Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20091 Liudvika Leišytė Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, The Netherlands Center.

Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20091

Liudvika Leišytė

Center for Higher Education Policy Studies

University of Twente, The Netherlands

Center for European StudiesHarvard University

University research commercialization policies and their implementation in Lithuania, the Netherlands and USA


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


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)


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”.


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).


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.


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


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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).


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)


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


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.


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.


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).


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).


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


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.


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)


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.



• 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).



• 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.


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.


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?


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)


Thank you for your attention!

Liudvika Leišytė, Vilnius, September 25, 20091 Liudvika Leišytė Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, The Netherlands Center.

Documents

lithuanian science

rd policies

university scientists

dynamics of industry

rd world bank

importance of university

lithuanian rdafter

rd structure