Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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)
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.
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.
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 countrys
absorptive capacity to screen, absorb, and adapt knowledge to local circumstances or to meet
local needs (Griffith et al., 2003; 2004).
Source: Authors
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.
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.
Source: Authors
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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.
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.
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.
References
Adams, J.D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of
Political Economy 98 (1990), pp. 673702.
Agrawal, A. and Henderson, R. (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer
from MIT, Management Science 48 (1), pp. 4460.
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), 4771492.
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. 101118.
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), 123.
Costa Pvoa, 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).
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.
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
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., and Nelson, R.R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in
industry, Research Policy 23 (1994), pp. 323348.
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.