Technology Transfer from Public Research … Technology Transfer from Public Research Organizations...

1 Technology Transfer from Public Research Organizations

Technology Transfer from Public Research Organizations: Concepts, Markets, and Institutional Failures

According to Roessner (2000), technology transfer is the formal and informal movement of know-how, skills, technical knowledge or technology from one organizational setting to another. The process often faces unfavorable economic incentives and an inadequate supply of complementary services to translate new ideas into technological and economically viable innovations. Coordination among various stakeholders is also a challenge. The technology transfer process requires access to a number of informational, financial, and human resources.

By Pluvia Zuniga and Paulo Correa World Bank, 2013

Introduction Universities and research institutes are large beneficiaries of public investments in research and development (R&D). The pace and effectiveness of the transformation of research outputs – or, more broadly, academic knowledge – into new or better products and processes has a substantial impact on the contribution of those public investments to economic development. By improving the process of knowledge transfer from public research organizations (PROs), countries can increase innovation in the economy and thereby raise productivity, create better job opportunities, and address societal challenges such as climate change and food security. Not surprisingly, governments have been actively searching for new ways to improve knowledge transfer from PROs to industry.

This policy brief reviews the rationale underlying the design and implementation of public policy to foster technology transfer from science to industry. It discusses market and institutional failures in the transfer of ideas and new technological competences from research institutions to industry. The brief emphasizes a specific mechanism of technology transfer, “research commercialization,” also known as “technology commercialization”. This type of technology transfer entails licensing, spinoffs, and technology collaboration. Yet it is important to keep in mind that other mechanisms of knowledge transfer (e.g., technical consultancy and training)


may be more suitable under certain circumstances, especially at the early stages of country development when the research pool is in its formative stages.

Concepts, Process, and Contextual Factors Technology Transfer between Science and Industry According to Roessner (2000), technology transfer can be defined as the movement of know-how, skills, technical knowledge or technology from one organizational setting to another. Technology transfer from science occurs both formally and informally, as the technology, skills, procedures, methods and expertise from research institutions and universities can be transferred to firms or governmental institutions, generating economic value and industry development. Figure 1 illustrates this diversity of linkages between industry and science.

Informal channels include the transfer of knowledge through publications, conferences, and informal exchanges between scientists. Formal channels include training and education, hiring students and researchers from universities and PROs, sharing of equipment and instruments, technology services and consultancy, sponsored research and R&D collaboration, and other forms of technology commercialization.

Technology commercialization, also known as research commercialization, refers to the valorization of research and intellectual assets by industry. It includes the selling, licensing of, or contracting of technology services, intellectual assets, and related-knowledge into spinoff creation and R&D collaboration. R&D collaboration is another form of valorization of research, enhancing industry innovation capacity.1 Such collaboration may serve multiple purposes and take place in a variety of forms, such as licensing of technology inputs and/or outputs; cross-licensing, etc.

While a narrower concept, the notion of technology commercialization through the exploitation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has become increasingly important in recent years.2 IPRs facilitate technology transactions by reducing the legal uncertainty surrounding the ownership and protection of inventions. They can be the bedrock on which technology licensing takes place and new technologies can be developed. Yet the relevance of IPRs, particularly patents, as a mechanism of protection against imitation differs across technologies and industries.3 For instance, patents are more relevant to appropriation of returns from innovation in the pharmaceuticals, electronics, and chemicals industries than others (Cohen et al., 2000). In the United States, licensing of patents has been useful in facilitating technology transfer in emerging technologies, such as biotechnology and biomedical technologies.

Developing countries have started to pay more attention to technology commercialization, although contextual conditions, in terms of both scientific and innovation competencies, differ widely from those of developed countries (WIPO, 2011). In developing countries, most technology transfer activity occurs through informal mechanisms. Technology collaboration is often limited to ad hoc, short-term, and small-scale consultancy projects based on isolated initiatives and does not follow an institutional approach to technology transfer. 4


The challenge, for both developed and developing countries, is to generate a systematic process of technology transfer from PROs to the business sector, maximizing the contribution of public investments in research and innovation for economic growth. From an economic standpoint, inventions that do not enter the marketplace are essentially idle and may be seen as a waste of scarce economic resources.

Technology Transfer and Economic Development Private sector’s demand for technology transfer –its nature and the type of channels through which it occurs- is strongly determined by the level of economic development of the region (country). From the demand side, the private sector needs to identify the appropriate types of technology transfer. Different innovation needs require different technology transfer solutions. In less-developed economies, the need for diffusion and adaptation are more important than radical innovation. In this context, technology transfer will be more oriented to the provision of basic technical and engineering services (extension services) and support for incremental innovation, based mostly on adoption and adaptation of foreign technologies. When there is a demand for upfront knowledge and absorption conditions exist, technology commercialization solutions (including those that are IPR-based) can be key components of technology transfer programs.


Figure 1: Technology Transfer and Shaping Factors

Source: Authors building on Bercovitz and Feldman (2006) and WIPO (2011).

International technology transfer – from foreign technology acquisition (trade), FDI and licensing – and knowledge transfer from PROs are complementary mechanisms to enhance firm innovation, and can help companies catch up to their international competitors. Especially in developing countries, international technology transfer is indispensable in obtaining global knowledge. At the same time, local research capacity is a key element of the country’s absorptive capacity to screen, absorb, and adapt knowledge to local circumstances or to meet local needs (Griffith et al., 2003; 2004).


Figure 2: Intermediation and Supportive Services to Technology Transfer

Source: Authors

The Technology Commercialization Process: A Simplified View Technology transfer does not evolve naturally and linearly from research and the discovery of scientific solutions. Rather, the process often faces unfavorable economic incentives and an inadequate supply of complementary services to translate new ideas into technological and economically viable innovations.

Technology commercialization is a multi-stage process involving different stakeholders: researchers, faculties, coordinating/managing organizations, private/public technology transfer intermediaries, and recipients (firms or public sector institutions).

There are five basic stages of the technology commercialization process, identified below. This process is not necessarily linear, as industry-science links can exist from the start and science-firm interactions may arise at any stage, from conception through development.

• STEP 1: Researchers generate discoveries of high quality. • STEP 2: Discoveries are disclosed by researchers. • STEP 3: Discoveries are further developed • STEP 4: Proof of concepts and prototype are ‘sold’ or transferred to spinoff companies • STEP 5: Product development and marketing

The starting point is the generation of a sufficiently large and highly qualified pool of research output. Research output needs to be disclosed by researchers, monitored and preliminarily evaluated at this early stage for its market potential. A decision needs to be taken in terms of the additional research needed until a patent can be filled and/or technical feasibility and commercial potential can be demonstrated through proofs-of-concepts and/or prototype development.

Proof of concept and prototypes need then to be licensed to other companies, surrogate entrepreneurs through IPRs agreements or used to establish new firms or academic spinoffs.


Product development and marketing is the last phase of the commercialization process and corresponds to the effective introduction of the new ideas in the marketplace. Firms, private intermediaries, and investors are key partners to foster the development of prototypes based on applied research. Firms are the ones making innovation happen by engaging in the production and commercialization of products, processes or services.

The Potential Benefits Technology transfer from research institutions and universities (the “science” sector

hereafter) can generate important benefits for economic development. Academic research has real effects on the economy by increasing the productivity of private sector R&D and the growth of total factor productivity. 5 These benefits work through knowledge spillover – derived, for instance, from the dissemination of a paper or the hiring of a researcher by the business sector – and through industry-science collaboration and technology transactions, from simple technical consultancy to licensing of intellectual property.

Figure 3: The Process of Technology Commercialization

Source: Authors

Industry-science collaboration in R&D can entail cross-fertilization of ideas and synergies in research, avoiding wasteful duplication of R&D efforts in firms. More generally, industry-science collaboration can leverage technological spillovers through the stimulation of additional private R&D investment.6 Linkages with industry can have enriching effects for research institutions as well,7 although there is a substantial variation in the relevance of science for innovation across industries and the modes of interaction across scientific disciplines. 8

R&D collaboration can lead to research complementarities and might even trigger new ideas for both basic and applied research. 9 Patent licensing and spinoffs can result in greater access to


privately-sponsored research and new sources of employment for students. In the United States, licensing of IPRs from scientific organizations has been fundamental to the emergence of new industries dedicated to scientific instruments, semiconductors, computer software, and biotechnology. 10

In spite of these potential benefits, industry-science collaboration is often under-developed and, more broadly, the impact of publicly- funded research on local economies remains largely limited or unknown. The World Bank Enterprise Survey provides data about the main sources of technology transfer for Europe and Central Asia in 2005, indicating that about 75 percent of manufacturing firms in the region consider the acquisition of machinery and equipment the most important means of knowledge acquisition, as compared to less than 1 percent in the case of universities and or public research institutes. Even among high-income countries, significant collaboration between science and industry is difficult to achieve. 11

In this sense, the pace and effectiveness of transformation of research outputs or scientific knowledge into new or better products and processes substantially affects the contribution of public investments in R&D to economic development and growth. The transformation encounters several obstacles, including unfavorable or dissuading institutional frameworks, and market failures in the provision of specialized complementary inputs, which dissuade actors from engaging in technology transactions and collaboration.

Worldwide, countries are actively seeking new ways to promote technology transfer from research institutions to business, and to enhance the impact of science on national economies.12 In developing countries, there is a clear necessity to enhance technology transfer from public research institutions, especially because most of the national knowledge base is concentrated in universities. On average, R&D performed by public institutions represents two-thirds of the total gross domestic R&D (GERD) in developing countries. 13 Provided that the knowledge generated in these organizations is of some value, improving technology transfer is imperative given the relative scarcity of industry-science linkages and the high opportunity cost of public funds.

Contextual Factors In brief, formal technology transfer from universities and PROs is the result of a combination of contextual factors including (OECD, 2003; WIPO, 2011). Factors include the following:

• Research capabilities (quality and scale) and research orientation with applied research, engineering and applied sciences being extremely important. 14

• Institutional incentives and regulatory frameworks enabling and encouraging research institutions and scientists to engage in technology transfer activities.

• An entrepreneurial culture and willingness to collaborate with the productive sector. • Intermediation support (and technology transfer skills) to conciliate technology supply with

demands or vice-versa, implying assistance in networking, intellectual property management, and contracting services in technology markets.


• Access to finance and financial mechanisms for new firm creation and industry-science collaboration.

A fundamental factor in fostering technology commercialization, especially IPR-based, is the capacity of national intellectual property institutions to support the creation of IPRs, and effective oversight and commercialization. Improving efficiency at patent offices means adhering to international treaties and offices (e.g., European Patent Office), having adequate enforcement mechanisms, efficiency, and timely patent processing and quality controls, and improving information mechanisms, among other things.

Institutional and Market Failures Technology transfer, particularly technology commercialization, does not flow naturally from the research base to industries and markets. In principle, well-functioning “markets for ideas” constitute an appealing mechanism in which inventors, researchers and scientists supply their inventions, and firms, entrepreneurs, and investors demand them, with a price that clears the market. 15

However, several obstacles hinder the process of technology transfer and industry-science collaboration, making technology transactions actually unfeasible or very costly. We summarize such factors in three groups: i) uncertainty and the ownership question, ii) incentive misalignment, and iii) the need for specialized resources.

Uncertainty and the ownership question From the private sector side, there is a problem of uncertainty regarding the value potential of scientific discoveries. Typically, inventions developed by universities and research institutions are often embryonic and need further investment for development. Such investment involves high risk, since neither the practicality of the inventions nor their market utility has been proven.16 As a result, many inventions remain idle without the development necessary to make them attractive as business opportunities. Failures in technology transfer also occur due to the lack of information mechanisms facilitating matching of supply and demand, and reflecting the inherent difficulties of under-developed technology markets.

In addition, the lack of a clear legal framework regarding the creation and exploitation of IPR resulting from research is a source of uncertainty about appropriation of innovation. Such policy gaps discourage firms and potential partners or investors from funding technology development and engaging in collaboration with scientific institutions, further provoking a market failure in the transfer of ideas from science to markets. Firms are often reluctant to invest in technology development and commercialization if the ownership of inventions is uncertain, possibly allowing innovations to be exploited or appropriated by others.

Incentive misalignment problem in a principal-agent context Interests and motivations may often differ between actors, which hinders or discourages technology transfer. The motivations and approaches to research may substantially diverge between scientists at research institutions and collaborators in industry. It is often argued that


industry is driven by short-term results and ready-to-use technologies, paying particular attention to the speed with patents can be obtained. This leads to a preference to delay publication of research and making ideas public.

By contrast, scientists are strongly motivated to publish research results. In addition, researchers are often reluctant to engage in technology transfer activities if reputation and career development are only evaluated on the basis of scientific performance. Other activities therefore have less value for them and divert them from concentrating efforts in advancing research. Yet commercialization efforts by researchers are necessary, because scientific results often need to be further developed until a real market or industrial application is achieved. In addition, in many cases, the knowledge required for development is un-codified and idiosyncratic to the inventor, making the participation of researchers essential in technology transfer activities.

By engaging in commercialization efforts, however, researchers may be incurring a high opportunity cost, trading certain academic returns based on scientific achievements (e.g., paper publication) for uncertain compensation or recognition. Incentives to under- or misreport research findings may also emerge from this situation.17

In parallel, research institutions and funding agencies often lack the incentive and capacity to properly monitor and manage research investments in terms of their quality and, more importantly, their actual exploitation and commercialization. Research results are not seen as a potential economic asset, and additional resources are needed for their management. These factors, coupled with the sometimes conflicting goals of PROs, make it highly unlikely that IPRs will be effectively managed or that public research will commercialized on a systematic basis.

In this context, adverse selection and moral hazard problems arise from conflicting interests, given uncertainty about the economic and social impact of technologies, and lack of clarity regarding the responsibilities of the different actors. “Adverse selection” refers to the problem of finding the appropriate agent for delegation. This often requires the principal to rely on the agents’ own judgments or actions. Similarly, commercialization often requires subjective assessment of inventions, voluntary disclosures, peer review of the technical quality, and additional expert assessment of market or economic impact.18

According to principal-agent theory, optimally balancing incentives across tasks performed by one “agent” is required for optimal performance. From a public policy perspective, therefore, the question is how to balance the incentive structure of the research sector to encourage research organizations and researchers to devote more resources to commercialization efforts. The following factors must be addressed:

• Career structures for scientists in academic and public PROs have traditionally rewarded only academic accomplishments,

• Employment regulations often limit the participation of researchers in entrepreneurial endeavors or joint research activities,


• Research organizations often lack the legal mandate and operational flexibility to efficiently manage IPR (e.g., managing a portfolio of spinoff companies),

• Governments do not hold research organizations or researchers accountable for the management or commercialization of public research,

• Financial gains from commercialization efforts are uncertain for both PROs and researchers, and

• Inappropriate regulations lead to excessive bureaucracy or unnecessary restrictions on the ways researchers interact with firms, thus increasing transaction and financial costs and discouraging technology transfer.

At the institutional level, the ability of research institutions to engage in technology transfer activities is often limited by the lack of an enabling regulatory framework that allows the institutions to own and exploit results from government-funded research. Regulations governing funding practices and/or employment rules at public institutions can be inconsistent with technology transfer activities, limiting interactions with industry. Further, regulations governing public research systems (e.g., funding and time allocation rules; secondary employment and firm-creation rules) and the limited autonomy of universities may even prohibit or discourage researchers from engaging in industry-science interaction.

Access to specialized resources and supportive mechanisms Each step of the technology transfer process described above requires access to a number of informational, financial, and human resources. These resources are often scarce in the marketplace and therefore expensive. The technology transfer process may be further inhibited by a lack of business experience and commercial skills among academics. Resources are not easily transferable to other activities, cannot be deployed on a needs-basis, and represent fixed costs.19 As returns are highly uncertain and often concentrated in few assets, scale economies are important to distribute the costs of the activity through effective coordinating units.

Technology transfer requires a specialized infrastructure and supporting mechanisms, which are not always available. Specialized skills are needed for technology transfer management, and commercialization, yet technology transfer professionals are often in short supply, and internal policies (public sector employment rules and pay scales) may prevent institutions from providing them with competitive salaries.

The resources and supportive mechanisms needed to deploy technology commercialization activities fall into three categories:

• Information. Selling a proof of concept; a prototype, or even a patent is in essence a matching exercise, with all the complexities inherent to this type of activity and potentially high search costs for both parties -- the prospective seller (the scientist) and buyer (firm/investor). Information about supply and demand -- characteristics of the technology, level of novelty, potential usefulness, market competition, industry requirements, prospective investors etc – are very hard to obtain.20 Valuation of new discoveries (the agreeable prices for the transaction) are often controversial even when some


methodologies are available (such as in the case of patenting) – which increases transaction costs.21

• Funding. Similarly, financing is often unavailable for the additional research needed to develop a proof of concept, prototype, or patent. These activities are neither eligible for standard research grants nor attractive options for venture capitalists, constituting a segment of the research commercialization process often called “the valley of death.” 22 The private sector is unlikely to supply sufficient early stage financing because the technological risk is too high and difficult to manage. Informational asymmetry between the scientist and the investor, and the moral hazard of the scientist’s incentive to minimize the development efforts, are core challenges faced by the prospective investor at this stage.

• Skills. Technology transfer professionals must combine expertise in fairly different areas, preferably across a broad range of science fields and economic sectors, and most of this expertise is acquired on the job. These characteristics make such professionals scarce. Public sector employment rules and wage scales often prevent institutions from being able to provide competitive salaries to such experts.23 Professionals from the field of engineering – a discipline that enables the transformation of abstract knowledge into concrete, applied solutions – are often good candidates. In this sense, the limited supply of engineers and engineering schools is another pertinent obstacle in developing countries.

Conclusion Technology transfer is an integral part of increasing innovation in an economy to achieve economic development and capitalize on public investments in R&D. It occurs through both formal and informal channels – and requires significant government support to bridge the gaps between research outputs and technology commercialization. Technology transfer depends on contextual factors including adequate financing mechanisms and the presence of a strong IPR regime. The process is hindered by uncertainty of ownership of innovations, misalignment of incentives among stakeholders, and the need for highly specialized resources. In order to overcome these obstacles, a clear legal framework regarding the creation and exploitation of IP from research is required. In addition, limitations on scientists in PROs to engage in entrepreneurial endeavors and technology commercialization activities must be addressed. Clarity on the financial gains from publicly-funded research and accountability for the management of public research must also be provided. Most importantly, the stock of human capital and the diversity of skills necessary for effective technology transfer must also be enhanced and maintained through competitive wages and flexible staffing regulations.

Endnotes 1 Cassiman and Veugelers (2005) and Belderbos et al. (2004).

2 IPRs include patents, utility patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, and other ownership and commercialization rights on intellectual creations resulting, in the case of this note, from scientific research.


3 It is important to bear in mind that not all innovations are patentable and not all patents have an economic and technical value (Griliches, 1991, OECD; 2009). Furthermore, not all technologies from scientific research need to be patented in order to reach the markets (So et al., 2008).

4 Recent evidence from Argentina (Arza and Vazquez, 2010), Brazil (Rapini et al, 2006; Costa Povoa and Rapini, 2010), Mexico (Dutrenit et al, 2010) and Thailand (Intarakumnerd et al, 2002)) shows that publication, conferences, personal mobility, and training are the most used channels for knowledge transfer.

5 See among others Jaffe (1989), Adams (1990), and Belderbos et al (2004).

6 Rosenberg and Nelson (1994).

7 Agrawal and Henderson (2002) and Breschi et al., (2007).

8 Montobbio (2009).

9 Rosenberg (1998) and Azoulay et al., (2006).

10 See Rosenberg and Nelson (1994); and Zucker and Darby (2001).

11 According to the CIS 2006, for instance, less than 50 percent of innovative countries collaborated with public research organizations in all EU countries (with the exception of Finland).

12 Zuniga (2011).

13 UNESCO (2011).

14 It has been shown that the portfolio of disciplines present at universities (or research institutions) could play a distinctive role in technology commercialization, as some sciences are more likely than others to produce research that can be transferred to industry. Biomedical and engineering faculties are more strongly associated with higher levels of patenting and licensing activity than the rest of fields (Lach and Schankerman, 2008).

15 Markets for technology face a number of imperfections that affect their functioning and growth. These imperfections are associated with the nature of knowledge, given that is often difficult to define limits for the uses of technology and procedures for its exploitation, then write such specifications in the contract clauses. Views about the value of technology differ between parties (asymmetric information), which leads to moral hazard situations. As a result, contracts are imperfectly defined, leading to high transaction costs, such as enforcement and monitoring costs, drafting costs, etc.. These in turn affect the formation of prices, market mechanisms, and diffusion of technology (Arora et al., 2001; Arora and Gambardella, 2011).


16 Based on a survey of 62 universities, Jensen and Thursby (2001) show that over 75 percent of the licensed inventions were at the proof of concept stage and only 12 percent were ready for commercial use.

17 Researchers are required to disclose their findings so that discoveries are evaluated in order to assess their quality and novelty, as well as their market potential. Such assessments permit institutions to decide which strategy of protection needs to be followed, including whether further investigation is needed. Researchers may behave strategically and avoid disclosing information (or misinforming) to avoid the risk of having to allocate time for commercialization efforts in the future.

18 Rasmussen and Gulbrandsen (2009).

19 The cost of managing IPRs – e.g., from technical and patentability assessments; the application for and the maintaining of a patent in the patent offices of the U.S., E.U., or Japan – are significant.

20 Jensen and Thursby (2001).

21 See Jensen et a., (2003), and Zuniga and Guellec (2009).

22 See Branscomb and Auerswald (2001).

23 Caldera and Debande (2010).

References Adams, J.D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy 98 (1990), pp. 673–702.

Agrawal, A. and Henderson, R. (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT, Management Science 48 (1), pp. 44–60.

Arora, A. Fosfuri and A. Gambardella (2001). Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2001).

Arora, A. & A. Gambardella (2011). Implications for Energy Innovation from the Chemical Industry, NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 87-111 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Arza, V. and Vazquez, C. (2010). Interactions between public research organizations and industry in Argentina. Science and Public Policy 37 (7), pp. 499-511.

Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T. (2006). The Effect of Academic Patenting on (Public) Research Output. NBER Working Paper 11917.

Belderbos, R., M. Carree, and B. Lokshin (2004), Co operative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy 33(10), 477–1492.


Bercovitz, J., and M. P. Feldman. (2006). Entrepreneurial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development. Journal of Technology Transfer 31(1), 175-188.

Branscomb, L.M., and P.E. Auerswald (2001). Taking Techni- cal Risks: How Innovators, Executives and Investors Manage High-Tech Risks, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., and Montobbio, F. (2007).The scientific productivity of academic inventors: new evidence from talian data, Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 (2) (2007), pp. 101–118.

Caldera, Aida & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy 39(9), 1160-1173.

Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., and Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48 (2002), 1–23.

Costa Póvoa, L.M., Rapini, M.S. (2010). Technology transfer from universities and public research institutes to firms in Brazil: what is transferred and how the transfer is carried out. Science and Public Policy, 37(2), pp. 147-159(13).

Dutrenit, G. De Fuentes, C. and Torres, A. (2010) C hannels of interaction between public research organizations and industry and their benefits: Evidence from Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 37 (7), August 2010, 513-526.

Griffith, R., S. Redding, and J. Van Reenen (2003). R&D and Absorptive Technology: Theory and Empirical Evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 105: 99-118.

____ (2004). Mapping the Two Faces of R&D: Productivity Growth in a Panel of OECD Industries. Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (4): 883-895.

Intarakumnerd, P., Chairatana, P., and Tangchitpibo on, T. (2002). National innovation systems in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand. Research Policy 31: 1445-1457.

Jaffe, A. B, (1989). Real Effects of Academic Research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-70.

Jensen, R. and Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions. American Economic Review, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259.

Jensen, Richard A. & Thursby, Jerry G. & Thursby, Marie C., 2003. Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: 'The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with', International Journal of Industrial Organization 21(9), 1271-1300.

Lach, S. & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), 403-433.


Montobbio, F. (2009). Intellectual property rights and knowledge transfer from public research to industry in the US and Europe: Which lessons for innovation systems in developing countries? Suggestions for Further Research in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. World Intellectual Property Organization: Geneva, 2009.

OECD (2003). Turning Science into Business, OECD, Paris, 2003.

OECD (2009). Patent Statistics Manual, OECD, Paris, 2009.

Rapini, M. S., M., Da Motta e Albuquerque, E., Silva, L. A., Goncalvez, S., Morais, H. and Silva da Cruz, W. M. (2006). Spots of Interaction: An investigation on the relationship between firms and universities in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Discussion Paper (Texto para discussao) No. 286. Belo Horizonte: UFMG/Cedeplar, 2006. Available at: http://cedeplar.ufmg.br/pesquisas/td/TD%20286.pdf

Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., and Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialisation of university knowledge, Technovation 26 (4), pp. 518–533.

Roessner, J.D., (2000). Technology transfer. In: Hill, C. Ed. Science and Technology Policy in the US, A Time of Change. Longman, London

Rosenberg, N. (1998). Chemical engineering as a general purpose technology. In E. Helpman (Ed.) General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth. MIT Press.

Rosenberg, N., and Nelson, R.R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry, Research Policy 23 (1994), pp. 323–348.

UNESCO (2010). UNESCO Science Report 2010: The Current Status of Science around the World. UNESCO, Paris.

Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), 355-379.

WIPO (2011). World Intellectual Property Report 2011, The Changing Face of Innovation, WIPO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R, (2001). Capturing Technological Opportunity via Japan's Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese Firms' Biotech Patents and Products, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 37-58.

Zuniga (2011). The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries, WIPO Economics Working Papers, November 2011.

Zuniga, M. P. & Guellec, D. (2009). Who Licenses out Patents and Why?: Lessons from a Business Survey, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/5, OECD Publishing.

Date post:	19-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vokhue
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

Technology Transfer from Public Research … Technology Transfer from Public Research Organizations...

Documents