benchmarking industry science relationships pptx

In the lst decade, a majority of OECD counties have redirected public RAD investment towanls universities to the cdetiment of research insires, However, this shift has not improved ISRs

Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships

Benchmarking

Industry-Science

Relationships

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

‘AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article ofthe Convention signed in Parison Lath December 1960, and which came into fosce on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economie Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote polices designed,

= to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member counties, while maintaining financial stabil; and thus to cantibute to the development ofthe wold economy:

= to contribute o sound economic expansion in Member as well 3s non-member counties in the

‘process ol economic development and

~ to contubure to the expansion of world trade on multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance wth international ablations

The ovginal Member counties of the OECD ate Austela, Belglum Canada, Denmark France German, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Haly, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and che United States The folowing countries became’ Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated herealter Japan [28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973, Mexico (8th May 1994), the Czech Republic (2ist December 1995}, Hungary (7th May 199), Poland [22nd November 1996), Korea 112th Decemlner 1996) and the Siovak Republic ath December 2000).The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD tAnticle 13 af the OECD Convention

France te (9.1 48074 7 fx Pt) 4034611, forevery county except the Unted States Inthe United sates Permission should be obtained through the Copyright clesrance Center Customer Service, (08/940, Bis Rosewood! Drive, Danvers, MA 1029 USA, of CCC Online sew towihtcom All ther applications for ^^ `

FOREWORD

‘This report analyses the changing role of industy-science selationships (ISR) in national inmovation s3stems, ptoposes a conceplual framework for their assessment, presents indicators on international differences in ISR configuration and intensity, and identifies good practiees for ther improvement tt also applies the benchmarking framework for an in-depth comparison of ISR in rance and the United Kingdom, and takes a special look at industry-seienee relations in Japan

Te report summarises the findings of & two-year OECD project carried out und the guidance

of the OECD's Comittee for Seieaific and Techology Poliey and of its Working Party on

‘Technology and Innovation Policy Ie benefited from information provided by Member counties and the eesuls from a major ineemational Conference in Beslin that was jointly onganised by the German -Minisy for Research and Eziueaton (BMBF) an the OECD The pilex comparative stidy on France and the United Kingdom was made possible shanks t0 John Barber, UK Deparment of Trade and Industry, ad Piere-Yves Mauguen, Fenech Ministry of Research

‘The report is published onthe responsbiiy of the Seertary-General ofthe OECD

‘TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Đan Benchmarking Industry-science Relationships: Rationale, Methodology and Results (Chapier 1 The Grossing and Changing Role of Industry science Relationships in

(Chaprer 2, Benchmarking Industry science Relationshi —

‘Chapier 3 Pilot Study on France and the United Kingdom, m i 09

Pall Couniry Case Studies (Chapier 4 Industry science Relationships in France 87 (Chapter 5 Industry science Relationships in the United Kingdom, 109 (Chapter 6 Industry science Relationships in Japan 139

SUMMARY

+ Ta kmosle lge economy, science is exerting mor important and diet influence on innovation, especially in fast-growing new industees The intensity andl quality of industry science relationships 1SRs) thus play an inereasing role in determining retums on investment in escatch, in terms of competitiveness, growth, jab creation ad quality of Bie

‘They also determine the abilty of countries to atiract or retain inereasingly mobile qualified than,

Regarding the channels of interaction, the report focuses on labour mobility and spin-offs Despite # general tend towands relaxing regulatory constraints, the low rate of mobility of researchers hetween the private and public sectors remains in many countries «major bottleneck to ISRs The eontibuton of spin-lfs from publicly funded research to innovation

is significant, especially in the information technology amM the biowechnologsdmodical rechaologies sectors The rate of spin-off formation, which may he &

‘good indicator of the ealth of ISRS, is ahout thse to four times higher in North America than in most other OECD counties,

‘of ownership amang performing agents (esearch institution vs individual researcher,

Regarding institutional arangements, the eport views university-basel systems of ISRS as enjoying 2 comparative advantage when scicnee-hased innovation increasingly requires

‘mulliiseiplinariy and builds on people-based interactions In the lst decade, a majority of OECD counties have redirected public RAD investment towanls universities to the cdetiment of research insires, However, this shift has not improved ISRs to the same extent everywhere, A major reason is that deeensralised university systems, in whieh Universities enjoy more frecdom: in their research policy: and relations witl industry, are more responsive fo opportunities for ISR than are centralised ones The repor assesses the strengths and weaknesses of different models for organising commercialsaion activities it the public research sector, and demonstrates chat improving the contbution of public research insitutes to innovation often requites uplaing their missions and improving their Tinkages with universities,

‘There is no single model for commercialising pablic research that could be used foe

‘evaleaing the relative performance of national systems of ISRs As this performance should the measured by taking into aecount different dimensions (and hence indicators) a number of

‘countries appear to perform well with respect to several indicators, Mongover even in

‘countries where performance measures would indicate a low Ievel of ISR, good practice

‘examples can be Found for improving the triture of and framework conditions for ISRS,

+ A pitoe study comparing ISRs in France and the United Kingelom was undenaken to develop sad tes a coneepiual ramestork and a methodology for sich meaningful and poliey relevant benehmarhing Hs results afe reported in this book One of its important findings is that social networks, as shaped by the education system, exert a stng influence on the national pattems of ISRS Another is the imporunee of avoiding generalisation and dhe need to listinguish between tee types oF ISRS: those involving multinational enterprises and world

‘lass universities: relations between universities and high-technology small firms; and relations developing in @ regional context herween firms (often SMES fooking for shorter term problem-solving capabilities) andthe loeal university

in practice, governments have the esponsibility For setting the asc rales and instcuonal frameworks thất reflet the public imerest but provide the right ineeatives to firms, public researchers and

“organisations alike In all counties, policy action is especially important in six ares

Giving greaer provi to base and long-term mission-ovierned research in government S&T programmes Basie atl long-term research - whether matvated by seca eurosily ot by the challenges facing industry and society ~ produce new scientific and technical know ee that is inereasingly important in driving innovation, Changes in hasiness RAD strategies are generally accentuating longstanding cisineemtves for private industry to invest in Fundamental researe, thus heightening the nee for government suppor

+ Dasuring appropriate frameworks for imellecmal propery rights Governments anast

‘establish clear nules and guidelines with regand to the intellectual property resulting fom publicly funded research, while granting suicient autonomy to research instutions A goad Practice is ro gran intelletual property ights to the performing esearch onganisation while

‘ensuring that individual researchers oF research teams can share nthe rewards An interes fconelusion is that ạ goos! practice might be to grant IPR ownership to the performing weseerch organisation bạt lo ensure that researchers enjoy a fair shane of the resulting royalies Globalisation of research accentuates the need for additional efforts to hatmonise IPR regimes and practices at international level, Cureaty, fae too much time is wasted in attempting 10 work out the details and differences in the patenting al licensing policies of iferem eonnties

Matching supply and demand of sciemifie knowledge Regulatory reforms related IPRs aud the licensing of publicly funded research should be complemented by mewsutes (such as the establishment of technology licensing offies publcfpivate partoerships in funding RAD, stimuli for co-operation with business, and suppor for spin-off formation) that stimulate business demand for sicmifie inpats and improve the ability of public researc nitions to transfer knowledge and technology tothe private sector

9

down disciplinary boundaries will enable them to beter engage in emerging scientific and technical areas In many counties, universities would benefit from greater autonomy in decision making coupled with more programmatic RAD funding, Institutional suppor remains important hut more competitive funding instruments are needed 10 improve the

«quality of esearch results while ensuring tht fields of science of high economic importance

Safeguarding public tnowledge Setting clear rules om IPRS is Key but-not sotficlem 10 achieve a halanoe between commercial sims and the research and seacing missions of the Public research institutions Governments must ensure suicient publie access to knowledge from publicly funded research Ht mist alsa acknowledge the risks to the research and innovation system that may result ifthe IP protection granted is too strong and non-exclusive licensing too rare, Finally, ethical guidelines for and by pubic research institutions ate necessary t0 prevent or resolve eonffits oF interest among the insiutions aed researehers involved in collaboration with industry

Promouing the participation of smatler firms Young technology-based firms play a key role

i limim c ko matkets, Governments rightly attach priority to encouraging spin-otfs from public research to stimulate innovation Spinoff fill a zap between research re and innovative products and serves, They are also a means for universities 19 Iwoadly Ficense technology, However, there is also a case for public support and incentives 10 existing SMEs and especially thase in mature industries in onder to help them link wp wits the science base and enhance innovation capacity

To attract students at university, graduate programmes must better imegrate intenlisciplinarty and contacts with industry in taining and research For governments,

tives to mobility and Mexiilty in esearch employment is

is a crtical element of industryscienee relations and ean be enhanced by regulatory reforms that allow public researchers to work more closely with Private industry:

lo

+ Responding 10 lobaisation ‘The aeceleraing intemationalisation of large firms’ R&D setivities, as wel as increased global competition to aaract entrepreneurs, research talent and

‘venture capital, challenge national policies to promote industry-sciencetelalionships On the

‘one hand the participation of foreign firms in national programmes is increasingly key to lheir success On the other, national research instiates and uaiversities must be encouraged

to imernationaise their Hnkages with indsty

focal industies Governments should accept the fact thai

commercalisation objectives in managing the seience system, including the allocation of

‘coe funding, is likely 10 accentuate the polarisation OF university weseareh capabilites round exising centres of excellence The promotion of industry-scienee relationships should be an integral part of an overall cluster and network-based innovation policy sintegy

Part BENCHMARKING INDUSTRY-SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS

RATIONALE, METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Chapter 1

‘THE GROWING AND CHANGING ROLE OF INDUSTRY-SCIENCE

RELATIONSHIPS IN INNOVATION-LED GROWTH

“economy” has led 1o a wider recognition ofboth dhe increasing tole of innovation as a deteaninanl of |

‘rowih and the changing nature of innovation provesses (OECD, 2000, 2001, 2001), It also points 10

‘he vital role that healthy and adaptive industry science relationships CSRs) play in the development

‘of fst grosiing new industries alin training, retaining and attrveting highly uaified hour (Box 1)

As 4 result, soienee-industry linkages have grown in importance as central eoncem for ovement policy in recent yeas, This iterest coincides with a number of ew developments in the nature of ISRs, such as the etmergence of broad alliances between wniversies und fins, and growing, setivty in the realm of eommetcialisation of results through licensing of intellectual property and Spin-o companies The intensitiation and diversitieaion of industy-ssienee relatoships is most notable and well documented in the United States (Figure 1}, bút cạn also be observed in other

‘counties, ineluding those where informal (hardly measnrable) mechanisms of interaction have traditionally played a greater role, suc 2s Faunce ot Japan (see countey case studies in Part I) This signals deeper ongoing ransfonmations inthe respective roe of and forms of co-aperationeompettion hetween curiosity driven scientific research, mission-oriented public esearch and proft-driven business R&D, due to the combined effet of the Following Factors

‘+ Technical progress seeclerates and markets expand exponentially in areas where innovation

is directly ropted in science biotechnology, information technology, but also new materials)

‘New information technologies allow easier and cheaper exchange of information between

‘+ Indostry demand for linkages with the science base increases mare broadly, as fanovation requires more extemal and mulidisciplinary knowledge, tighter cosponte governance leas

to the downsizing and shoderierm orientation of comporste ibs,” and more intense

‘competition forces firms to save an RAD casts while seeking privileged and rapid access to mew knee

Box 1 The intenefcation of ISRs in the knowledge economy

“Links te science base re more inpartant than in the past

‘acm warts becoming erasing import fondu! ates, Gale sent eserch she sauce of

nh nan nan nua ena eto ay et a uty tes mena prow be le ects el ae saa one wen fo op em ech

ow isruments and meno or ndutrasrecearch ana an nreseedcapacty for Prove sowing Snare [eters nso ayaa n fe trmaien fe wat reagan nể Enoratetngbesae vhtnaie it snetrei

‘Stato accent tacheley aiusion and ranaton (OECD, 2000, 20012)

The seionce system’ iuance on innovation I now more act

|inawodga In be Unted States, alrnst thee quariers ofthe references to sceriic publications teed m US patent con pub santa, fe) hehe eet fue san at ied ot de {ES Stet put em cet scaseme reson in asd ne re day wom aaserte cere md Bracice has In average shorioned Yom sever years to she during We 1900s (Mente, 1988)

Tasos? eons rm nator sources in US-asuod pens 190.97

Seienceindustry okages oe evenly developed aceross OECD counties

Sal counties Pure bt shows na he onabeaton of ssoneesnauty fear, os efaced pan 25mg na caufuea urate sang vate pace

0/91 The increasing intensity of ncusy clones rltonsips inthe Unie Sates

The ability w9 wesponel to new social needs (health of a

sustainability, security) ealls for innovations thar often requ

‘competencies of the public and private esearch sectors (Box 2)

ng populations, environmental Tobilising complementary

+ Restdelons on core public financing (Table 1) encourage universities and other publicly

especially wen they ci Pui

‘These driving forees opsrate more forcefully in some countsies than in others and they do not

‘encounter the same obstacles in all national contexts The main conceen of most OECD counties is that they could hig behind in the modernisation af ISRS AL the same time, eantres thal are forging ahead in building now, more Muid, nextel of ISRS experience novel problems in Fine-tning i {Box 3) These problems need to be taken into account by olber countries when designing their approach to etch up with hest practices

{or Indusiryzciones relationships fr environmental sustainably and health

Bscause ofthe “pubic gooe’ native of knowadge and of sneonmental quaiies inetmsns in esearch ana

|Sevalcpmant withthe sjecive of amancing environmental sustainably suet iam a Wot! ana sstaue case ltmatke nro” One reason i that mand tse to Magen market a technologies parents ots sioe since Ways e! anheneeg enoranmena susanablty ae cserss encompatsng enevvioa etoIeM)

|ochmooncalaress (C7, honchiology rể nano øchrology) 5z si s ơn tzatzalnmovntene

[Grekisg concern over gal entormental ehengos, such as inate change, I making envinnent Íuelinao ụ, or more gefteraly custamable developer a puble missional inceasiog mpotarce This Mp rat goveraments el bo slotting = growing Par of et B&D lnvestmants for onvronmnt! sustain ay eaecer na coving yar, Ronee wr Now ot nea arta ca ene

|ten/2euTed lọ sinh he puble research ystome in tng OBCD Member auras are rot yt wal agapiag [These erin the vate and public domsing present anvzonmentalsusinabilly as an area where inonsfea risen site cal ly eyo nat scnce elatone cau ae a oad, foe peers parcerarips can alo create net of pubis ester Iatiubone ana prvala hme that can facial Ue Iriersscipnary rosontch neoced forsnovaton io enhance esstonmental sustains

in the te sciences the convergence ot academic ans inducialrsaaich has been partly ‘emarkeble, uch of tye work cone in india! Inporsones ist tna cưng sạn of tne search for now snowadge, Conversa, unveriy-bated soertsts often Inổ tremaekaez explonng tne commercial sppleatn ota

|secaverst almost ne soon ae they eø muöe'A ooss n pot fat branch oÍ blogÿ Koown ne sila lgenarucs” soe 8343)

‘Table | Higher sducation expenditures on RAD by funding source for seven European courtves, 1983-07

Pereantages

‘The fest objecive of a benchmarking exercise is therefore to characterise the cu dat and

‘evaluate the dineeton and pace of evolution of the afious national ISRs, with a view to helping [governments determine the need and Scope for improvement and subsequently monitor progress

‘What ane the potential henfis of ISRs forthe different stakcholders? What are the respective roles of the different channels of insustry-science relations in realising this potenial? Are some of these channels hecoming more important with the emergence of a knowledge-based economy?

‘+ How to assess whether and in which respects a national system of ISR is keeping pace with

‘evolving host practices? Which indicators should he used?

‘or 3 New iasues in managing SA the example of structural genomics”

sicctursl genomics is 9 aw and axcsing fd of asic reganron athe intersection ef the pile and pate [coma flows up the Samat advanees it DNR equating Thote now ext comsaie, publely aval loenonie maps for many organs, irekiaing the clea Dace, tne a purpose weed Arabs halen, ine worn Caenarhalts tagans, the fatty, ang hal waltkhown pista, Home sapiens Sequanees ean be soll in hemesivss thoy ao tho basis, or xarpe, of the sua ofthe gonete émonsion of Sseaces), bu ie sequston at Wes knowledge Is moray the began ot much wider ques! to detarana the Iuocbane of De potains wnose campesion fs socodes by ONA, Kron/edgk of the Ives dmsiora pyscolsyucuras of these rotens a crucial pet of the pur, sce avuctue i closely ted wo otogEdlanelon, The suaiabity Jcomplets genomes has nspred some searisis to propose tat the orgspoedg srucr4iierralon shea

be ebtanod Io hu0eress [raosands si prolate leang to 4 planta! quar leap he undersarsg oe

|etshy le moyrledtuncionèf organams, This bei cancep has boon fonmed snr nanos

[Governmental cisions are ifvenced by an Aøarenese that postgeramios may be a major source ol a new

Jgenarauen af druga and therapies and of Kure inden conpatvences and wealth creaton Goveroments Peed to cocco wn ae the most appropiat lave ries and rlalonships ofthe pube and private sectors,

larch and delivenng the ts of research tothe pubic Some puto authorities are canoeimed about belng lat fila, wih thei Japanese colleagues not fr eshind, while tne Europeans are seecching for ways eight ix of national and EU programmes, Thee aspecieofsrucural genomics daserve Ine epee steton to edvanca via

ot scence poloy maker: inrasiuotuas (aces and equpnari; the scope ofthe research: a inallecha property ahs (Fe

esearch infrastructures ONA sacuencing has become hghy automated and the acquicton af ne] rowisdge iss hineon of tha hnancal investment in poosia mostyTochnisans] and relsooly inexpensive, lcommarialy avainbis machines Souci! analysis, on the other hand, canes ole sstes al corey ard

|sttout saps, each ong c ahich requires spacaized experse and the aval oY aepropra appara Beaute The wor ns be Go by @ Prose at ing opstealed expen chris ana 428m en hề rạn whch hy ah va su no ud onsen ees a te bị Jcoices sboutslneation ct Xray souces among paying and non paying user Publ funds may be nasoa¢ or lvory sroansve now Facies eich ae fro slacon lars” which may slow soantele fo analyse shire now

0

3x 5 New iasuos in managing ISAs: tho example of structural gonomies (2nd)

PAs cwestons sounding the palortnbity of he rele of genom reseatch are compinx A key reuierent

or ebianng a pst! fe Ie sermortted yc! the ivan Ths cast tla! fo ect belay lanoss utimate goal f © reveal the connectons dstwoon genes, potsin stucturo and biogiesl tucton Th Jdegree to uric proainstuctres are temueies patntabe it hty renaived Nether athe connection to any wdeeng patort onthe gonste sequence ofthe rare pot To Rn extent PAs reprosant an oben fo lite suvence of stuctural genres sina Many researchers may be welutant lo put pefenhaly Merawei reat ns the ube oomain Thue, is ol sear water the standards that ware agree lo by slette

sh nulstons thal parspeleg i tho Han Gsnoma Pojec amen pul gaat enti n te rạp leas al

Fo data) would be sasiy anerep to 3 publelyunded strozral genomes projec The aerate

Paton veguatone n Eup ie Unvea Sites and Jagan, 2g hilt regal tothe “gace pened

Batwoon releasing ects ara apsving for pater olacton, complest matt sti furer r simereeig ti Foie tai the ad/eice in science Heo! may ‘ander obsolet same or the diNcut questions thal situa {eleablny of ganes ard proton siuctvres Many sents Hope that al some imam tng future prot Srucuras mil be devas comzutatanal om gevomie sequences dora, tua sàng elonsus anous fimo, money snd exponen ton

‘Which overs are availabe to promote the desired changes (financial incentives, egulstory reform, organisational change, new mechanisms and eniteria 0 allocate Funding to evaluate public researeh and researchers), and what are their comparative strengths, imitations and political feasibility?

+ Are mote intensive ISRs always more effective? How far should universities snd public labs

be allowed or pushed to develop their commercialisation activities? How to cape with the risk

of crowing out pivate initiative and distorting the market for technological services?

What safeguards should he in place to ensure that publicly funded research institutions do not strengthen their linkages with industry a the expense of their main missions (generation and Uifusion of Knowledge through free research and education, mission-oriented research to serve public interest, impartial scientific expertise)? In particular, how to ensure that ineteased citing and indusey involvement in areas close to basic research do not dismups scientific

‘work oF weaken public confidence ia science? Should governments place limite on the possibilities of universities to accept publication restrictions when co-operating with indistry?

mm

‘© To what exten should policy to promote ISRs be implemented through 4 national set of rules

td incentives, 3s opposed to broader puidelines for decentralised experiments a the Tevel of reglons ot individual research insitutions? In pamticutae, should govemments sock hurmeonisation of IPR practices in all publicly funded research onganisations?

‘Trends in 1SRs

‘To benchmark ISRs is to compare their relative efi and reconeiling the

‘expectations of the major stakeholders and to late differences in performance to observable

‘characteristics of industry svience linkages, focusing on those aspects that are atbenable to policy Is Therefore important to clarity what the stakeholders” expectations rally are, whether they are changing

in the knowledge economy, and whether this inezeases the weave importance of estan channels, incentives oF institutional arrangements, reduces conflicts of imerest in the innovation system oF

ae less abstnet, sable and consistent, being influenced by the economic eyele (notably the lahour

‘market sitation), the evolsing priorities of tedhnology and insovation policy, and the most pressing issues inthe management ofthe seienee system (eg employment of PRDSs, shortage of Finanee) Inthe last decade, universities in many countries have been called upon to compensate for the deelne of public research institutes i the commercialsaton of public esearch, In addition, inthe recent petiod, poliey atention in most OECD counties his tended t foeus increasingly on the role of ISRS i fostering entrepreneurship in fast-growing new industis, often to the neglet of other important

‘conrihutions ofthe science system

‘They now need to adapt thet interface with industry to the maqMiNmlenlS of new science-based industries whore sta-ups anc small Firms are important players Mission-oriemed public research ingtures have developed almost organic linkages withthe part of industry that offers complementary

‘competencies in responding to govemment procurement The need to cversify their activities away from stagnant or declining core activities is driving the ongoing changes in their relations sith industry

2L

‘her benefits (that inelude aso networking and clustering opportunites or access to problem-solving

‘eapabilities), privileged access to new sciemific knowledge i taking on a new innportance, Whereas inchstry remains a significant actor of the science system, especially in chemistry, physies an hasie cengincering (NSE, 1598), it relies increasingly on public research to complement its own growing R&D efforts, However, industry views diverge conecaning the prefer channels of access to publicly funded research For example, increased patenting by publicly funded organisations yields: more hens to small Firms than to lange ones that have long-established close links with public research, In the service sector, many’ Firms soe the increased commeeialsation activities of universities 38 unfair

‘competion, hile others have ereated a husiness out of asiting this process,

‘The importance of informal and human resource-relaed linkages

Formal mechanisms of ISRs are only the ip of the ieebere (Figure 2) The bulk of industry seience lations take place through informal and indirect ehaanes and also through unreconled diet channels in countries where the regulatory framework has beon fairly restrictive in the past In the United Kingdom, innovation surveys show that, while almost half of manulacturing firms consi universities to be an isnportant source of innovation, only Ife have developed formal relationships With them {SPRU, 2000) As mentioned above, the flow of skilled personnel to industry isthe single

‘most important channel of ISRS, Informal networks between Faculy’ and former graduates and hetwoen former publie researchers and their lab of oxigin aceount for a larg, although dificult to measur share of the total amount of knexsledge exchanged between industry and public research, New information and communication technologies ean only neinforce the role of these social networks

in ISRs By focusing on what is measurable Uxough vonventional techniques, economists and ovemments generally underestimate these human resousce related linkages, They tend tø oxerlook ihe fact that aceess o Searee human fesourees is always 4 key objective of industy in considering the merits of any type of linkage, formal oF no, with public seienee

Te large increas in patents led by the private sector, public research or jointly by companies and public research, underscores the growing tasformation of knotted inl aa economic asset I the United States, university patenting has increased move rapidly than wniversity research spending and mone rapidly than national patenting rats US universities more than doubled thee propensity to Patent during the 1905, as did che US poblic laboratories, stating ftom a lower level (Figute 3)

gue 2, Formal mechanisms of ERs: the Up of an esberg

“The lack of comparable date mikes intemational eompasisons dificul However, anecdotal

‘evidence siggests that US pubic researc leads, but isnot alone ia the “patenting race", For example, university patenting in Germany appears to he quite plifc, the share of patent appications listing university professors as inventors has heen rising stealiy since the 198s, and represented A of tal applications by the mid-1990s (BMBF, 199% Schmoeh e? al, 2000) In Australia, the largest public

‘esearch organisation (CSIRO) appears lag behind top US research wniversities but performs better than the average US university in terms of royally revenues as a percentage of R&D spending (Thorbura, 1999) In the Fest half of the 1990s, Ficensing income of fous of the main French labs (CNRS, INSERM, INRA, INRIA) vas equivalent t9 only 0.68% of their budgets, less than

‘ons-enth the licensing revenues of US universities, although this percentage has increased rapily

‘Tanie 2, Number of patent applications by Japanese national universities

Sar: Sasa Ga ae CSG PTY

B

# Paienting is nota reliable indicator of cient ouput The distibution of academic patents is highly shewed towards bio-medical sciences; the hulk of revenues from patenting come from a Fes successful inventions For example, the doubling of income from patents by the French {CNRS in 1997 was atihutable in lage part to a Single pu, Tasoter, which accounted for

407 of tal icensing income in that Year

# Government played a crucial role in purring patenting activities but was aided by oer chomses Changes in the intellectual property regime (Bayh-Dole Act) was among the key factons behind the rise of US universiy patenting and licensing in dhe last two decades However the new regime built on a fongstanding tation of indusiy-university collaboration

‘aciitated bythe autonomous status ofthe research universities (Mowery, 1998), Other ftors aso played a role insticutional change (probiferation of technology and transfer offices, panty

in reaction to Bayh-Dole), technological evolsion rise of the biotechnology and TT industries, Financial inentives (reduction in govermmea funding)

The main conmibution to innovinion of increased patenting is not to make public sector research more commercials: elevant Dut to prose information on the existence and location

‘of commercials relevant research resus (Henderson ef a, 998),

© Buosane patenting activities should not orershadove the parallel development of other forms of JSRs Universiy-industry research centres (UIRCS) in the United Sates, and similar _mchanisms in other eountis (eg CRCs in Australia), have Decome popular mechanisms foe Fostering public-private coxperation and are successful at both leveraging government support for academic researeh and orienting the later towanls more apie problems

+ Greater auonouny of publicly funded research organisations increases their contribuion 10 limoration through patenting and other means when itis paralleled by greater accounabilit Centralised systems with restrictive regulatory frameworks but low aceountability reduce the

‘esponsiveness of public research to induseial needs and encourage the development of "srey" fektions thạt ond be probibited in the name oF public interest in mye “Tiboral” and decentralised systems,

”

Increased patenting by universities und public labs has costs and raises new issues Concurrent with his innease the yiet of ideas aa esearch results that are boing patented has also grown, This raises the risk of exosion in the social returns from public Funding of research and of « possible decline ine quality of patents, and could have @ negative impact on innovation in the private sector,

+ The expansion of patentable subject matter (e.g trom life forms, DNA fragments, business rnethoas o software which hitherto relied on other forms of protection) could in face dninish the flows of ideas and te diffusion of research koowsledge in some disciplines

Growing costs ana risks of potent Biigation are augmenting the ancertainns oF movation 10 fuditon, they incte industry wy impose more stringent restetions on publications of joint research Tis contributes to lowering the quality of patents since potemil innovators tend 10 file more patent applications in onder to protect themselves from litigation Increases in damages paid to plkinGffs create situations in which a patentee can gain more through JiGgaion than dưough eaphitation of ils inventions, Excwssive damages ane a powerful

\deterront to innovation, especially for smal ems

‘especially within Europe The globalisation of finns” R&D sirategies and access to public esearch {Box 4) together with the increased mobility of seae highly qualifed lshourare now leading to mote Fundamental transformations

+ The hierarchical and centvatised model of ISR governance thor prevails jx a majoriy of oumries must give way to a consractual and decenratived one Within publieiprivate partnerships the source of iniatves is shifting from govemment to firms: within fovemments, from centeal to regional and local authorities; within public wseatch, fon public labs to universes; and within pablic research organisations, om ceateal management

to Tabs and researeh teams, Since mission-orionted pure researeh no longer plays a pivoval role within ISRs, new muarket-friondly co-ordination most he implemested, with

involvement of the financial sector, especially venture capital

‘opportunistic behaviour and distortion of compytition,

+ Globalisation prompts publicly fated organisations 19 reconsider their role in she ecomomy Some now enter into hroad alliances with their homologues (Box 6} or private firms in aer to tert the knowledge platforms whic look sot become key infrastuctures ofthe knowledge ecomomy

%

Bor 4 Globalisation of RAD and access to public research

Thang yore ds cour

Sách có bạn quy ny

toc 5 int venture in Spain Botwoon public research and a frsign Frm

Ihe National Cant for Sotechnalagy ofthe Spanish Natonal Ragsaron Cound (SIC, was created fase Jcsiassraton in wotoctnology Between insu and Ine pulse seco The Cane atvacie subslanl fuse fiom the Spavish subsaay of Swacon’s Pharmacia (tow Pharmacia & Upjo) in supeeM ofa pit seven yea? eseaien programme in caneee ad snmunalagy A dodesies laboratory has bear cleaied at C510, sald y| personne rem both CSIC and Pharmacia & Unjehn inliactal prepay crete inthe Inborsiony Sein othe reantets concerned, but Pharmacia hee ploy eonvmares gh,

‘Box 8A government aponsored parinership between WIT and Cambridge

ln rid-1996, the UK Chancellor ot tho Exonequel eiganisd setes of seminars to assess tha comparative porormanes’ ofthe UX economy Among the Insore lent was tie hay role that unvoraiee ean pis Ị roving UC petlommarcs The ida Tor the Camdge-l- Insitute (OM developed tough subseauent|

|sscusione, Tho CM iba actvw i Tout main areas uncerraguaie Fusion’ education 3 programme 3 ragised research; sdpraten of potssionalpractos progiamimas sevelgaea a IT tothe UK expenercs ana

|sreaton of 3 tonal compettiveness two The UK Government {OT} hae plated to commit GẤP 68 mịFon| verve years we GM plans to aise USD 286 rill rom a prsteeecto

NOTES

1 Gradul kenlnalian aĩ pisaely nút long-eơ programmes of research that can atin the size snd

Financia stability necessary To cteterewands and carer path for sieves atl enginerspaaleling Those oltre by universities or ble labs (eg AT&T Gell Laks, IBM Caperin's carpus, Nero's Palo Alo Reseach cnt

2 Sociologists, such as Call in France, have gulp profoud undersanding of esearch networks

sant havs develope lechnigues quan th chưa teivlcs, bát hút hy mainly een ashiesed Through aves that neu fou nape anal piso SR,

3 Columbia University i one ofthese exceprions with a Hieasing income ove ane fit of ede

reseuch funding

%

‘Canadian Advisory Council on Science and ‘Technolgy (1999), Public Investments di University

‘Research: Reuping the Benefits, Report by the Expen Pagel on Commereiaisaion of University Research, Ontawa, May,

Cho, M (2000), “Safeguarding the Freedom of Research and the Broad Diffusion of Knowle paper presented a the German/OECD Conference on Benchmarking Industy-Seience Relationships Berin, October:

Henderson, Reheces, A Jaffe and Manuel Trajienberg (1998), “Universities as @ Source of

‘Commercial Technology: A Detaled Analysis of University Patemting, 1965-1088", The Review

of Esonomies and Statistics

Hicks, D (2000), “Using Indicators to Assess Evolving Industry Seience Relationships", paper

‘prevented al the GermanvOLCD Confereace on Benebanarking Industry Science Relationships, Berlin, October

Howells, J M Nedeve and L

University of Manchester

orghiou (1998), Industr-Academic Links in the UK, PREST, Jaffe, A and J Lemer (1999), “Privatizing R&D: Patent Policy and the Commerciaisation of National Laboratory Technologies”, NBER Working Papers Series, No 7064, Cambri, Mass

MeMilan, G'S., F Narin and DI, Desdk (2040), "An Analysis ofthe Critic

in Innovation: The Case of Biotechnology”, Reseureh Policy 9, pp 1-8

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (1999), fader of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy

1909,

Mowery, B (1998), “The Beets of Bayb-Dole on US University: Rescarch and ‘Technology

“Transfer, paper presented at yhe OECD/TIP Workshop on Commersalisaton of Government funded Research, Canberra, 25 November

Narin, F, K Hamilion and D Olivastro (1997), “The

‘Research Policy 26, pp 317-330, inkages between US ‘Technology and Polie

Navin, FM Albert P Kroll and D Hicks (2000) Inventing Our Future ~The Links besween

“Australian Paenting and Base Science, Australian Research Coun, Canbetta

National Se nee Foundation (1998), Srience and Engineering Indicators 1998, Alington, VA

NISTEP (Nationa Institute of Science and Technology Policy) (2000), Science and Fectnology (ST)

Indicators (2000 edivion) (in Japanese), NISTEP Report No 66

OECD (1999), Manuging National novation Sestems, OECD Pats

OECD (2000), A New Keonomy? The Changing Role of Iimovation and Information Technology im {Gronsth, OECD, Pais

OECD (2008), The New Boonony: Bevond she Hype, OECD, Pats,

OECD 20010), Drivers of Growtke Information Technology: Innovation «oud Entrepreneurship special edition of the OECD Science, Technolog’ and ladusry Outlook, OECD, Pats

Press, B al J Wasbhurn (2000), "The Kept University The Aslantie Monthly, March, pp 39-54 Ronach, D and P Santi (1990), “Case Study Nestlé: Interaction of R&D and Intelligence Management", in R, Boutellier eral (eds), Managing Global huovation, Springer,

pp T4288,

Schmoch, U., G_ Licht and M Reinbanl feds.) (2000), Knowledge and Technology Transfer in

‘Genms Feaunhoter IRB Verlag,

SPRU (2000), “Talent, Not Technology: Publicly Funded Research and Innovation in the United Kingdon”, Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), University of Sussex

‘Thorburn, L, (1999), “Institutional Sinictures and Arrangements at Public Sector Laboratories”, paper

‘presented at the TIP Workshop on High-technology Spin-offs from Public Sector Research, Paris, December

US Council on Competitiveness (1998), Going Global: The New Shape of American Innovation,

‘September,

mm

Chapter 2 BENCHMARKING INDUSTRY-SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS

National systems of ISRs

Globalisation and the diffusion of best practice poliies have mitigated some of the differences in national systems of indusry-science relationships (ISRA), thus ebsangig their comparative advantages but

‘hey’ fave not eliminated the considera diversity ofthe models implemented, The inerations hetween the public resarch sector and incustry in different countries take various insttational forms and fer i their nature and intensity, reflecting salional specificities i imstitaional set-ups, regulatory rameworks, resetrch financing, intellectual property tighls and in the slalus and mobilily of researchers Existing internationally comparable inlcators capture some ofthese differences Meastrable national differences With implications tor indasiy-scienee linkages ined i the institutions responsible for performing and funding esearch development i the tends driving the funding and performance patterns of RAD; and fi) specialisation in specie sciemifie dseiphinss

‘organisations (universities a research institutes) in RAD performance vary even more, although the share of universities has been steadily ineteasing in most countries inthe lst deeade, Figure 3 highlights

‘wide disparities in terms ofthe prineipal actors of business R&D and the orientation and Financing of the Public esearch sector The ODCD counhies [AH ino Four categories and en sub-categories

© Counties dha very high share of government RSD funding an poeFormance:

= University-based system (Turkey

= Broad-based system (aly, New Zealand, Pola, Porugal, Mexico)

= Insttte-based system (Hungary, feeland)

‘+ Counties with a moderately high share of goverment R&LD funding and performance:

= University-based system (Aust, Spain)

= Braad-based system (France, Netherlands, Norway)

‘= Counties with an average share of government RAD funding and performance:

~ University-base system (Canal, United Kingdom)

= Broae-based system (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany)

= Instieute-based system (Caech Republic)

Counties with low share of government fun and performance:

= University-based system (Belgium, Ireland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, United States}

= Instizute-based system (Korea)

3

{in selected countries atthe ond ofthe 19908

igure 8, Knowledge production structures

In broad terms, the main challenge for the fist group of counties, those with helow-average RAD intensity sto increase the technological absorption capacity of fms and thus shit a greater propetion of| R&D activity to the private sector, Counties in the second and thind eroups must seek to improve ISRs With the overiding goals of reducing unnecessary duplication of fanovation iasestment and improving the responsiveness ofthe publie sector to the needs of industry Inthe lst eategory, the overriding concern is

to cultivate exeelleney in university research and inerease the leverage of the relatively Tow level of public investment in research,

The challenges laced by cournties and the “implementahilty” of different types of responses will also

‘ary depending on some ofthe more subtle features of national esearch systeass, The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Sweden neod to maximise eeonomy-wide spillovers of declining ~ although sill sizeable ~ defense-related R&D investments Thete ate also important differences across couies regaring not only the size but also the content of research ativites in universes and public institutes, In English-speaking and Seandinavian counties ~hut aso i Japan and Portugal ~ universities conduct the blk of basic rescarch, while the public research institutes focus more on applied research missions, hy

‘continental Europe, university research co-exsts with RAD by publie sector laboratories, with both types

of institutions performing basic research and mission-oriented activities, thus increas the danger of duplicating research effort,

National science systems support innovation by generating ness, economically relevant knowledge and hy facilitating absorption of Knowledge generated in foreign counties — the baace between these 80 functions varies with country size and S&T specialisation Scientific specialisation profiles sifer substantially aero eountses, are more contrasted in sal than large counties an tend to he aly stable

‘overtime (Figure) Akhoogh thei tansforation might be one of the desirable long-term outcomes of innproved ISRS they ust be taken almost as a given whea considering options «© Leger suet improvement

In small and medium-sized counties, seientife ouput in industry-elevant disciplines is well corelated with R&D ineasity, with only a few outliess sueh as Korea, where R&D performance is iseomneeted from seientifie ouput (Figure Sa) Latger counties seem to enjoy economies of seale in translating sientfc effoas into R&D, ed Kingdom, where scientific output is inflated by pwolific publishing hy the medical sector, and lly In fut, under-specialisation in seience-intensive industies explains in agee par why R&D intensity is over proportionate co scientific ouiput in Japan and

‘German This is confirmed by Fjeut Sh, which shows that the “Tink (measured as the number of patents) horween seienee and patentable innovation is weaker in these counties that in other G7 countries, except Tay, Figure Se suggests that, in Japan more than in Germany aa additional explanation isthe rlatively low praduetivity ofthe science system, as measured hy citations of scienifie papers

Fguto4, National profes of rolatve sclontife specialisation

Conceptual framework and indicators

Traditionally, the relationships Betveen puBlicly funded research and industry have been analysed hased on simplistic models, thus directing atention away [rom the issues that have grown in importance

‘vee time to Become the most crucial today (SPRU, 2000)

A froquont simplification is ta equate universities to public research, public research 10 selene, innovation w proprietary technologies, and assume a linear relationship between science and innovation

“This linear moxel cannot really explain why some innovation systems perform eter than others and

‘aforori provides 90 guidance for a comparative evaluation of ISRs Modem innovation theory sees innovation as a process rather than « product, andl stresses the complex feedback systems Between basic reseuch and industrial RAD Ital recognises that publicly funded reseurch intilations ae diverse

‘comprising different types of universities and public labs, whose missions may overlap since they a pnalucts of an historical, evolutionary process and ot the resus oF rational exercises by welfare

‘maximising public authorities (David and Foray, 1995), ISRS are not simply’ transactions mitoring a clear cnt division of labour inthe preucion of knowledge Rather, they represent an insttuionalised form of learning that provides a specific contrition to (he sigek of economically useful knowledge They should

be evaluate not only as knowles mechanisms but also on their other capacities (eg, buildin networks of innovative agents, increasing the scope of multdisciplinary experiments) To this end industy-scienee Tnkages most be characterised along thnee dimensions: nature and relative importance of the channels of interaction; their instutional arangements; and theirincentive structures, as influenced by {government's promotion programmes (Table | presents the results of an Austrian/European Commission benchmarking of these programmes)

Figure 6, A conceptual framework for assessing industry-science relationships

Enterprises traits Public research (PR) Enlepdse g2 nanoe oman ef onl Diseipinaysbuctre

Movetemeue = + | Types tomrisaions Avcomtve capacty Hi kosbjÐể, “Tandircapaety

` Channels of interaction ⁄

Promotion | Financial INDUSTRY-SCIENCE | PRfnancing, _Inettutional

programmes | incoives | "RELATIONSHIPS tcaing S| ween

Regulations Incentive structures

4

ISR channels include contract research, consultancy and services, IP transactions, knowleds spillovers co-operation with firs for teachingtaining, labour mobility The institutional amam

for IRs can be considered from a macro perspective (lype and respective role of publicly funded research

‘organisations, depree of intermediation} or a micro perspective (the legal and organisational framework foe the management of the linkages by individual research oF inlemediary organisations), The incentive structures are of a financial or regulatory nature and ean he analysed at both the macro and enero levels, depending on whether they are established hy government or by the management of individual

“organisations Renchmarking requires indicators, but the availability of quantitative indicators on ISRs is Still quite poor (Tables 2 and 3), and existing statistics must be used with gre eae since similar concepts

‘may’ mean iferenc hings in different national institutional stings,

Benchmarking elected channels, incentive structures and institutional arrangements of ISRs

Chanmels of IRs: the examples of spin-off and labour mobility

Spia-os rom public research

Spin-ofts are: firms founded by publi sector researchers ineluding staff, professors and postdocs: fiystar-ups which have licensed public sector technologies; and fi) firms in whiel «public insitition has

an equity investment, of which were divectly established by a public research insttlion, Spinning off is the entrepreneurial route to commecialsing knowledge developed by public research and as suel is aitracting a great deal of attention, given the curtent *slarcup fever" in many countries However, {governments 00, havea special interest inthis specific typeof indusry-seience linkage because it may be fone of the factors that explain differences in performance in new, fast-growing science-based industries,

‘specially biotechnology In addition, some are tempted to see the spinoff formation rate as a key indieator ofthe quality of ISRs prompting public escuach organisations to place greater privity om this aspect of thei commotcalsation strategy and to publicise their achievements in this area, However, this

‘owing policy interest has revealed the pauety of the information tha i needed to judge whether spin

‘offs really warrant such attention, o which extent ana why their rates of Formation are inoteasing and differ across countries, and how hest governments should promote them, Results from the OECD benchmarking prajet sugges the Following answer

‘©The main constibutian wo innovation of spin-offs from publicly funded research is not ditt and

is more qualitative than quantitative, The sumber of such Firms born each year remains very modest compared to comoratespi-ofs (i, ow hundred compace o several thousand, while themselves represent only between 10% and 30% of total technology-based star-up activity im European countries As a channel of ISRs, their ole should also be putin perspective the United Stites they accounted for just over 0% of the technology licences negotiated by Universities in 1998 — which is a modest share, but fr larger than their relative weight in the total

‘of new technology-hased starcups This confirms other indications that they probably play a different role than other ew technology-hased ems in the innovation system, a8 vital

‘componcnisof chsters of innovative firms forme! around academia and industry, andl of social networks in science-based industries (Must 2000)

©The number of wpinetts genereted per public institution or per cours i generally on the rise although some countries seem to have already experienced peak in spin-ofl formation in the Tate 1980 or early 1960, In the small sample of countries for which dita are available, France stands out as an exeepsion in tha it exhibits declining public sector enepreneursip during the 1980s In some countries, spin-off formation seems to havea eyelical dimension (Figure 7),

The public research sector generates more spin-ofs in some countries shan in others International benchmarking ofthe rates of spi-ofT formation isa difficult task due to the lack of

‘compatable data, However, provisional eride estimates hy the OECD Secretariat for a sell

‘amnple of eournties demonstrate that in the 190s this rate was about three to fou tmes higher in North America than in most other OECD countries, although current dynamic developments are rapidly changing this picture (Table ),

4