We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJosue Harwood
Modified over 2 years ago
© Marc Isabelle Knowledge, Finance and Innovation International Symposium, Dunkerque, France September 2006 Marc ISABELLE IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation
© Marc Isabelle Outline of the presentation Introduction –K & T transfer: a third new mission for public research? Overview –A new taxonomy than expands on Pasteurs quadrant –Changes in profiles are towards more applied research Implications for public policy and perspectives Main references –The linear model and its parricide children –Strong substitution features show at the margin –Tracking sources of financial support is the main drive for change Results –Research activities are distributed rather than dichotomous Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation –The increased relevance of public research: some pitfalls –Why using the expanded taxonomy at CEA? –The survey / the sample
© Marc Isabelle K & T transfer: a third new mission for public research? Reforms since 1980s, first experienced in US (Bayh-Dole act) –more collaboration between PROs and firms –growth in patent filing by PROs –increase in commercialisation of Knowledge & Technologies by PROs Reforms have double purpose = increased pressure for relevance of public research (Pavitt, 2001) –speed the innovation rate in the economy –increase leveraging of resources from their activities by PROs Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation Traditional missions = research, higher education connected to surge of biotechs and ICT NB– applies to universities – but for government research centres, traditional missions have long been research and K & T transfer does this increased pressure for relevance apply to them?
© Marc Isabelle Linear model = innovation stems from scientific knowledge development born 1945, 1980 In practice, especially since 1980s –multiple feedback loops (Kline & Rosenberg, 1986) –highly interactive process (triple helix: Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1996) –multidisciplinary (Gibbons et al., 1994) –use-inspired basic research (Stokes, 1997) Applied research & Develop ment New products & processe s Basic research in principle, zero pressure for relevance (not in practice) research activities are not exogenous (irrelevant?) anymore The linear model and its parricide children Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation
© Marc Isabelle The increased relevance of public research: some pitfalls (1) Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation Skewing problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999) = shift to more short-term and applied research in response to the requirements of industrial partners Market misallocation of research resources = can not trigger research activities that arent expected to be useful but that can end up extremely useful empirical evidence =Yes (Rahm; Morgan; Henderson & al., 1998; Blumenthal & al., 1986; Goddard & Isabelle, 2006) No (Hicks & Hamilton, 1999; Ranga & al., 2003; Van Looy & al., 2004) Tragedy of anti-commons (Heller & Eisenberg, 1998) = IP over basic inventions fragments the S&T knowledge base – coordination costs to gather complementary inventions for innovation –slows down innovation as well as further research empirical evidence in upstream research = Yes (Murray & Stern, 2006) No (Walsh, Cho & Cohen, 2005)
© Marc Isabelle The increased relevance of public research: some pitfalls (2) Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation i.Secrecy problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999) = delays and restrictions over disclosure of results imposed by industrial partners empirically documented (Cohen & al., 1994; Blumenthal & al., 1997; Isabelle & Goddard, 2006) – more empirical studies required to provide clear-cut answers – do these pitfalls come together of separately? – what exactly are the drives for change? Restrictions on formal (i.) or informal (ii.) scientific communication –slow down further research –duplicate efforts i.Withholding of results, restrictions on informal exchange empirical evidence = Yes (Walsh & Hong, 2003; Goddard & Isabelle, 2006) No (Blumenthal & al., 1997)
© Marc Isabelle Stokes 2D taxonomy of research activities NoYes Pure basic research (Bohr) Use-inspired basic research (Pasteur) No Pure applied research (Edison) Considerations of use? Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation A new taxonomy than expands on Pasteurs quadrant Quest for fundamental understanding? The expanded taxonomy Technical achievements Curiosity-driven Use-inspired Open access Proprietary – more complete (proprietary vs. open-access) – more precise (e.g. room for activities that are use-inspired and curiosity-driven) – operational (?) Fundamental knowledge
© Marc Isabelle Why using the expanded taxonomy at CEA? A government research centre, not a university Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation 2 nd largest public research organisation in France CEA Scientific research S&T fields Energy Defence Information & Health Technological research Activities distributed over large bandwidth of the Science – Technology spectrum while focused on three S&T fields – ranks 4 th in France in terms of publications quality (citations) – 3 rd French applicant of European patents (2000) – specific technological missions, a scientific pool – no statutory difference between scientists and engineers – two divisions dedicated to SR, three TR – an established capacity to design, build and operate large scientific instruments every dimension of expanded taxonomy anticipated to apply more than marginally
© Marc Isabelle First wave to test expanded taxonomy (January 2006) Target = network of outstanding researchers within CEA (Research Directors) Likert-scale based questionnairequestionnaire Distributed over CEAs divisions, over S&T fields The sample 37 answers (very good response rate, over 80%) Division of Matter Sciences over-represented Division of Nuclear Energy under-represented bias towards basic research vs. applied research as compared to whole CEA Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation The survey
© Marc Isabelle Yes, essentially Use-inspired Yes, to a lower extent No Curiosity-driven Yes, essentially Yes, to a lower extent No 5%62%11% 16%0% Yes, essentially Technical Yes, to a lower extent achievements No Fundamental knowledge Yes, essentially Yes, to a lower extent No 3%51%3% 24%3% 8%0% Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation Research activities are distributed rather than dichotomous Yes, essentially Proprietary Yes, to a lower extent No Open-access Yes, essentially Yes, to a lower extent No 3%27%5% 38%11%0% 11%0% Stokes taxonomy cannot grasp this mixed picture
© Marc Isabelle Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation Changes in profiles are towards more applied research …but not that clearly towards less basic research 1=Much more2 = More3 = Unchanged4 = Less5 = Much less
© Marc Isabelle Strong substitution features show at the margin When one type of research is said to be increasing, the other is systematically said to be decreasing of left unchanged –use-inspired vs. curiosity-driven Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation –technical achievements vs. fundamental knowledge generation –proprietary vs. open-access
© Marc Isabelle % of respondents answer that sources of financial support are essential drive for change (competitive resources include government grants, European projects, contracts with firms) For these researchers, changes are very homogenously biased towards more applied research and less fundamental research Tracking sources of financial support is the main drive for change More & Much more Less & Much less Technical achievements Use-inspiredProprietary Fundamental knowledge Curiosity- driven Open-access 78% (46%) 94% (68%) 72% (51%) 28% (16%) 50% (30%) 33% (16%) % subset (% whole sample) All types of research are impacted (no differences between subset profile and whole sample profile) Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation
© Marc Isabelle Implications for public policy… THANK YOU! Pressure for increased relevance of research also at play in government labs (not only universities) Increase sample size by launching surveys second wave Perform non-parametric statistical tests to better assess robustness of results Design and run econometric ordered logit model to better analyse relations between research style, changes and sources of change Balance between recurring / non-recurring financial support has strong impact on research style Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation funding policies should be explicit about their choice in terms of the relative volumes of fundamental and applied research Changes occur homogenously across various dimensions of expanded taxonomy and exhibit substitution features … and perspectives
© Marc Isabelle Main references Florida R., Cohen W.M., (1999), Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development, in: L.M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, Florida R., (eds), Industrializing Knowledge. University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, Cambridge: MIT Press. Heller M., Eisenberg R., (1998), Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, Science, Vol Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., (1998), Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, , The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, Pavitt K., (2001), Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn), Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), Ranga L.M., Debackere K., von Tunzelmann N., (2003), Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium, Scientometrics, 58(2), Van Looy B., Ranga M., Callaert J., Debackere K., Zimmermann E., (2004), Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?, Research Policy, 33, Hicks D., Hamilton K., (1999), Does university-industry collaboration adversely affect university research?, Issues in Science and Technology, Real Numbers. Expanding Pasteurs Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension: Illustration in a large public research organisation Murray F., Stern S., (2006), Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis, Paper presented at the Druid Summer Conference, Copenhagen, June Walsh J.P., Cho C., Cohen W.M., (2005), Patents, Material Transfers and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research, Final Report to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Inventions, September.
1 Growth review: Mid-sized businesses evidence base 29 November 2011.
Measuring innovation TRAINING WORKSHOP ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION INDICATORS Cairo, Egypt September 2009.
1 The Twenty-First Century University Innovation & the Commercialization of University Research Knowledge Economy Forum IV Istanbul, Turkey March 23,
Charles W. Wessner, Ph.D. 1 Improving Government-SME Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies The U.S. Small Business Innovation Research Program.
1 Developing Poles of Excellence: Partnerships between Research and Business John Dryden Deputy Director for Science, Technology and Industry OECD EC Conference.
1 Guriqbal Singh Jaiya Director. SMEs Division Accounting of Intellectual Property Assets: an Overview.
WIPO Arab Regional Meeting on Intellectual Property as a Power Tool for Economic Growth June 1 to 3, 2003 Amman, Jordan.
" " Economic reflections on innovation promotion and smart specialisation" RIS³ National launching event, Bari, 25 th September 2012 Mikel Landabaso European.
Chapter 11. In: H.F. Moed et al. (eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed.
ICES-III CONFERENCE Montreal, 19 th June Third International Conference on Establishment Surveys Introductory Overview Lecture Definitions and Units.
Options for and Effectiveness of Internet Self- and Co-Regulation Fourth Steering Committee Meeting 21 st January 2008 Jonathan Cave, Chris Marsden, Steve.
1 "Regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation 12A50 EU 2020: Opportunities and Challenges for the Outermost Regions European Commission, Centre.
Role of IP in Benefiting from University-Industry Partnerships: Incubators and IP: International Perspective Istanbul, Turkey, January 10 and 11, 2005.
WIPO International Seminar on the Strategic Use of Intellectual Property for Economic and Social Development Promoting a Balanced IP System: Economic Issues.
PRIMER COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS OF CANADA PILOT PROJECT JULY 2008.
Measuring innovation CARIBBEAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION (STI) INDICATORS St Georges, Grenada 1-3 February.
1 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND S&T INDICATORS Eduardo Martinez * *Chief of Section Science and Technology Studies & Strategic Planning UNESCO SC/AP.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY - THE ROLE OF S&T INDICATORS Nabiel Saleh National Research Centre Cairo – Egypt September 2009.
Trans-national cooperation of NCPs Regional 1 THE FUTURE OF REGIONS OF KNOWLEDGE Małgorzata Snarska-Świderska Member of PC Regions of Knowledge, Research.
Non-technical innovation Definition, Measurement & Policy Implications Workshop Karlsruhe, October 2008 The employment impact of technological and.
The changing face of innovation policy Programme on Regional Innovation University of Cambridge Belfast,17 June 2010 PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION.
Measuring Innovation in Developing Countries SEMINAR – WORKSHOP ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION INDICATORS Gaborone, Botswana.
1 The SHA and health accounts data collection David Morgan OECD Health Division Systems of Health Accounting: Belgian Experience in an International Perspective.
CRICOS No.00213J BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DATA ACCESS AND REUSE IN COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: An Analysis of the Legal Context (June 2007) A joint.
1 « Innovation and research priorities of the Structural Funds: Smart Specialisation Strategies Research and Innovation- The Key to European Competitiveness.
1 Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation and the new Structural Funds Regulations Regional Innovation Monitor Rencontre annuelle France.
Transforming assessment through the tenets Sally Brown and Brenda Smith 23 April 2013.
PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Science Competencies for Tomorrows World Science competencies for tomorrows world Seeing school.
Universities in National Innovation Systems David C. Mowery Haas School of Business, University of California - Berkeley.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.