Entrepreneurship, Secrecy, and Productivity: A Comparison of Clinical and Non-Clinical Life Sciences Faculty

This paper addresses research in the life sciences, responsible for significant national expenditures for scientific investigations funded by both the federal government and industry. Our investigation examines faculty members' involvement with industry in “entrepreneurial” ways that is, involved in translating their research into potentially marketable knowledge or products. First, this study examines whether there are differences in entrepreneurial behaviour between clinical and non-clinical faculty in the life sciences with industry relationships, and, second, to discover any linkage between entrepreneurship and secrecy or productivity in different ways for clinical and non-clinical faculty. The study is based on survey responses of a national sample of 4,000 clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty in 49 U.S. research universities. The results show non-clinical faculty as more involved at the back end. The more entrepreneurial end of commercialization while clinical faculty are involved at the back end. The more entrepreneurial faculty (non-clinical) are more likely to be secretive about their research. Clinical faculty are less likely to have been denied access to research results or products. Entrepreneurial faculty are not less productive in their faculty roles. This investigation is preliminary in that it addresses one large area of academic research but excludes fields with longer historical relationships with industry.

[1]  M. Mulkay Norms and ideology in science , 1976 .

[2]  R. F. Jones,et al.  Clinical revenues used to support the academic mission of medical schools, 1992‐93 , 1996, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[3]  James S. Fairweather,et al.  Faculty Work and Public Trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life , 1995 .

[4]  D Blumenthal,et al.  Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Entrepreneurial science: the second academic revolution , 1998 .

[6]  C. Bardes,et al.  Are the teachers teaching? Measuring the educational activities of clinical faculty , 1995, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[7]  Michael A. Stoto,et al.  University-industry relationships in the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows☆ , 1987 .

[8]  R. F. Jones,et al.  Faculty appointment and tenure policies in medical schools: a 1997 status report , 1998, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[9]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[10]  F. Lovejoy,et al.  A Promotion Ladder for Teachers at Harvard Medical School: Experience and Challenges , 1995, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[11]  M. Randolph,et al.  Careers in Clinical Research: Obstacles and Opportunities , 1995 .

[12]  D Blumenthal,et al.  University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. , 1986, Science.

[13]  Michael A. Stoto,et al.  Entrepreneurs in Academe: An Exploration of Behaviors Among Life Scientists , 1989 .