University-industry Research Relationships Research Articles

Dental science and technology parks: Rethinking university-industry connections

As the 21st century unfolds, the development of science-based technologies [such as nanodentistry, tissue engineering, three-dimensional (3D) printers, laser dentistry, and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)] should change clinical dental practice. Unfortunately, a persistent problem in dentistry is the slow acceptance of new technology by dental schools and some dentists. Most dental graduates, dental faculty, and dental researchers know little about the principles of entrepreneurship, e.g., the process of patenting and licensing, how to write a business plan, market analysis, sources of financing, and the establishment of small and medium-sized enterprises. Most dental graduates, dental faculty, and dental researchers know little about the topics mentioned above. They may know how to conduct a dental research project and publish a paper, but most have no idea of how to plan for the commercialization of research findings. University-industry research relationships are important in promoting innovation, and dental science and technology parks (STPs) can play a major role in this technological revolution.

Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh–Dole act: a re-examination

The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 facilitated the retention by universities of patent rights resulting from government funded academic research, thus encouraging university entry into patenting and licensing. Though the Act is widely recognized to be a major change in federal policy towards academic research, surprisingly little empirical analysis has been directed at assessing its impacts on the academy and on university–industry research relationships. An important exception is the work of Henderson et al. [Rev. Econ. Stat. 80 (1998) 119–127] which examined the impact of Bayh–Dole on the quality of university patents, as measured by the number of times they are cited in subsequent patents. The authors found that the quality of academic patents declined dramatically after Bayh–Dole, a finding that has potentially important policy implications. In this paper, we revisit this influential finding. By using a longer stream of patent citations data, we show that the results of the Henderson et al. study reflect changes in the intertemporal distribution of citations to university patents, rather than a significant change in the total number of citations these patents eventually receive. This has important implications not only for the evaluation of Bayh–Dole, but also for future research using patent citations as economic indicators.

Perception, reality, and the political context of conflict of interest in university-industry relationships.

The crucial issues in a policy debate are often matters of perception and interpretation rather than fact, and the values and norms that influence perceptions are central to an understanding of conflict in the policy arena. For example, science's norms of objectivity and disinterestedness are being modified today to accommodate closer academic-industry ties. The author traces in detail how these ties and the accompanying public distrust have developed, beginning with the post-World-War-II increase in public support for basic research and continuing with subsequent pieces of legislation that lowered the barriers between academic and industrial research in order to reap economic benefits. He then analyzes the impact of financial incentives in university-industry relationships on science and on public perceptions of science, and the price both science and the public would pay if the public loses trust in science and refuses to support it. He also reviews the history of the ill-fated National Institutes of Health guidelines for university-industry collaborations proposed in 1979 and the subsequent history of the policy on this topic recently adopted by the Public Health Service. He maintains that the PHS policy poses both a risk (the temptation to enforce the policy loosely) and an opportunity (for research institutions to grasp the initiative and develop meaningful conflict-of-interest guidelines of their own). But the policy falls short of responding to the much broader range of concerns associated with university-industry research collaboration, for example, the possible effects of such collaboration on the traditional openness and sharing among scientists. The available data on these effects are mixed. He concludes by maintaining that scientists and their industry partners should address the issues surrounding their collaboration now rather than waiting for negative events to trigger public arousal and force a mutually unsatisfying political solution. This article is one of three in this issue of Academic Medicine that deal with issues of conflict of interest in university-industry research relationships. These articles are discussed in an overview that precedes them.

University-Industry Interaction in the Ontario Centres of Excellence

Introduction The issue of corporate-university linkages and university research has been at the forefront in Canadian higher education since the late 1980s, when a consensus emerged among government, industry, and universities that knowledge and highly qualified people are two main components in achieving economic growth. According to this consensus, universities through their role as creators and disseminators of new knowledge as well as through the provision of highly qualified people have a pivotal role to play in the economic development process. There are a multitude of reasons for sharply focused attention on corporate-university linkages in Canada, the United States, and Europe. Primary among them is the changing nature of the economy (industrial to information), shifts in the nature and rate of technological change, the emergence of competitive global markets, and increased competitiveness. The development, or enhancement, of alliances among universities, industry, and government is widely seen as the prescription for the malaise. There exist many different institutional forms of corporate-university linkages [17, pp. 25-40]. The resurgence of interest in corporate-university linkages and university research, however, has led to the proliferation of one form of linkage - university-based or university-connected research centres [19, pp. 278-279; 38, p. 5]. In Canada, this resurgence has manifested itself in an alliance between university, industry, and government in the creation and funding of Centres of Excellence [39, p. 28]. The term Centre of Excellence, however, is neither new nor unique. It has been used to describe government programs to promote the developnment of advanced technology in the states of Massachusetts [28] and Utah [44] as well as to describe a number of academic and research programs at various Canadian universities [22, p. 35]. Centres of Excellence may also be known as University-Industry Research Centres (UIRC), Science and Technology Centres (STC), or Organized Research Units (ORU). The in centre of excellence refers to a model for conducting research that has a long history in universities. Internal university research centres facilitate networking between groups of scholars in one or more departments and/or universities who are teaching or researching in similar areas [13, pp. 80-83; 20, pp. 49-50; 23, pp. 1-28]. However, as applied to the fostering and enhancement of corporate-university research linkages, the centre model was first used in the early 1970s, when the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded various program models to promote collaborative industry-university research [21, 33]. In 1987 the Government of Ontario embarked on an ambitious five-year, $204 million program, creating seven Centres of Excellence.(1) After a successful review, the program was extended for a further five years and allocated an additional $200 million in funding [31]. In 1989 the Government of Canada followed suit and launched a five-year, $240 million program, creating fifteen Networks of Centres of Excellence [24]. This program was extended for a further five years and allocated an additional sum of $197 million, although only ten of the fourteen Centres were re-funded. The underlying assumption in the creation and financing of the Ontario Centres and other UIRCs is that industry and university scientists will interact, that technology transfer will take place, and that as a result industry will become more competitive. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of university-industry research relationships, and in particular UIRCs and the Ontario Centres, in terms of technology transfer to industry is mixed [17, p. 13; 43, pp. 53-70]. The data that refute the claims raise questions with respect to the cost effectiveness of universities and the ability of universities to enhance the competitiveness of industry [5, 41, 42, pp. 5-24]. The data to substantiate the effectiveness of UIRCs is contradictory. …

Conflicts of interest: conceptual and normative issues.

Growing university-industry ties, particularly in biomedical areas, naturally raise concerns about conflicts of interest. Such conflicts are essentially problems in business and professional ethics. As of the fall of 1995, all institutions seeking funding from either the Public Health Service or the National Science Foundation have been required to maintain and enforce a written policy on conflicts of interest. The PHS and the NSF also require the disclosure of "significant" financial interests that might affect the research. Although the PHS and NSF requirements may prove helpful, they are not sufficient for monitoring the full range of serious conflicts of interest that can arise in university-industry relations. The PHS and the NSF are basically concerned with potential bias in the design, conduct, and reporting of research. Their disclosure requirements are restricted to financial considerations of $10,000 or more. However, bias in research can result from conflicts of interest when much less is at stake financially. Furthermore, it can arise at both individual and institutional levels. This article attempts to provide a conceptual and normative analysis of conflicts of interest that better enables us to understand the subtleties that can be involved. This article is one of three in this issue of Academic Medicine that deal with issues of conflict of interest in university-industry research relationships. These articles are discussed in an overview that precedes them.

A new program in cooperative research between academia and industry in Korea, involving Centers of Excellence

In 1989, Korea initiated a new program aimed at fostering university research potentials and building university-industry research relationships. It involves the establishment of Centers of Excellence in major universities in Korea: Science Research Centers (SRCs) and Engineering Research Centers (SRCs). This program has had a major impact on the universities and engineering communities in Korea. It is too early to claim success, but the initial result is encouraging. This article describes the reasons for establishing the Centers of Excellence and the nature, function and current status of the SRCIERC program. We examine its first three years' performance and evaluation process, and also examine some of problems and issues that arose while SRCs and ERCs were operating for the first three years. Several utopian recommendations are made, based on the results of evaluation for the effective operations that are most likely to succeed.

University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university.

The growth of university-industry research relationships in biotechnology has raised questions concerning their effects, both positive and negative, on universities. A survey of over 1200 faculty members at 40 major universities in the United States reveals that biotechnology researchers with industrial support publish at higher rates, patent more frequently, participate in more administrative and professional activities and earn more than colleagues without such support. At the same time, faculty with industry funds are much more likely than other biotechnology faculty to report that their research has resulted in trade secrets and that commercial considerations have influenced their choice of research projects. Although the data do not establish a causal connection between industrial support and these faculty behaviors, our findings strongly suggest that university-industry research relationships have both benefits and risks for academic institutions. The challenge for universities is to find ways to manage these relationships that will preserve the benefits while minimizing the risks.

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.

University—Industry Research Relationships

(1984). University—Industry Research Relationships. Research Management: Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 35-41.