1 / 29

Liudvika Lei š yt ė Center for Higher Education Policy Studies

University research commercialization policies and their implementation in Lithuania, the Netherlands and USA. Liudvika Lei š yt ė Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, The Netherlands Center for European Studies Harvard University. Flow of the talk.

lwynn
Télécharger la présentation

Liudvika Lei š yt ė Center for Higher Education Policy Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University research commercialization policies and their implementation in Lithuania, the Netherlands and USA Liudvika Leišytė Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, The Netherlands Center for European Studies Harvard University Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20091

  2. Flow of the talk • Debates on University-Industry nexus • Research commercialization policies in Lithuania, the Netherlands and the US • Uptake of these policies in the three countries • Reflection: the co - existence of different cultures Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20092

  3. Introduction • Different models of university-industry-government linkages point to the importance of university in the process of innovation (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1996, Gibbons et al. 1994) • Universities have struggled for a long time to define their position to the business world (Geiger 2004) Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20093

  4. University research commercialization • The policies are geared toward universities as organizations, university scientists, and industry. • Different policy instruments used to promote knowledge transfer between universities and industry. • The dynamics of industry geared towards global competition. • The arrival of “big science”. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20094

  5. Changes in the norms of science • Professional norms and capitalization of knowledge. • A more utilitarian perspective on economic potential of academic research. • Academic entrepreneurship – scientists engaging in the commercialization of their knoweldge (Etzkowitz 2008, Owen Smith and Powell 2003, Ziman 2000). Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20095

  6. Lithuanian R&D • After 1990, regained independence led to lost funding from Moscow, radically changing the R&D structure. • Industry often opted for technologies developed by internationally-known companies rather than local researchers. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20096

  7. Lithuanian HE and Research Policies • 2002: White Paper on Lithuanian Science and Technology • 2003: Program for the Development of High Technologies • 2003: Program for Innovation in Business • 2002-2006: Setting Priority Trends of Lithuanian R&D • 2003-2012: Development of Strategic Provisions of the Lithuanian Education System • 2009: The Law on Science and Higher Education Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20097

  8. Funding of Lithuanian research • Lithuania started with a low R&D intensity (GERD: 0,69% of GDP in 2001). • The efforts to increase funding for R&D as a proportion of GDP resulted in the growth from 0.46 percent in 1995 to 0.83 percent in 2007 (World Bank 2009, p.8). • The private sector invests 0.24 percent of GDP in R&D and employs only 4 percent of all researchers in Lithuania. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20098

  9. Policy initiatives • Since 2002, 11 technology parks have been created to foster the interaction between public research institutions and private sector. • The efficiency of these parks is very low and that only some of the activities are actually related to the R&D (World Bank 2009, p. 25). Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20099

  10. Policy initiatives • Five science clusters program ( 2008-ongoing), based on competitive infrastructure development funds from the European Structural Funds. • Draft National Innovation Strategy of 2009: an innovation voucher system to be introduced 2010 in Lithuania. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200910

  11. Uptake of policies • Until recent European Structural Funds’ support for science, there has been rather limited financial support to implement R&D policies. • The universities seldom have support services for intellectual property or for industry sponsorship development. • Some universities, especially those on the technological side, have contract funding from industry although the bulk of the funding comes from the public purse. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200911

  12. Uptake of policies • The Lithuanian National Patent Office is in operation since the regaining of independence and the Law on Patents is being currently discussed. • Looking at the yearly turnover, one can see that the patenting numbers are rather low per university (Patent Office 2009). • The commercialization of knowledge is still a very new phenomenon for Lithuanian universities. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200912

  13. Focus on research in the Netherlands • The White Paper 1979 (the Policy Document University Research, or BUOZ-paper). • It stated that public research should increasingly become 1) (nationally) programmed, 2) more transparent and in harmony with social needs, 3) evaluated in terms of quality, and 4) accounted for (De Boer et al. 2006). Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200913

  14. Dutch R&D policy initiatives • Reward excellence and improve the utilization of science (Science Budget 2004) • The Innovation Charter (2006) introduced common shared rules of patent ownership & licensing • Governmental biotechnology and nanotechnology programs (Stigon, Biopartner, Centres of Excellence) Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200914

  15. Policy instruments • The Innovation Oriented Research program 1981 • The development of the Technological Top Institutes 1997 • The Bsik-grant, ”Knowledge and Research capacity” 1990 using the receipts of natural gas exploitation • Innovation vouchers and tax incentives Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200915

  16. Dutch R&D Funding • In the Netherlands, the R&D expenditure has fluctuated around 2 % of the GDP. • Companies are the largest sponsors, with a share of 51% in 2003. • The proportion of government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 1.0 per cent in 1990 to 0.64 percent in 2003. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200916

  17. Uptake of policies in the NL • Dutch universities own their patents and, up to 2004, had their own rules about knowledge commercialization procedures. • Universities have a diverse organizational structure for promotion of technology transfer, and its institutionalization varies from one university to another. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200917

  18. Uptake of policies in the NL • Looking at university expenditures, there is a rise in contract revenues for research between 1990 and 2004. As reported by the MOCW, the private share during this period rose from 22 to 32 percent (MOCW 2008). Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200918

  19. Early focus on research in the US The report Science: The Endless Frontier 1945, in which Vannevar Bush advised President Roosevelt to invest in basic science in universities and harness the experiences of the mobilization of science during the war for the peacetime goals of improving the economy and living standards (Bush 1980). Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200919

  20. University Research Commercialization Policies in the US • The Economic Recovery Tax Act 1980 • The exemption of industry research consortia from antitrust laws 1984. • The Bayh-Dole Act 1980 Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200920

  21. R&D Funding in the US • In 2006, the R&D share of GDP in the US was 2.57%, which is rather high compared with the EU average of 1.77%. • In the 1950s, industrial funding of university research was about 1% on average, while in 2006, the private sector accounted for 20% of university R&D funding. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200921

  22. Policy Instruments • The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) • Specific initiatives to promote Nanotechnology through NSF and DARPA funding and Biotechnology through NIH funding • State level programs (Nanotechnology Initiative in one case study state, 63mln USD in 2006, R&D tax credits) Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200922

  23. Uptake of policies in the US • University research commercialization has been seen as a “golden goose” contributing to the national economy in the US by the government (Owen-Smith, 2006, p. 64). • “Revolutionary” process (Etzkowitz, Webster, and Healey 1998) in part because research commercialization changed the way the academic mission of university is understood. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200923

  24. Uptake of policies in the US • Big collaborative research centers and laboratories, science parks, and high-technology incubators. • In 2007, there were 22 funded centers, which were large-scale interdisciplinary programs, in cooperation with industry. • Universities were accommodating in changing internal policies to adapt to “the team based, cross-departmental activities of scientists participating in these research centers” (Geiger and Sa, 2008, p. 74). Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200924

  25. Uptake of policies in the US • The university initiatives range from marketing of intellectual property to active venture capital investment and to contractual networks. • Introduced new professional groups, shifted academic career trajectories, and changed academic stratification hierarchies. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200925

  26. Institutionalization of knowledge transfer in universities • US: The Association of University Tecnology Managers (AUTM, 2007) data shows most of the tech transfer offices became operational in the eighties. 50% of them were created in the period between 1980-1990. Netherlands: universities established foundations that has the function of TTOs. Since 2004 university policies are changing: new “valorisation” indicators have been introduced. • Lithuania: University technology transfer is still rather limited. Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200926

  27. Conclusion • The major concern related to the uptake of the research commercialization policies expressed by academics in all countries is the university as an academic institution – how compatible it is with a proprietary culture of competitiveness (Bok 2003, Owen-Smith 2006). • What do the private gain and the culture of secrecy mean for the open science, for its quality and academic freedom? • What does the commercialization mean for the academic careers and credibility building? Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200927

  28. Reflection • Universities are being increasingly driven to adopt similar policies with regard to the tech transfer function. The concept of institutional isomorphism helps explain the pressures faced by universities and contextualizes policy shifts with regard to tech transfer.(Di Maggio and Powell, 1983) • There is only a limited convergence of the roles and norms of ‘public’ and ‘private’ science – they co-exist. To a large extent, the institution of public science persists – reinforced both by the need to build academic crediblity, and by the ability to diversify their funding base.(Latour and Woolgar, 1979) Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200928

  29. Thank you for your attention! Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 200929

More Related