The Knowledge Filter and Economic Growth: The Role of Scientist Entrepreneurship

This paper examines the prevalence and determinants of the commercialization of research by university scientists funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Because the two publicly available modes of scientist commercialization – patents and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants – do not cover the full spectrum of commercializing activities undertaken by university scientists, the study also includes two additional measures obtained from detailed scientist interviews: licensing of intellectual property and starting a new firm. These measures are used to assess both the prevalence and determinants of scientist commercialization of research. In particular, the empirical findings suggest seven important insights: 1) Scientists receiving funding from the National Cancer Institute exhibit a robust propensity to commercialize their research. However, the prevalence of commercialization depends highly upon the actual mode of commercialization. Some modes of commercialization, such as patents, are more prevalent, while other modes, such as funding by the SBIR program are rarely used. 2) Scientist entrepreneurship is the sleeping giant of commercializing university research. More than one in four patenting NCI scientists have started a new firm. 3) Two paths for commercialization of scientist research are identified - the TTO route and the entrepreneurial route. Scientists who select the TTO route by commercializing their research through assigning all patents to their university TTO account for 70 percent of NCI patenting scientists. Scientists who choose the entrepreneurial route to commercialize their research, in that they do not assign patents to their university TTO, comprise 30 percent of patenting NCI scientists. 4) Social capital enhances the propensity for scientists to commercialize their research. The impact of social capital is particularly high for the commercialization mode of scientist entrepreneurship. 5) Technology Transfer Offices are found to be helpful for the mode of commercialization involving licenses. There is less evidence suggesting that they promote scientist entrepreneurship.6) For scientists who perceive that they are helped by their Technology Transfer Office, licensing is not only the most prevalent mode of commercialization, but it also is a substitute for entrepreneurship. For scientists who perceive that they are not helped by their Technology Transfer Office, entrepreneurship emergences as a much more important mode of commercialization and is complementary to licensing. 7) Scientists choosing the entrepreneurial route to commercialize their research, by not assigning patents to their university to commercialize research, tend to rely on the commercialization mode of entrepreneurship. By contrast, scientists who select the TTO route by assigning their patents to the university tend to rely on the commercialization mode of licensing.

[1]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  The Economics of Science and Innovation , 2000 .

[2]  David C. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in U.S. Universities: Chicken, Egg, or Something Else? , 2005 .

[3]  Rosalyn Stewart,et al.  Objectives , 1954, 2021 23rd International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT).

[4]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time. , 1993 .

[5]  P. Romer Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies , 2001 .

[7]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Public/private technology partnerships: evaluating SBIR-supported research , 2013, The Social Value of New Technology.

[8]  Nicola Lacetera Academic Entrepreneurship , 2008 .

[9]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions , 2001 .

[10]  Pontus Braunerhjelm,et al.  The Missing Link: The Knowledge Filter and Entrepreneurship in Endogenous Growth , 2004 .

[11]  I. Arnold Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth , 2020, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

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

[13]  Jennifer F. Reinganum Innovation and Industry Evolution , 1985 .

[14]  R. Lucas Making a miracle , 1993 .

[15]  Leo Sveikauskas,et al.  The Contribution of R&D to Productivity Growth. , 1986 .

[16]  B. Zorina Khan,et al.  Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act. By David C. Mowery, Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat and Arvids A. Ziedonis. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, 2004. Pp. xiv, 241. $39.95. , 2004, The Journal of Economic History.

[17]  J. Hicks,et al.  The economics of science , 1996 .

[18]  Dirk Czarnitzki,et al.  Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurship Through the Sbir Program , 2005 .

[19]  R VRINAT,et al.  [The growth of cities]. , 1961, Concours medical.

[20]  K. Arrow Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[21]  Josh Lerner,et al.  The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the Sbir Program , 1998 .

[22]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities , 2001 .

[23]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists , 1991 .

[24]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

[25]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[26]  A. Jaffe Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[27]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology , 1996 .

[28]  Richard A. Jensen,et al.  Patent Licensing and the Research University , 2004 .

[29]  Mike Wright,et al.  The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications , 2005 .