Commercialization Of University Research Research Articles

An Investigation of the Mechanisms of Technology Transfer and Automation in Universities: A Case Study on Promoting Entrepreneurship and Startup Ecosystems at Bangladesh Open University

This study conducts a thorough analysis of the processes involved in technology transfer, automation, and entrepreneurship at Bangladesh Open University (BOU), using a qualitative research methodology. The study utilizes thematic analysis, supported by NVivo, to extract valuable insights from interviews with 30 important stakeholders, including academics, students, and administrators. The results indicate moderate achievements in the transfer of technology, characterized by difficulties in commercializing university research and developing robust industry connections. Within the field of automation, the study emphasizes the important role it plays in improving access to education, while also acknowledging the difficulties created by limited digital skills and unequal distribution of resources. The expansion of the entrepreneurship ecosystem at BOU is clearly visible, but, it is limited by a requirement for stronger support systems, namely in the areas of mentorship and funding. These qualitative views provide a detailed and subtle viewpoint on how BOU aligns with or deviates from well-known ideas like the Triple Helix Model and Academic Entrepreneurship Theory. They emphasize the distinct problems and opportunities that arise in an open university environment. The study’s results make significant contributions to scholarly discussions, highlighting the importance of customized approaches in incorporating technology and fostering entrepreneurial growth in higher education, particularly in the context of developing nations.

Factors in the Commercialization of Scientific Research in Zimbabwean Universities

Low university patents and the lack of spin-out companies resulting from university research indicate Zimbabwe's low level of academic entrepreneurship. The purpose of this article is to determine the factors that affect academic entrepreneurship and understanding how these elements affect academic entrepreneurship in Zimbabwean university research commercialization. The study used a qualitative methodology, and data were collected through semi-structured interviews with twelve scientists who were purposively sampled and employed by Zimbabwean universities. The results indicate a deficiency in business acumen, motivation to participate, collaborative culture, and supporting structures. These were determined to be the main obstacles preventing research from being commercialized. However, the industry is not prepared to split the profits from commercialized research output, and disparities in how universities and industry view innovation also impede research commercialization. For the successful and efficient commercialization of research, the study suggests that innovation hubs have a clear administrative structure. Researchers should be encouraged to participate in the research commercialization process by implementing a recognition award system. Innovation hubs ought to hire specialists in intellectual property matters and coordinators for university-industry cooperation on research projects.

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS AND COMMERCIALISATION OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH OUTPUTS AND INNOVATIONS IN UGANDA

The rising thrust to commercialize university research outputs and innovations has emerged as a significant policy challenge regarding the higher education sector's capacity to generate socioeconomic benefit. Despite emphasizing the socio-economic benefits of increased research commercialization in the policy statements and discussions, the issue of institutional factors affecting the commercialization of research outputs in universities is less mentioned. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the institutional factors, practices, and processes that influence the commercialization of research outputs in universities. A cross-sectional design was adopted and data was collected from a sample of 308 heads of academic departments in 23 chartered Universities in Uganda. The hypothesis was tested using a covariance-based Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) method in AMOS. The results indicate that institutional factors have a significant impact on the commercialization of research outputs. Therefore, there is a need for research commercialization policies such as policies on patents, and revenue-sharing frameworks in addition to training researchers in entrepreneurial skills and involving the whole change of mindset. In addition, universities need to institutionalize research commercialization targets into the performance management framework of staff such as staff appraisals, rewards, and promotions among others.

Analyses of University Research Commercialization in Underdeveloped Countries: A Case Study of North Macedonia

This study explores a significant research gap concerning university research commercialization within developing economies, with a specific focus on North Macedonia as a representative case. Employing a novеl and rеplicablе mеthodological approach that combinеs in-dеpth qualitativе intеrviеws with rеsеarchеrs and comprеhеnsivе quantitativе data analysis, thе study providеs a uniquе and comprеhеnsivе analysis of thе factors influеncing rеsеarch commеrcialization in this spеcific contеxt. The research extends its scope beyond the identification of key strengths, such as high research productivity, by also delineating critical weaknesses that impede commercialization efforts. To addrеss thе wеaknеssеs, thе study proposеs concrеtе and actionablе rеcommеndations, including targеtеd proof-of-concеpt grants, еnhancеd еducation on intеllеctual propеrty and commеrcialization stratеgiеs, strеngthеnеd tеchnology transfеr officе capabilitiеs, and intеnsifiеd collaboration with thе privatе sеctor. This study addrеssеs this crucial gap by invеstigating thе factors influеncing univеrsity rеsеarch commеrcialization in North Macеdonia, a rеprеsеntativе casе of a dеvеloping еconomy. This rеsеarch not only еnrichеs thе acadеmic discoursе on univеrsity еntrеprеnеurial еcosystеms in non-wеstеrn contеxts but also offеrs valuablе insights applicablе to othеr dеvеloping еconomiеs. By prеsеnting a rеplicablе framеwork for еvaluating univеrsity rеsеarch commеrcialization еfforts on a global scalе, thе study analyses univеrsity rеsеarch commеrcialization, particularly within dеvеloping еconomiеs. Thе study's mеthodological approach, combining qualitativе insights and analytical survеy tеchniquеs, offеrs a rеplicablе tеmplatе for еxamining univеrsity еcosystеms.

To what extent do universities’ formal and informal knowledge exchange activities interact: evidence from UK HE-BCI survey

AbstractThird Mission engagement has become a necessary vehicle to transfer science and knowledge from higher education institutions (HEIs) to society. An extensive body of research has mainly focused on the determinants of research commercialization, and the consequence of knowledge exchange activities largely carried out on an individual academic level. There is a lack of theoretical and empirical evidence on the link and interaction between formal (traditionally referred to as commercialization of university research, such as patent, licensing and spin-off) and informal knowledge exchange activities (usually denoted as university community engagement activities, such as collaborative research, consultancy, facilities and equipment, continuing professional development etc.). In this article we seek to fill this gap by viewing knowledge exchange activities as an enabler and supporter of commercial activities. Against this background, we intend to provide an analysis into the relationship between informal activities and formal activities using an unbalanced panel of UK universities for the period 2005–2020. Our results reveal that while provision of continuing professional development courses, facilities and equipment, and consultancy significantly impact commercial activities such as patenting and licensing, collaborative research appears to be a strong predictor for spin-offs generation. This study offers some general implications for HEIs’ policy and Technology Transfer Offices.

(Invited) Is Commercialization of Intellectual Property in an Academic Environment Feasible?

A career in academics is in some ways at odds with commercialization. The priorities of an academic institution are publish or perish. Yet, the path to commercialization embeds either patents or trade secrets. Many in academics do not acknowledge patents as academic achievement. For a variety of reasons, university laboratories are not established to build the demonstrations needed to promote commercialization.Universities support patenting but are not equipped to facilitate commercialization of research, especially research based on sophisticated, fundamental ideas. Because of the constraints of the academic environment, ideas are driven to patents before devices are demonstrated. Yet the Bayh Dole Act provides that federally supported research be commercialized with any profits returned to the universities and inventors.These constraints create a barely navigable matrix for the academic inventor.When financial constraints reduce the University's support of patents, ownership is transferred to the inventor. This creates complexities in IP management with the University and increases cost to the inventor. However, it also creates opportunity.To commercialize the existing and evolving IP, a small business was formed with family. And now we maintain the patents, write grant applications restricted to the personally held IP, promote the IP, and try to bridge the chasm to commercialization.Startup success is elusive under the best conditions with experienced founders that understand both the technology and more importantly the business need. Founders typically have a working system and industry contacts before attempting to launch a new venture. Founders spend most of the time selling to investors and early prospects.New ventures started by academics have none of these advantages. They often have a great idea but no commercially viable prototype, no industry contacts and no connections to investors. They do not understand the amount of time spent on fundraising, and lack the skills and desire to raise funds. Commercialization of university research is more difficult than starting with nothing outside because university life is a full time job with many constraints. Investors are not interested in part-time CEOs. They want full time commitment and focused dedication. Investors are not interested in dealing with university administrations and procedures.Successful commercialization requires three roles: Business person that understands the market opportunitySubject matter expert that can defined a solution to the problemProduct manager that can translate between the other two and build a working system. A successful combination of these roles in coordination is required to build an investable business that can attract the capital required for commercialization.Academics can provide the subject matter expertise but engaging successful business people and product managers need to be found outside universities. Finding these connections is difficult but friends and family, industry organizations, and angel investment networks can provide some paths. University business schools and administrations should facilitate these connections with vetted business people.Universities should have an investment pitch competition put on by professors with patent portfolios each semester. Universities can invite investors to view the commercializable research that is being developed within the university. This is a non-trivial undertaking but can be done virtually to reach a wide range of investors across the country.Very few US universities have provided successful paths to commercialization. These most famous, well funded, private universities attract most of the investment interest. A few worked examples coming from other universities will encourage the appetite for future investment.

New product development process and case studies for deep-tech academic research to commercialization

This research proposes a new product development (NPD) framework for innovation-driven deep-tech research to commercialization and tested it with three case studies of different exploitation methods. The proposed framework, called Augmented Stage-Gate, integrates the next-generation Agile Stage-Gate development process with lean startup and design thinking approaches. The framework consists of six stages and five gates and focuses on critical thinking to help entrepreneurs avoid psychological traps and make the right decisions. Early activities focus on scouting for potential socioeconomically impactful deep-tech research, developing a business case, market analysis, and strategy for problem–solution fit, and then, moving to a build–measure–learn activity with a validated learning feedback loop. Next, suitable exploitation methods are decided using weight factor analysis, developing intellectual property (IP) strategy, completing the university technology transfer process, and participating in fundraising. To pass each gate, the committee board members, consisting of tech, business, IP and regulatory, and domain experts, will evaluate the passing criteria to decide Go/No-Go. Applying the framework to the case studies results in successful university research commercialization. The model, case study, and lessons learned in this paper can be useful for other deep-tech incubator programs to successfully launch deep-tech research for commercialization. The case studies’ positive outcomes validate the Augmented Stage-Gate framework, yet their success is not entirely guaranteed due to external factors like regulatory constraints, entrepreneur characteristics, timing, and the necessary ecosystem or infrastructure, particularly in emerging markets. These factors should be taken into account for future research purposes.

The role of the university entrepreneurial ecosystem in entrepreneurial finance: case studies of UK innovation knowledge centres

ABSTRACT How to commercialize university research and create positive socio-economic impact is a fundamental research question that is under explored. Considerable public funds are invested in universities globally to create knowledge and then to explore its viability to exploit commercial value through supporting entrepreneurship. We explore how publicly funded research and commercialization of projects promote university’s science and technology (S&T) initiatives. Qualitative case studies, involving 45 interviews, examine three UK government-funded Innovation Knowledge Centres’ (IKCs) roles in commercializing three different emerging disruptive technologies: cyber security, digital construction and synthetic biology. An improved entrepreneurial finance (“entfin”) ecosystem is the catalyst to promote innovation, through public funds to empower industry and deliver an effective finance escalator. A “WHO” policy analysis framework examines: the “Why” rationale for public investment; “How” process of translation; and “Outcomes”. This identified how Entrepreneurial Finance combined with Intermediaries, Infrastructure, Training and Leadership impacts scientific research commercialization. We reveal several inter connectors that link maturity of projects, their locality and outcome horizons. Universities play an important intermediary role, regionally and globally to connect the wider entfin ecosystems. The conclusions suggest that government needs to improve the policy mix across university ecosystem actors to improve long horizon investment.

Outsourcing university research commercialization to a sophisticated technology transfer office: Evidence from Australian universities

A better understanding of how university technology transfer can be effectively achieved is critical for increasing the impact of academic research and driving innovation and economic growth. Considering this and the rapidly growing public policy attention on university-generated technology transfer, we provide evidence on the effect of outsourcing commercialization tasks on technology transfer performance. Using both qualitative and data-driven methods, we find that universities which outsourced to an established tech-transfer office of another university saw a greater opportunity for academics to engage with research commercialization and experienced a short-term increase in the capture of new discoveries and provisional patent filings. However, with respect to the more popular indicators of successful commercialization, patent applications, granted patents, license deals, and start-ups created, we find no evidence of an increase. Post-outsourcing we see evidence of a sustained advantage in some technology transfer activities, indicating a learning effect from engaging with a more experienced tech-transfer office.

Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research

Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) can play important roles in university-based innovation processes, for example, by handling patenting issues and providing advice about funding. This study explores how patentability and ownership of academic inventions are connected to the roles and involvement of TTOs in commercialization of medical inventions. This in-depth exploration of four invention cases from two universities found that the number of TTO roles is related to patentability (i.e., patentable inventions entail more TTO roles than non-patentable inventions), that the types of TTO roles are related to ownership (i.e., university-owned inventions entail more common roles than inventor-owned inventions), and TTO involvement in an innovation process is more related to patentability than to ownership (i.e., non-patentable inventions entail higher involvement than patentable inventions). We map the roles and divide them into two categories: intellectual property (IP) sheltering and intellectual property (IP) pushing. These categories align with previous understandings concerning TTO roles and contribute to theoretical and conceptual clarity. IP pushing is related more to inventor ownership than IP sheltering and IP sheltering is related more to university ownership than IP pushing.

University-Industry partnerships in the smart specialisation era.

• Technological diversification is associated with more opportunity discovery • Low technological proximity and diversification is associated with the lowest performance in terms of licenses generating income • High technological proximity and low diversification is associated with the low numbeers of licenses generating income • High technological proximity and diversification is associated with more opportunity discovery but also more spillover • Low technological proximity and high technological diversification is associated with the best performance in temrs of licenses generating income The effect of diversification versus specialisation, as well as the technological proximity of R&D partners have been at the heart of innovation studies. Articles in this field either take a regional or company point of view. During the last few decades, studies on the relatedness of knowledge and its importance for innovation and commercialisation have pushed policy makers towards clustering strategies such as smart specialisation in the EU and the Innovation Supercluster Initiative in Canada. Interestingly, universities as the source of new knowledge and technologies have been absent from this literature as the focal point. This paper aims at filling one of the missing links between the literature on technological relatedness and university research commercialisation. We use patent and licence data from the USPTO and the AUTM survey to study the effect of patent portfolio composition on university research commercialisation. We use Shannon’s entropy index to differentiate between the effects of related and unrelated diversification on the number of licences generating income. Our results show a positive association of related diversification with the number of licences, but none for unrelated diversification. Furthermore, technological proximity follows an inverted-U shaped association with the number of licences generating income. However, the effect is observed only for smaller universities. We conclude that the curvilinear association is the result of cognitive distance and the absence of boundary spanners. Our findings indicate that regional policy makers intending to use universities as an engine for innovation and regional economic growth should consider policies and initiatives aimed at bridging the cognitive gap between university and industry by either increasing technological proximity or reducing cognitive distances by financing boundary spanning organisations.

University-Industry Technology Transfer in India: a Plausible Model Based on Success Stories from the USA, Japan, and Israel

AbstractPatenting and technology commercialization activities are rapidly gaining momentum in Indian academia. Currently, there is paucity of data suggesting technology commercialization activities among Indian academia. This study aims to examine issues regarding technology commercialization among Indian academics. The objectives of this study are to (1) understand the policy implications of university-industry technology transfer and (2) propose a conceptual model for technology transfer suitable for Indian scenario. The data included for our analysis is drawn from our previous study of 25 Indian Universities. The orientation of the paper is as follows: “Literature Review” is subdivided into two sub-sections — “Policies Implemented for Leveraging Successful Academic Research Commercialization in the USA, Japan, and Israel” and “University Research Commercialization — Case Studies of Universities in the USA, Japan, and Israel” are presented. “Methodology” deals with the methodology used for the study. “Discussion” is further subdivided into three sections — “Analysis and Comparisons of Policy Implications on University-Industry Technology Transfer,” “Practice of Academic Technology Transfer in Indian Universities/Institutes,” and “Conceptual Model Recommended for University-Industry Tech Commercialization in India.” “Conclusion” concludes the topic. The current practices of academia-industry knowledge commercialization in India are limited, and the paper is an attempt to propose a suitable model to encourage commercialization activities by Indian universities.

Outsourcing university research commercialization to a sophisticated technology transfer office: Evidence from Australian Universities

Outsourcing university research commercialization to a sophisticated technology transfer office: Evidence from Australian Universities

Exploring the relationship between university innovation intermediaries and patenting performance

This paper investigates the role of university intermediary organisations in entrepreneurially orientated universities, in terms of their patent performance based on a large-scale survey of such organisations in Turkey. The findings from 1236 responses indicate that intermediary organisations, regardless of their type, are crucial in increasing the patenting performance of universities, although this also had a regional dimension. The research also charts the organisational evolution of university innovation intermediaries in Turkey suggesting that the success of organisational forms in promoting industry-academic links and university research commercialisation will vary according to the wider institutional and socio-economic frameworks of the national and regional systems of innovation in which the universities are posited.

HIGHER EDUCATION AS A DRIVER OF THE DIGITAL ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT

The purpose of the current study is to analyze the impact of higher education and universities on the dynamics of the digital economy. The authors hypothesized to distinguish three components (educational, research, innovation) in the digital economy development. Within this article, the results of using index and cluster analysis methods to determine the impact of the educational component on the processes of digital economy development in Ukraine at the macroeconomic and meso-economic levels are presented. The special attention is put on the educational component because the higher educational institutions concentrate intellectual capital of the country, as well as prepare future specialists for the needs of digital economy. Moreover the universities’ scientists make an impact on digital economy development by conducting research and transferring their results technological innovations, information and communicational technologies, etc.) into the real economy. During the research, main problems of digital economy development, determined by the poor quality of educational services, insufficient commercialization of university research results in the real economy, are identified. The authors conclude that solving the identified problems requires synchronization of interests and establishing a long-term partnership between universities, business, the state and the public. Importance of optimizing the state regulatory influence on economic entities in the context of digitalization of the national economy is emphasized. In particular, it is proposed to group the set of measures of state regulation into three vectors, namely: neutral-encouraging (support of positive dynamics of intensive development), incentive-providing (resource and information support of development processes) and initiative-mentoring (motivation and coordination of development processes).

Factors Affecting Technology Transfer and Commercialization of University Research in India: a Cross-sectional Study

In recent years, there is a great emphasis on transferring inventions and technologies originating from academia to industry through technology transfer/licensing or commercialization. The efforts of the Government of India (GOI) aim to create socially useful innovation through university-industry technology transfer. The objective of the study is to examine and understand enabling factors and barriers for technology transfer among Indian universities. The study covers three key aspects: (1) the awareness and practice of patents and research commercialization among Indian academia, (2) comprehending strategies adapted to commercialize research activities, and (3) barriers in university-industry technology transfer (TT). This paper is an attempt to answer the research question whether current dynamics within Indian universities create an environment for enabling knowledge transfer/commercialization and propose plausible suggestions to enable academia-industry technology transfer. A self- assessed structured methodology is contemplated and applied. Convenience sampling methods were adopted. Administrators of 25 universities overseeing research and development activities/patent cell/incubation cell or industrial collaboration of universities were approached to participate in the study. Indian universities are categorized as (i) public funded universities and (ii) private institutes for the purpose of the study. It is interesting to understand that public funded universities have an advantage in terms of receiving funds and licensing the research to potential industrial partners. The authors further conclude that research undertaken in academia is far from the demands of the industry. Even though the relevant supporting system for enhancing university-industry collaboration is in place, such as establishing technology transfer office (TTO) in the university, they hardly channelize the resources for socially useful innovation. It is important for Indian academia to undertake commercially viable research for the benefit of society.

Shedding Light on Early Stage Academic Entrepreneurship: Finnish University Researchers' Views on Key Stakeholder Relations and Their Influence on the Research Commercialization Process

Abstract Since the mid-1980s, along with the opening up of the Finnish economy, the pressure to commercialize university research has steadily increased in Finland. This is in line with the growing importance of innovations in an ever-globalizing world in which purely production- cost-based strategies are about to become obsolete. However, in comparison to other Nordic countries and Western European industrial countries, Finnish investments in research have fallen short in their ability to increase high-technology export levels (Kotiranta and Tahvanainen 2018). Moreover, Finnish academia faces challenges in creating university-based economic activity (Nikulainen and Tahvanainen 2013). In order to help to understand these challenges, this article examines the phenomenon within the context of an entrepreneurial ecosystem according to which various stakeholders are involved in the birth and development of university-based economic activity. As prior research has mainly taken a macrolevel view of the stakeholders involved, we aim at extending the extant research by adopting a qualitative, microlevel approach. More specifically, we provide a qualitative analysis of interviews with Finnish scientists, focusing on their experiences in stakeholder relations at the early stages of academic commercialization. Our article provides an overview of the different stakeholders and their involvement and exposes the opportunities and possible pitfalls taking place within these different stakeholder relations. We offer a critical examination of the current support mechanisms and propose ideas for how academic entrepreneurship in Finnish universities could be enhanced through closer stakeholder collaboration.

The role of heads of departments in the commercialization of university research

The commercialization of knowledge has become increasingly important for universities worldwide. Today, the acquisition of third-party funds, the filing of patents and the foundation of spin-offs are seen as similarly relevant to other academic activities such as conducting research and teaching. Research has examined how universities can be supported in their transformation into entrepreneurial institutions and shown that the business experience of scientists might foster the commercialization of knowledge. However, research into the role of academic leaders in this process is scant. In this study, we examine how far the business and scientific experience of the head of department impacts the entrepreneurial activities of an entire department team. Our results demonstrate that heads with business experiences positively influence the acquisition of third-party funds and the patent output of the whole department. However, we found that the foundation of spin-offs is negatively affected by these experiences. Our findings have important policy implications and suggest that business experiences should be considered in the assignment of new heads when reorienting universities into entrepreneurial institutions and restructuring university funding. Yet, the business experience of academic leaders is not a panacea and has its limitations.

Technocrats of the Imagination: Art, Technology, and the Military-Industrial Avant-Garde by John Beck and Ryan Bishop

Reviewed by: Technocrats of the Imagination: Art, Technology, and the Military-Industrial Avant-Garde by John Beck and Ryan Bishop W. Patrick McCray (bio) Technocrats of the Imagination: Art, Technology, and the Military-Industrial Avant-Garde By John Beck and Ryan Bishop. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2020. Pp. 240. Fifty years ago, the art world experienced an invigorating wave of projects, programs, and exhibitions connecting engineers, artists, and corporate patrons. Since then, many researchers, mostly art historians and “new media” scholars, but also historians of technology, have explored this diverse array of creative collaborations. John Beck and Ryan Bishop’s Technocrats of the Imagination (they are professors of modern literature and [End Page 986] global arts, respectively) gives a new perspective on this union of art and technology and its implications for similar initiatives underway today. Few of the artists, curators, and engineers I have encountered in archival collections or in-person interviews would categorize themselves as “technocrats” in the traditional use of the term. Instead, they adopted new artistic media partly to humanize technology that many saw as increasingly alienating, autonomous, and even malevolent. Beck and Bishop center their account around several large-scale art-and-technology initiatives in the United States in the mid-1960s. These include the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at MIT, which artist Gyorgy Kepes launched, the Art and Technology Program curator Maurice Tuchman started at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, as well as the influential group Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.), which operated out of New York City. Many charismatic individuals championed the art-and-technology movement. What is fascinating is the plurality of strategies they adopted to advance the merger of fine art and technology within the “broader cultural climate of mid-century corporate liberalism” (p. 2). Beck and Bishop focus part of their book on Billy Klüver, the co-founder of E.A.T., who was also an accomplished electrical engineer. Unfortunately, their goal of making broad appraisals about “the military-industrial state” and “neo-liberal orthodoxy” tends to flatten such fascinating historical actors. We don’t encounter Klüver until he’s already a thirty-year-old engineer at Bell Labs. This misses how he cultivated a deep interest in the arts, his fascination with experimental cinema while a student in Stockholm, or his early friendships with future curator Pontus Hultén and artists Jean Tinguely or Öyvind Fahlström. As Klüver wrote in his personal papers, his mental template for how to link artists and engineers was already well in place before he started at Bell Labs. I found it hard to accept the claim, moreover, that Klüver’s strategy “remained an individualistic one” (p. 105). For two years, E.A.T. collaborated with PepsiCo to build a pavilion for Expo ’70 in Osaka. This enterprise required scores of engineers, technicians, and artists (as well as $1.2 million from Pepsi), making it the art world’s analog of Big Science. Any book that covers such a wide swath of territory might be excused for a few errors. Some are minor: John R. Pierce did not supervise the transistor’s invention and Jerome Wiesner did not create MIT’s Radiation Laboratory, for example. Others, however, trip up the authors’ argument. MIT’s Media Lab did not open its doors in 1980 (the claim appears twice on p. 74) but was dedicated five years later. This becomes an issue as the authors situate the Media Lab’s compromised academic mission with the increased commercialization of university research vis-à-vis the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980. This latter example suggests ways that historical narrative is sometimes sublimated to support authors’ social critiques of market-driven ideologies. [End Page 987] And one can ask how these apply outside the United States. The art-and-technology movement was decidedly international, with activity across Europe as well as parts of Asia and South America. Moreover, artists like Gustav Metzger, Hans Haacke, and Carolee Schneemann challenged militarism and corporatism. For all this book’s references to markets and neoliberalism, the authors do not detail the art-and-technology movement’s finances. This seems...

University Incubation System for Research Commercialisation: The Case of Taiwan and Malaysia

This article examines the performance of university research commercialisation in Taiwan and Malaysia and specifically discusses the role of incubation intermediaries. Through case study and patent analysis, this article draws lessons from Taiwan and further discusses the mechanisms in place for the successful commercialisation of university research. Lessons from the case offer insights for Malaysia on how university incubation intermediaries can be reorganised to promote better commercialisation outcomes. The Taiwanese experience illustrates that in the right institutional settings—and particularly with the presence of innovative science and technology parks—university incubators tend to promote favourable commercialisation outcomes. More importantly, the ability of university incubators to source for external knowledge and risk capital support positions them to be more effective as intermediaries. Other key success factors include establishing an adequate intellectual property management system and having adequate human resources equipped with intellectual property knowledge. This article further deliberates policy implications.