University-industry Relationships Research Articles

Taking on unilever

Africa, Tanzania Publishing House, 1977; Mark Starr, 'The African Labor College on the Equator', American Federationist, 71, January 1964; Adolf Sturmthal and James Scoville, eds., The Intemational Labor Movement in Transition: Essays on Africa, Asia and South America, University of Illinois Press, 1973; Victor Ulriksson, 'The Scope, Function and Limitations of University Workers' Education Programs', Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 5, January 1952; Peter Waterman, 'The Foreign Impact on Lagos Dockworker Unionism', SouthAfrican LabourBulletin, 5,8, May 1980; J.P. Windmuller, The International Trade Union Movement, Kluwer, Deventer, The Netherlands, 1980.

The ethical dilemmas of university-industry collaborations

This article examines the ethical dilemmas that can occur due to university and industry cooperative arrangements. The values that Conant (1952) and Merton (1942) ascribed to university science are used as a measure of the evolving university-industry relations in the 1980s. Examples of the types of relations being forged are discussed and possible conflicts of interest are explored. The author argues that the goals of the university are and must remain different from those of industry for the good of the entire society. The transformation of the university into a research institution for industry could result in the university not adequately training the scientists of tomorrow, and simultaneously, not discharging its duty to do basic research as it focuses on the more applied research that industry desires and funds.

The role of the research university in the spin-off of high-technology companies

A new type of university—industry relationship has developed in the 1980s that centers around the process of technology transfer from research universities to private firms. One expression of this new, closer relationship is the several university—industry research centers in microelectronics, of which the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in Austin, Texas is the most noted example. The universities, private companies, and federal, state, and local governments all seem to benefit from the new university—industry relationships, but certain problems may accompany these benefits. The main hope-for result of industry—university collaboration is the rise of high-technology spin-off firms. The information technologies produced by the microelectronics industry are driving the Information Society.

The NSF Role in Fostering University-Industry Research Relationships

This paper notes the current boom in university-industry research relationships and describes the theory underlying Federal government participation in the phenomenon. The National Science Foundation's array of programs to foster university-industry collaboration in research and education is described. The paper concludes that the forces driving increased university-industry interaction will continue to operate over the coming decade.

Industry-University relationships and the land-grant system

The nature of the relationships between industry and public agricultural research programs in USA land-grant universities (LGUs) is explored historical

Working with Universities-CEO'S Perspective: The Creative Connection: University–Industry Relations

Working with Universities-CEO'S Perspective: The Creative Connection: University–Industry Relations

The modern politics of laboratory animal use.

There are signs that the parties in the laboratory animal welfare controversy may be ready to recognize each other's concerns. The issue is a longstanding one in Europe and the United States, and has been characterized by bitter accusations and certainty of moral position on both sides.' Those who are convinced that laboratory animals are cruelly or unnecessarily used have often characterized the scientific establishment as coldly insensitive to animal pain, and lacking in basic compassion toward living creatures. Those who are convinced that animal experiments are natural and appropriate tools to serve the advancement of science and the struggle against human diseases have often characterized the animal welfare movement as irrational and as blindly myopic in its sense of moral outrage at animal suffering but lack of recognition of human health needs. In the conflict, there has generally been an absence of the basic condition for successful resolution: That each side recognizes the legitimacy, in its own context, of the opposing point of view. Recent legislative debates, and actions in both the scientific and animal welfare communities, however, are finally giving cause for optimism that problemsolving approaches may begin to prevail over debating tactics. That optimism is based, in part, on a crucial shift of scientific community opinion. Some aspects of this shift were clearly evident in the recent conference on Standards for Research with Animals: Current Issues and Proposed Legislation sponsored by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R).2 The shift involves abandonment of the point of view that concern for laboratory animal welfare is a minor or eccentric sideshow in the overall progress of biomedical research. Instead, it is beginning to be seen as one of a few crucial interfaces between the operations of science and the concerns of the public as a whole. And because the laboratory animals issue is one among relatively few areas in which the public expresses concern about the procedures, ethics, and approaches of scientific research (human subject practices, recombinant DNA research, and industry-university relationships, among the others), many scientists now recognize that the scientific community must ensure that the issue is handled sensitively and credibly. The special importance of communication at this juncture of public discussion is the reason that the U.S. Congress has been taking laboratory animal legislation as seriously as it has. Many of the key Congressional figures involved in recent legislative initiatives are the traditional friends of science, who have worked for adequate funding and often led the resistance against ideological harassment or curbs on scientific independence.3 They appreciate the importance of public support as a necessary basis for justifying the spending of public funds. That recognition clearly reinforces their sense of the need to facilitate the smooth functioning of this critical science/public interface. Current legislative interest is, of course, the product of a long process of growing public and political sensitivity to the treatment of animal Thomas Moss is Director of Research Administration and Adjunct Professor of Physics at Case Western Reserve University. During the 96th and 97th Congress, Dr. Moss was Staff Director of the Science, Research, and Technology Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, which had before it the major proposals for laboratory animal welfare legislation.

University/corporate research agreements

The author examines the evolving university-industry relationships in the biotechnology area, addressing the conceptual basis for such arrangements and the resultant contract issues. He examines the need for development of policies in academia that will accommodate the needs of both government and industry without harming the integrity or institutional objectives of the university. The author then recommends a number of directives for written rules to help achieve these objectives, especially ones relating to patenting and licensing of inventions developed under industrial support.

Genetic engineering and related biotechnologies: Scientific progress and public policy

The author reviews the six-year process during which the National Institutes of Health mobilized its resources to develop the NIH Recombinant DNA Research Guidelines and aid in the development of related Federal policies. He also outlines recombinant DNA research activities and current federal policies and programs that might spur the goals of the biotechnology industry. The author then discusses how collaboration among government, university, and industry might work in the light of recombinant DNA research initiatives in federal, state and local governments—as well as some international ones. He concludes with a model for enhancement of cooperative biotechnology programs among government, universities, particularly for university-industry relationships in the biotechnology area.

University-industry relations

This is a primer on university–industry relations. The focus is on academic engagement, which refers to collaboration between academics and ‘users’ of academic science, such as firms or public sector organizations. I review the main features of academic engagement from the viewpoint of both universities and firms, and discuss the relationship between academic engagement and the commercialization of university knowledge.

Britain: Changing the framework

A UK parliamentary committee last week published a 96-page report on university-industry relations. Chris Sherwell reports on the various institutional proposals of what could become a controversial document

Materials science and materials engineering education

The report deals with the complex of problems concerning education of materials scientists and materials engineers. The development of materials science is described. It is attempted to estimate the future demand for materials scientists and materials engineers. Educational and organizational aspects of materials science and materials engineering in higher education are discussed. A selection of topics forming a possible core for materials science and materials engineering studies is presented. Finally, university-industry relations in the field of materials are discussed. A survey of materials programs in 133 higher education establishments in 13 countries has been made. The results of this survey are not included in the report, but they are available from OECD on request.

University Extension and Industrial Relations in Wisconsin

University Extension and Industrial Relations in Wisconsin