1970s (the third phase of university-industry relations). These mechanisms in-
clude patent licensing, university acquisition of private-sector licensees, and vari-
ous approaches for enhancing industry access to and sponsorship of university-
based research. The third type includes activities, such as technical assistance
programs and technology business incubators, associated with commercializing
research or improving university-industry relations more generally. These mecha-
nisms, which have also seen significant growth since the late 1970s, are more
ancillary to the traditional missions of the research university.
The following sections review each of these mechanisms separately. It is
well to remember, however, that universities and individual academic researchers
employ many of these mechanisms in concert in order to take advantage of the
synergies and complementarities among them.
Faculty Consulting
No aggregate data exist on the number of U.S. academic research faculty
involved in consulting with private industry or the number of scientist or engineer
man-hours academic researchers devote to consulting with industry each year.
Nevertheless, panel members estimate that more than half of the academic engi-
neering faculty at the top 20 U.S. research universities spend 10 to 15 percent of
OCR for page 113
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
113
...........................................................................................................................
:~ ::::::::::: ::~Q~::: : :::; ~ ::: ::~Q~:::: Hi: : : : :: ~ :: : :::::~: : ::::: : . : : :: ::: : ::: ! ;
~ : -:- ~-:1~ :':':'E:I':'I:LV':':':': =~1 ':':':'i':V' :=·=V-l:~ : :~:1:':V:~ -~:1-:-1:-:-:~l:':l' E=: ~ ' 'V:l':~ '~:I':'E:':': -: : ':'E:=,:I:-~ ~ '=~1':'1:':':~' ':':'=:1':'1:~'1: - :':':':
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
........... t- Gel assoc~-.a te~ me-m ~-e-E~ -eve- CON matting to prove -e---~75-u~ Mu ~ e-ac- 1~ ..o v.-e-r~ a
................. ............................................................ ............ ............. . I
....................................................... -. - -.
:::::::::::::::::::::..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
'' ' '' '' ' " """1" ' ' 'i' ~' i 1 9 E
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::
.......................... - -jIEj~ I ~--d-*- I $
. .. ...
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
_ ~ - ~ ~ ~ Or I l=~ A:::::T:~:I:~:::::TI::1:~:~:1:~:~:::::t~::::::~:~:~: A A.- rim DITTO: T^::::::~:1:::::1:::::-::11: n::l:::::l:::::::::::::::::::::::
--- - -~=V ~ -A --y-=l USA E---~-E-!-I~---~- E! ELI! EM tV--~-= E---E-~-E-~-E-!---~-E-E-V!--~---~y ~lVI-~-
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.tac let E E ~
...... gles ~o Ee o~ tE e tac l~ nao a oac~ro E E l E mag Eellc$ reseamn ~ t
............... ................................................................................. ..............................
............................................................................................................................
-""""""'' h' ""'' " '' " i' ""h' 'd""' ' ' ' '' "'' ' '' ~'d""" '' ""'' '' ' " " ' i" ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ""' ' ' E '' ' '1'' " 'j' $""b' f' '' """""""""""""""'
.. ..
......................................................................................... *
MOSt Iea' [e~ {ne req d[' d [en\$ 0T Ea0' etlC S\oraae
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.......... """""""""'q"U'E'C'K Ey""a E 'a""'E 'aVe""$1'E 'Ce'''''DeCO E 'e""'eXpe'E,,,,,,'$""'E'n""'lE 'e''''TI'e'E'a'.''''''''''~y'''''i'''Y~''''''''lne'''''c'e Ele'E """"""""""""""
, , , - , ....
nAO an annUaE oUGget""OT""OVer""~""mE'E'E'EO'n"~'""'m'OSt""OT""Et"'l'm'm"""U"'~'"""E'n'a'U'St~""""""~"n""""""""""""""'
...............................................................................................................................
~1 YYU ~MU oolalE ea TUE GIE GE TE E {E e EN~ TOF aE E E0! EeeE IE E HeSea(CE
~ 11 i th initi I NS, d th ind i 1 n
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:. -:-:-:~-!:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:E-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~- - -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
~ """""""""'E -mv-l-a-!--n-g~ !-~eragea Tunalng ToE m$earcn on E a.Ia~ .s lo-rage~ lec-n-n-o-!-og-!-es ~
................ ......................... ... ............................................................ ... .......................
.............................................................................................................................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::V - ::V ::::::::t:::::::l:::V - :1::~1:::1::1 :::::::~:V:V:~I:::~:~:::::::~:I:::I:~::::::::~:: 1::::::~1:::: E:~:::::::~::::::~:l:::~::l:~:::::::l: V: ~ :::::::::V:V:~:I:::~:::::::V 1:::1::::::::" e::V :~:I:::I:~:~:::::::~:~:L"::::
::::::::::::::::::~:J::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
l * l- l ! ~ l . l ! l
STOE age lecE nolog es (magn~Ec E$E E ag-n-elEC TaPe- - anU O~ECal U $K E-
.......................................................................................................................................
................ - - - - -.-.- ..- - - . - .- - - .
~ A It t tne Ela~ E tE E EtE E ~1 ~ t EE E t E t Ee e EteE E E ~ eE
.............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
. ..
gets of less than $500,000 in 1990, and roughly 45 percent of all centers involved
less than 6 companies as participants (Cohen et al., 1994~.
Forty percent of the research conducted by UIRCsis basic research, 40 per-
cent is applied research, and 20 percent is development work. In other words,
UIRCs perform a significantly higher proportion of applied research and devel-
opment than do universities. On average, UIRCs devoted two-thirds of their
effort to R&D and one-fifth to education and training.
As a group, UIRCs receive 46 percent of their funding from public sources
(34 percent from federal government and 12 percent from state governments), 31
OCR for page 114
114 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMSIN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
TABLE 2.11 UIRC Research by Discipline, 1990
Discipline Number of UIRCs Percent of UIRCs
Basic science:
Chemistry 192 38.6
Biology 169 34.0
Physics 120 24.1
Geology and earth sciences98 19.7
Mathematics54 10.7
Engineering:
Materials171 34.4
Electrical159 32.0
Mechanical155 31.2
Chemical137 27.6
Civil103 20.7
Industrial87 17.5
Aeronautical and astronautical58 11.7
Applied science:
Materials145 29.2
Computer science130 26.2
Agricultural106 21.3
Medical sciences93 18.7
Applied math and operations research57 11.5
Atmospheric45 9.1
Oceanography27 5.4
Astronomy6 1.2
NOTE: Total number of UIRCs reporting was 497. Many of the centers had more than one disciplin-
ary focus.
SOURCE: Cohen et al. (1994).
percent from private industry, and 18 percent from universities themselves. Some
70 percent of all industry support for academic R&D was channeled through
UIRCs in 1990. The vast majority of public and private support for research at
UIRCs comes in the form of grants. Most industrial support of UIRCs appears to
be directed at more basic and long-term applied research. In addition to direct
funding, industry contributions to individual centers also include equipment, in-
strumentation, and internship opportunities for students.
The goals and missions of individual centers vary considerably, as do their
disciplines (Table 2.11), technology (Table 2.12), and industry orientation, and
their organizational form. Collectively, these centers engage a broad range of
traditional and high-technology industries in their research (Table 2.13~. Some
centers are more focused on industry's immediate needs, for example product
and process improvements. Other centers are focused on more traditional aca-
demic objectives, such as education and the advancement of knowledge (Table
2.14).
OCR for page 115
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
TABLE 2.12 UIRC Research by Technology Area, 1990
115
Technology Area
Number
of UIRCs
Percent
of UIRCs
Environmental technology and waste management
Advanced materials
Computer software
Biotechnology
Biomedical
Energy
Manufacturing (industrial, automotive, and robotics)
Agnculture and food
Chemicals
Scientific instruments
Semiconductor electronics
Aerospace
Pharmaceuticals
Computer hardware
Telecommunications
Transportation
147
135
129
109
108
100
98
89
77
67
64
61
61
50
48
37
29.8
27.3
26.1
22.0
21.9
20.2
19.8
18.0
15.6
13.6
13.0
12.3
12.3
10.1
9.7
7.5
NOTE: Total number of UIRCs reporting was 494. Many of the centers had more than one technol-
ogy focus.
SOURCE: Cohen et al. (1994).
The primary impetus for establishing nearly three-quarters of all UIRCs in
existence in 1990 came from university-based researchers themselves. Govern-
ment and industry each took the initiative in 11 percent of all centers established.
The most aggressive federal sponsor of UIRCs during the 1980s was the NSF,
which helped establish a raft of university-based centers, including Engineering
Research Centers, Science and Technology Centers, Industry-University Coop-
erative Research Centers, Materials Research Centers, and Supercomputer Cen-
ters. NSF provided seed money for these centers with the expectation that the
host institutions would raise matching funds from industry, state and local gov-
ernments, and internally. While the objectives of these centers' programs vary in
many respects (research focus, relative emphasis on research, education, and tech-
nology transfer, etc.), all share a commitment to facilitate industry access to uni-
versity research results, engage industry in the definition of a research portfolio,
and otherwise promote technology transfer to participating firms.
Recent assessments of the NSF centers indicate that, on the whole, they are
effective mechanisms for forging university-industry research partnerships.52 In
aggregate, UIRCs graduated an average of four to five Ph.D.'s and seven to eight
master's recipients per year (Table 2.15~. On average, roughly 6 students from
each UIRC found permanent employment with a participating company during
the 2-year period 1989-1990. UIRCs accounted for 211, or about 20 percent, of
OCR for page 116
116 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMSIN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
TABLE 2.13 UIRC Research by Industry, 1990
Number of Percent
Industry UIRCs of UIRCs
Chemical/Pharmaceutical 213 41.7
Computer 179 35.0
Electronic equipment 148 29.0
Petroleum and coal 144 28.2
Software and computer services 133 26.0
Food products 110 21.5
Fabricated metals 107 20.9
Agriculture 102 20.0
Utilities 100 19.6
Rubber and plastics 88 17.2
Transportation 86 16.8
Transportation equipment 79 15.5
Mining 78 15.3
Communications 78 15.3
Industrial/Commercial machinery 78 15.3
Lumber and wood 77 15.0
Primary metals 76 14.9
Paper and allied products 75 14.7
NOTE: Total number of UIRCs reporting was 511. Many of the centers engaged more
than one industry in cooperative research.
SOURCE: Cohen et al. (1994).
the 1,174 patents granted to universities in 1990. The nature and level of UIRC
performance varies by technical field and funding source and is heavily influ-
enced by the mission orientation of the particular center. Moreover, the scope
and type of UIRC outputs is influenced heavily by the area of technology special-
ization (Cohen et al., 1995~. For example, UIRCs focused in the fields of bio-
technology and advanced materials lead in the production of patents. UIRCs
emphasizing biotechnology develop the most new products, whereas those spe-
cializing in software lead in the development of new processes.
Nevertheless, some observers have expressed concern that the benefits resulting
from deepening academic ties with industry through UIRCs and other mecha-
nisms may come at a cost to core comparative strengths of the U.S. academic
research enterprise in particular, its capacity for basic research and its relative
openness that is unacceptable (Dasgupta and David, 1994; Rosenberg and
Nelson, 1994) In fact, recent empirical studies indicate that university faculty
receiving support from industry tend to conduct research that is more applied on
average and to accept restrictions on the dissemination of their research findings
(Blumenthal et al., 1986a,b; Cohen et al., 1994; Morgan et al., 1994a,b). While
these documented changes appear to offer benefits to firms directly involved in UIRC
OCR for page 117
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
g
a'
C)
a'
a'
VO
o
a'
C)
go
_.
_.
o
o
.=
.=
Cal
¢
Em
. .
ca
o
.e
o
C)
V,
ca
o
4=
sit
·_4
C)
o
C)
V,
~F
go
V, ~
go
Z ~
o ~Do
....
~CMCM
....
CM ~
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Do ~ o~ ~
00 ~00 ~) ~ m) CM CMC') C')~t ' ' ~t -I~1- ' '
~_I ' ' _I ' '_I ' ' ' '
~Do ~._4
oo ~ ~o CM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00 ~00 ~00 ~
11
4=
~0
0 0 ~
O ~ ~i oo ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ O ~
CM ~ ~ CM CM CM ~ CM ~ ~ ~ ~·_4
11
·_4
0 oo ~oo
00
~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~0 ~
c~) ~ -I ' ' c~) ~O
ca
11
4=
~o
6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~1 '( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _
117
OCR for page 118
118 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMSIN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
TABLE 2.15 Output per UIRC, 1990
Meana
(N=425) Meanb (N) Mediana Medianb
Research papers 42.47 43.60 (414) 20 20
Invention disclosures 1.60 2.11 (321) 0 1
Copyrights 1.09 1.73 (268) 0 0
Prototypes 1.00 1.49 (286) 0 1
New products invented 0.69 1.06 (277) 0 0
New processes invented 0.92 1.39 (281) 0 0
Patent applications 1.08 1.39 (330) 0 0
Patents issued 0.50 0.68 (311) 0 0
Licenses 0.38 0.53 (301) 0 0
Ph.D.'s 4.38c 4.60 (410) 2 2
Master's degrees 7.03c 7.53 (402) 3 3
aComputed assuming blank responses signify zero, as long as there is a response to at least one of
the category items.
bComposed assuming blank responses are missing values.
CN = 431
SOURCE: Cohen et al. (1994).
collaborative research, they may weaken channels of communication and redirect
resources away from areas of basic research that benefit firms more broadly.
Industrial Liaison Programs
Industrial liaison programs (ILPs) charge membership fees to companies in
return for providing them with facilitated access to the results of university re-
search, to researchers, and to laboratories in specified fields. ILP members are
generally entitled to receive research publications (some prepublications) from
university-based researchers; to attend workshops, lectures, and conferences on
research topics of interest; and to participate in an annual conference at which
faculty and student research is formally presented and summarized. Some ILPs
are universitywide in scope (i.e., a corporate member receives facilitated access
to a broad range of university research for a fee that is added to the university's
unrestricted funds). Most ILPs, however, are focused on a narrowly defined re-
search area involving individual academic departments or research clusters, or, in
some cases, individual UIRCs.53 These more typical ILPs involve closer interac-
tion between academic researchers and technical staff from industry and a higher
level of faculty engagement overall in their management. Accordingly, corporate
membership fees go to the sponsoring academic department or UIRC.
As part of its 1992 survey of 35 leading U.S. research universities, the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) (1992) gathered information on the growth of
industrial liaison programs. Thirty of these institutions had at least one ILP.
OCR for page 119
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
119
Carnegie Mellon University alone accounted for 59 of 278 such programs that
were identified. Eighteen of the universities surveyed provide liaison program
members, domestic or foreign, with access to the results of federally funded re-
search before those results are made generally available, while the other 12 insti-
tutions do not.
Research Consortia
Research consortia involve a university, academic research department, or
UIRC with multiple corporate sponsors, and often state and federal government
funding agencies, in the sponsorship of a specific field of academic research.
Examples of such consortia include the Biotechnology Process Engineering Cen-
ter Consortium at MIT (Box 5) and the Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided
Manufacturing Consortium at the University of California at Berkeley. (See Box
3,pp.106-107.) As in the case of formal UIRCs, consortia partners from indus-
try and government are involved directly in helping define the research agenda of
the academic research performer. Moreover, research consortia, like UIRCs, may
also encompass targeted industrial liaison programs.
Technical Assistance Programs
Technical assistance programs are designed to serve small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) within a defined geographic region by providing them with
technical advice and problem-solving capabilities usually related to manufactur-
ing and production issues. Technical assistance programs may have a permanent
staff of assistance providers or merely serve a broker function by putting compa-
nies in contact with expert consultants, including university faculty.
Most technical assistance programs are associated with universities. As of 1992,
all but 8 of 75 members of the National Association of Management and Techni-
cal Assistance Centers were associated with college or universities. Included
among the population of university-affiliated programs are the several hundred
small-business development centers in community colleges established by the
U.S. Small Business Association, the various technical and management assis-
tance centers in universities funded by the Department of Commerce (such as the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Manufacturing Technology Cen-
ters), as well as many of the 42 centers funded by the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation that provide technical advice to state departments of transportation.
As one observer has noted, these technical assistance programs "are public
service activities and rarely have strong alliances with teaching or fundamental
research. They require heavy subsidies and therefore must be attentive to the
purposes and requirements of funding agencies.... [and they I exist on the periph-
ery of the university, uncertain of their place and often unsupported by the admin-
istration" (Matkin, 1990~. Whether such activities are worth the diversion of
effort from the core missions of the university is an open question. Nevertheless,
as in the case of equity investments in start-up companies, these activities may
OCR for page 120
120 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMSIN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
.............................................................................................................................
M- am-- -- ~·~ ^^ Ant am An--- ~-r^~--- -~-^I^~rl^^ ~ ~^T^
· s ~.. .... 1:-~-~-: ~:~: ~ ~ B~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~_~e ~ ~ ~
-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::: ::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: -:J:::::: :::
:::::::::::::::::-::.::-:-::::-::::-::::-::::-:.:::-:::-:-::::::-:-::::-::-::::-:::::-::-::::-::-:-::::.:::-::::::-::::-:-:::::::-:::-:-::-:.::-:-::::-::::::
~ ~-lone-er-lng---prog am---1n---eauCal-1on---ana--- ese-are 1--TO'r'-'-I 1e--- 31-01eC nno- ogy---1-n~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. - - - - . . . . ... . . . .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.................. - -. -. -. -. -. - - - -. - -. -. -. - -. -. -. -.
J - u S l ~ - - - ~ l o ~ e C ~ ~ - - n - o O - g y ~ - - r o c e s s - - - - - n - g - 1 - n - e e - r l - n - g ~ - - e r T e r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ l a - K e s ~
......................................... ...........................................................................................
......................... - - - -.- j .,
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:'''':'' ':':':t:' :' :' ':' ' :+I ':' ' :':':':':':' :' ' ' :' :::::'~'I' :' :I'' :I'I:' :' '' :':':':'' '' :' :' ' ' :' ^:':':+' :':':'^:I'' +:' :' ^:' :' 'E:' :' ':''':':':':':I'' 't:' :' ''.' tl':' :' :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':
.:':':':':':':':':':':':':':'":I':'E:':':'I'E:':I'I:':I'V:V-'":LI':V:=''':':':w'E:'V=O' :~:IO'~'E:='E:E'I:':I'=I':'V:':':': L~'~'I':V=~I:'I':':':LV':':':='E:~'L=~I:'I'E:':I'V:I'~ E:V''':':':'E:I':'I:'L=' E:l':~Ll:'E:':I'~':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'
~ l--l-l--e~ scle-n-ces~ an- '~ u-l-o-D-roces-s~ e-' -alneerlno wlLr1 ~rle ~oal ol n' OUUCIE -a~ au~
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~-:-~-:-:-:-:-:.-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:~-:-:-:-:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-_:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:t:-:-:-:-:.-:~-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.:-~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~-~-_ :~:::::
.............. "I.~I.^n ~ l ~.~.l ^.n^ ~^l .~.n.ff=Tl.^ n T.n. ~.~.~.r .. m~ l nT~ l n~- -
':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'i':~:~'t'1:~:1:'1~1:':':':~:~:!' - .- :!':'I:V~:':':':!':':':'~:!':'1:~1:~'1:':!':'':':':':~:!':'1:~:':':':~:I:':':':~:~':':':'l:':!':!'~!'l:':!':~!':!':'l~:':':'~Ll':V':~':':':~'l:!'~:~:'I:'~:~!':V:' .~-':':
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ ~---lea '~ oT~ l---4~ Tac-E -E~ m-e '-~-e-E-s~ wll-n~ co-m-p-l-e-' -e 'Ia' ~ a-reas~ oT~ expe-' l-s-e~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::::::::
..... ~ l-e-au~ Lrl-e~ res-ea-E r ' an '~ e '-u-caL'o-n-al~ p-' oa- a' -s °1 or=~* E rle lacully are
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: :: : ::::: :::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::: :::::::
.~ . ~ E tE MIT ~ ~ E t t E E i I E i E iE bi I h E i~E
~ I i al " " 'i" ' '' "'i" g a '' ""' ' " " '' ' e "" ' 'i'' " ' ' """"'a '' ""' " " ""' a a """ '' 'i' ' ' Sit
.... .... .
................. - - -. - ...... - - - - - -
.............................................................................................................................
, ~ , i - .
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~^t^.~:.E:.:'t^'E:l'^tAI~:':':':':\' '~:~:lt l -n^- - -~-~-l ^-nT i ~t~ ~ ~ -n- E:':':l'^~:l':'l:^t~''~'E:':':'~'^~:~^I'^t^~:':':^'~^':':'l:n:t^'^:~.-^'E:':':':':':':':':':':':':':':
,,,~ -v-~v!--~!---!-~!-l~-vv-~ ~ !-it!! l~ -~!~! ltlaL=~ ~! l~ ll l--aLl l~! ~-v~l~Lwa ~! w.. !l ! ~-l ~!
~ a i'' i" a' 't' i E h E eE~$ i i i The t 'S i$i E """i'$""' ' ""e' tabl'ish""""""""""""""""
~ ........ ........ .................... ... ................................ ... ........ ..........
......... . .
............... , ~
'~ ""t E'E-'U'a'E """reS'ea'E E""'aE ' l""'e0'U'Cat'l'- E""""'{E 'e""'a0VaE 'c'e l"""E 'a E' EtaCt'U'rl' E~""'C-'E 'ce'~s""""""""""""""'
-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:::::::::::::::: ::: :::::: ::::::: :::: ::::: ::: ::::::: ::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::: 1
~ a- '-a~ p- vcess-es~ l' -al~ w-l-l-E~ e-' -s-u-re~ l- '-e~ c-- '-p-el-ll',v,e- '-es$~ oT~ I-' -e~ u~ ~ D-I-olec-' ~
T:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t::::::::::.::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::,::::: :: : : :::: :::::::::::: :t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ee~ res-ea-E n""l'E 'rU'St""OT""'~'E 'EU""I$"'Ine""'p'rV0'U'CIIV'E ""'OT""CO' E'p'E'eX"'I'E 'e'E pe-ullc~
.......................................................
.......................... - - -.- -.- - - -
'''''' ' t' 'i'' '' '"""' ' " ' 'iti' ' 'E'l'' ""'i'' """' ' ' ' ' '' t''' i E E k t E i d
.............................................................................................................................
............... - - - - -
*-r ~ I'''r ~ :I':'lt'' ' t-i - l-rl~ ~ r- -~ ~-'1:' :I':'I:l'' '' ''' '' ' :E':':':I'' ''t ' '' E' ' ' ' :1:' ' ''' -r- *- '1:' ' :':':'1:' ''''''''''''''
,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,`;:1,: 1 "!.:.:.:!.: 1 :,I:",I:,:!,U,:!,"~:~:U:I:,I:,I:,:!,~,:,:,~,~ - , .LV:!.:~.:.:.:.:.:'~. .:'I:':!'=:':' - :"'I:':~:!~'~'I:"'I:':':':~:V"'I:':':'I
......................................................................... ~
.............................................................................................................................
~ . - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - . - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ . - - -
[ligl' CO ECentE [EOn [qUaE [fly) ano WlEr' r~!g'~ pr u ECtIV'' [' [el. ~ SeCO' u
.... . . ...
........................................................... - - - -
'""""" Eal'OE " E--al~ l-s---t-~ e-' s-- -re---t- '-e---$tau'-I---t- to-' E -lm--o-' ~ ano~ oe-l--l- e-' ---ot---t- '-e---tn-e-ra~
, ~ ~
.............................................................................................................................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:-' ::::::::::::-::::~:::::-::::::::::::::::~::! :-:::::::-:::::::::::::::-:::::::-:::::::-:::::::-:::::::::-*::::::::::::::-::: - :~:::::::::::::::::~:::::-:::::::::::::-:-:::::::::::::-:-:::1::-:::::-:-:::::::-:::::::-:
~ ausl~ IE e vppO~ E E E~ Iv exc Eange E ETv~m~Iv E aE a perSOE E el s
.. . . ..
............................ - - - -. -. - - - -
~ ea-E--~p '-enl~ an~ lac'-'`lles a' ~ pe' O'E' E~ co-l-E-a~o-rall-ve~ rese-a-rc~ wET-E~ ~-E-e~
................................................................................................................................
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~:~:~:r.:.'.:.:.''':' :':':':' '+^':':'' t:~:' '' ':'' ' :' :' .'' :01:':'''' ':':'' :' :' '~'' :' :':':':':':':E':''' ' ' '' :01:':'I'' ':':'' :' :' '~'' :' ' :':':E :' :' :' ':':'1:' :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':
':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'M'l':':':'~'~.:':':V'E:':':':V V: I :LE':'E:':':V'L'E:':I'=:I':':':~V'E:':I=V'I:':LI'U :1':1:'1:':':1:'1:':1='1:':1':1:~:~.:'1:'O'*':':':':'~:~1:''~V'I:':LI'U :1':1:'1:':':1':'1:''='I:':I':I:~:~.:'E:'O':':'~='=~:':':I'I:':I':
::::::::::::::: : : :1 1:::::::: :1 :::: : ~:: :~ : :::: :::::: : :: ::: ::::::: 1 :::
~ co-n--l.a..c-l~wl--lEl~ E 'E -E w~ l--ac' -I-~ ~ a E~"""$'t '~-en-'s~ ano~ ' ce-l-~ au-v.a ECe"""E o-rICe---on~
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..::::::
.~ t E I E| E I I tE E t $ lan ~ I $ ~ tl
::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: : :::::::::: ::: :~:: : ::::: : ::::: ::: :~: : ::::::::::::::.:::
r~^ rl~ ~l ~ ;~r~£~ r~l^^ ~r~ ~ ^~rr~l^^l rt~s ~r^~s^~l l!tl~£~ l mr~ r~l~mtq~l---
I'-'!-='~-l'-~-y~ 'wV-'-'~w'!-'-l'-~-~-~'l-'-l'!-=, =~ ~'-l'-'Vl'-l'-'l~ ~-l'-'!-=,'-'-~-1'-'!-~.'!-'!-'-1'!-~- ~ '~-l'-'!-~'!-'-l'-~-'!-~.'U'L!-~'!~ '~l'-'!-~'-'-='!-V'L='~'!-'-l'!-'-l'V-l'~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::::::::-:::::::::-:-::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-::::::::::::::::::::---::-:-:-:-:::::
~ E i Ed tE ies aE EeE b ~ the E S di EE Th C E S hi E E E a
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-::::-:::-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
'~ """""'p' iIS"""O'E ~ 'WO'RKS'n'O-p-S~ TO-' ~ l-n-e~ p E-E p-os-es~ oT~ I-n-To-r '~lo-n~ ana~ lec-n- Eo-l-ocy~ ex~
:::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::::::
. Crla Eged l ecrl' o-l-o-~-y~a E~""'l" E'l"O'E '-a-~-l-on~ ~ra-' s-l-e-~ a-lso~ e-' e~ acco- '-p-l-l-S-,r-l-e '~ v-l-a~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :::::::::: :::
~ a E E al E si E Ebli ~i E s e' i' a s these t' E e te t
....................................................... ....... ............................ ...................................
............................................................................................................................
Een~S an E CO E$0~1 EE WOE ~SE OpS. UlEem In EE slrlal colla~oraT'o ES ~e
~ .
............... -. - , - - - -. - - - -
~t I E t ~ tE t t E t h ~
::::::::::::::: : : ::t : :::::: :::: :.::::::::::::t:: :::::::::::::::t:::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::*::::
--- ~U HUt AE EUE ~U E0nEeV E eE E~IVaE Ea ~tate E Elv-ersitv
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:::::::::-:-:::::::-:-:-:::::::':::':':':::':':::::::'::::::::::: -:-:-:::':':':::':::':::::::':':::':::::::':::':':':::::':':::':::::::':::':::':':::!::::':::::':::':::':':::::':~:':1':':':':::':':':':::::::':::':::':::'
OCR for page 121
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
121
help buy sponsoring universities continued political/financial support within state
legislatures. More importantly, as underscored by Armstrong (1997), such pro-
grams have the potential for exposing basic researchers in academia to other in-
stitutional cultures in the technological innovation system, to the benefit of all
parties involved.
TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS INCUBATORS
The purpose of university-based technology business incubators is the care
and feeding of start-up ventures through their early phases of development. Gen-
erally, incubators provide laboratory or building space at below-market rental
rates, as well as a variety of technical and general business services. The incuba-
tors' principal service is to provide clients with access to academic researchers,
including faculty, postdocs, and graduate students. In early 1997, there were
more than 100 technology business incubators operating in the United States.
Roughly half of these were affiliated with research universities (Association of
University-Related Research Parks, 1997; National Business Incubators Associa-
tion, 1997~.54
ASSESSING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM UNIVERSITIES
AND COLLEGES
The preceding review of the major technology transfer mechanisms of U.S.
universities and colleges testifies to the dynamism, flexibility, and innovativeness
of the nation's academic research enterprise in this area. Since the early 1980s
there have been strong fiscal and public-policy-related incentives for academia to
engage industry more intensively as a research partner and client. In this context,
the highly diverse and autonomous population of U.S. research colleges and uni-
versities and their research faculties have had great latitude to experiment with
new institutional arrangements to this end. Responding to the economic develop-
ment challenge, academic research institutions have expanded their portfolio of
technology transfer activities to encompass collaborative research centers, con-
sortia, proactive technology licensing offices, venture capital funds, and techni-
cal extension programs.
While it is difficult to assess the aggregate impact of or attribute specific
causality to these experiments, the past 10 to 15 years have witnessed a number
of significant readily documented changes in university-industry research inter-
action that are at least consistent with the logic of these initiatives. Industrial
support for academic research has grown more rapidly than funding by any other
sector since 1980. The number of academic research publications cited in U.S.
patent applications has increased markedly in the last 5 years. University licens-
ing revenues have grown rapidly in the past decade, albeit from a small base.
Although most academic researchers involved in collaborative work with indus
OCR for page 122
122 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
try still view the advancement of knowledge as their primary research objective,
the more entrepreneurial among them are now faced with greater opportunities
(and incentives) to become involved directly in the commercialization of tech-
nologies developed or seeded within the academy through start-up companies or
other mechanisms. Through more intense research collaboration, firms in a num-
ber of industries have gained enhanced access to academic researchers faculty,
postdocs, and graduate students with highly specialized knowledge.
With respect to the impact of academic research and technology transfer on
industrial performance there are clearly significant inter-industry variations in
experience. As the survey of UIRCs suggests, the relative importance of differ-
ent technology transfer mechanisms varies widely according to the nature of the
technology being transferred and the industry being served. The extent and
nature of a given research university's contribution to the technology needs of a
particular industry or company depends largely on the specific characteristics of
that industry's key technologies (e.g., whether they are highly science-based or
not, whether they are relatively new and dynamic or more mature and stable,
whether intellectual property rights are central or tangential to their successful
commercialization, etch. For example, patent licensing is a critical instrument
of technology transfer in biotechnology, where control of intellectual property
rights is essential for the long and expensive development/commercialization
cycle of human therapeutic compounds. Yet patents are much less important in
software or microelectronics, where the pace of technology life cycles is much
shorter.
Research universities, which constitute the locus of most basic research in
molecular biology and computer sciences in the United States, are considered the
most important nonindustrial source of external technology for the relatively new,
highly science-based biotechnology and software industries (see Annex II). Yet
aside from their critical contribution of well-trained, learning-equipped science
and engineering graduates, U.S. research universities have not figured promi-
nently as a source of new technology or proto-technology for more technologi-
cally mature or established industries (e.g., automobiles, machine tools).
Surveys of industrial researchers by Nelson and Levin (1986) and related
research by Mansfield (1995) have shown that there are only a few industries
where technology transfer from universities in the form of codified intellectual
property, or the direct contribution of academic research to the commercializable
products and processes are perceived to be important. Here again, software and
biotechnology (i.e., new technologies where the step from basic research to appli-
cation is direct) are the only two areas where corporate managers see universities
as major sources of "invention." From the perspective of most other technology-
intensive industries, academic research mainly stimulates and enhances the power
of R&D performed by private companies. Those who produce nonbiotech phar-
maceuticals assert that they look to academic research primarily to improve their
understanding of technologies, particularly new technologies, yet only rarely
OCR for page 123
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
123
for new products. Likewise, electronics manufacturers view academic research
as an important source of radically new designs and concepts, but as a relatively
insignificant contributor to incremental technological advance in their industry
(Rosenberg and Nelson, 1994~. Yet even in less "science-based" industries, bet-
ter understanding of technologies, illuminated by academic research, may enable
industrial researchers to search more efficiently for incremental changes. In other
words, academic research helps identify a much wider range and variety of op-
tions for incremental improvement, but the selection among these options for
further pursuit can be better done by industrial researchers more intimately famil-
iar with all the surrounding constraints and requirements (many of them non-
technical).
Our understanding (both quantitative and qualitative) of the current nature
and dynamics of university-industry partnerships in individual industries and re-
search fields remains very limited. However, the large degree of variation in com-
pany practices, in the demands of technology in different industries, and in the
nature and practices of universities documented in these and other case histories
makes it clear that no single set of approaches will fit all situations.
From a U.S. perspective, an effective system of collaboration among uni-
versities and industry is a keystone of technology policy for economic growth.
It is clear that companies and universities are good at different aspects of re-
search, development, demonstration, and commercial innovation and that the
process of allocation of effort and resources should reflect those differing capa-
bilities. It is not clear, however, that either companies or universities know how
to be good partners. In many partnerships, the missions, cultures, norms, and
concerns of the two organizations could not be farther apart. Corporate technol-
ogy strategies call for justifiable R&D expenditures and focus on speeding the
contribution of new technology to commercial success. University mission state-
ments and culture value contributions to education, learning, and long-horizon
fundamental research. Because of these differences, partnerships can be strained,
with neither party being particularly satisfied. Indeed, increased emphasis on
applied research at universities and growing limitations on the disclosure of aca-
demic research results, both fueled by deepening university-industry research
ties, may be undermining core strengths of the academic research enterprise and
its capacity for serving the less proprietary, more long-term knowledge/research
needs of industry.
Amidst rising public enthusiasm for and expectations of university-industry
partnerships, companies, universities, and public policymakers are faced with a
number of critical questions. For companies, there are a host of operational ques-
tions as to what can and cannot be accomplished working with universities and
which practices work best. For universities, there is an equally complex set of
operational questions about how best to serve companies as clients made even
more difficult by the educational mission of universities and a long-standing his-
torical remove of many universities from commercial concerns. For example,
Representative terms from entire chapter:
academic researchers
