University Entrepreneurship & Regional Economic Development David B. Audretsch
The Traditional University • The Humboldt Model (Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1767-1835) • Freedom & independence of research & teaching • “knowledge for its own sake” • Little valuation for engagement & societal impact
Role of University in the Solow Economy • Limited contribution for investment in physical capital • Limited link to (exogenous) knowledge • Contribution in terms of social and political values • Limited contribution to economic development
Role of University in the Romer Economy • Competitiveness Crisis of 1970s • Comparative advantages shifts from physical capital of knowledge • University is source of knowledge • University financial shortfall • Demand oriented
The Knowledge Filter “ A wealth of scientific talent at American colleges and universities – talent responsible for the development of numerous innovative scientific breakthroughs each year – is going to waste as a result of bureaucratic red tape and illogical government regulations…What sense does it make to spend billions of dollars each year on government-supported research and then prevent new developments from benefiting the American people because of dumb bureaucratic red tape ?” U.S. Senator Birch Bayh, 1980
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 • Penetrate the Knowledge Filter • Creation of the Technology Transfer Office (TTO) • Most studies analyzing commercialization of university research limited to measures of what the TTO does • Intellectual property disclosed to and registered by TTO may lead to systematic underestimation of commercialization and innovation emantating from university research (Thursby & Thursby, 2005; Shane, 2004)
Emergence of Entrepreneurial University • Facilitate knowledge spillovers from university • University as solution provider – user oriented fields and programs (i.e. biochemistry, informatics) • Demand orientation rather than “knowledge for its own sake” • Provision of conduits for knowledge spillovers – technology transfer offices, incubators, science parks, sponsored research
En trepren eu rial Un iversity X X X X
University Patents as a Share of All Patents with Domestic Assignees 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 Share % 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 University Patent Issue Year (Mowery 2005)
1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 3 500 4 000 4 500 5 000 Patents Distribution of University 500 0 University of California University of Texas University of Wisconsin Cornell University Harvard University State University of New York Michigan State University Duke University Number of patents issued from 1998 to 2008 University of Maryland System University of Southern California University of Utah Iowa State University Yale University University of Massachusetts University of Kentucky Emory University University of Arkansas University of Nebraska Thomas Jefferson University University of Connecticut University of Tennessee University of Missouri Brown University University of Oklahoma Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of Medicine and Dentistry… University of Cincinnati Auburn University Washington State University University of Hawaii Colorado State University University of Houston New Jersey Institute of Technology Tulane University Number of patents
Disappointing Assessment of Technology Transfer
Paucity of University Entrepreneurship? • AUTM reports annual mean of 426 startups from U.S. Universities • MIT TTO reported 29 startups • Stanford TTO reported 6 startups • Based on AUTM data, one startup generated per $368 million of R&D
Has University Entrepreneurship been Underestimated? • Most studies analyzing commercialization of university research limited to measures of what the TTO does • Intellectual property disclosed to and registered by TTO may lead to systematic underestimation of commercialization and innovation emantating from university research (Thursby & Thursby, 2002, “Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower?” Management Science ; Shane, 2004, “Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation,” Management Science )
Technology Transfer Office Mission Statements Primary objectives of the UTTO Percentage of times appeared in mission statement (%) Licensing for royalties 78.72 IP protection/management 75.18 Facilitate disclosure process 71.63 Sponsored research and assisting inventors 56.74 Public good (disseminate information/technology 54.61 Industry relationships 42.55 Economic development (region, state) 26.95 Entrepreneurship and new venture creation 20.57 N = 128 TTOs. Source: G. Markman, P. Phan, D. Balkin & P. Gianiodis, “Entrepreneurship and University- Based Technology Transfer, “ Journal of Business Venturing , 2005
“ Making the switch from science to business” Nature
Asking What Scientists Do Not What the University Does • 16,693 scientists awarded National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant, 1998-2002 (top 20%) • $5,350 million NCI grant awards • NCI awards matched to patents • 398 distinct patentees, (1,204 patents), 1998- 2004 • 1 in 4 scientists started new business Aldridge & Audretsch, “The Bayh -Dole Act and Scientist Entrepreneurship”, Research Policy , 2011.
Scientist Entrepreneurship • Measurement of scientist entrepreneurship by AUTM & university TTO’s may underestimate extent of scientist entrepreneurship • Based on AUTM data, one startup generated per $368 million of R&D • Aldridge & Audretsch ( Research Policy , 2011) implies one startup generated per $12 million of R&D
Limitations of Previous Research on Scientist Entrepreneurship • Limited to a single field of science – cancer research • Limited to the highest performing scientists • Unanswered questions – “To what extent is the high rate of entrepreneurial activity exhibited by the high performing cancer research scientists prevalent across different types of scientific fields for different types of scientists?” -- “To what extent do the main determinants of scientist entrepreneurship hold across different scientific fields & heterogeneous types of scientists?
“Scientist Entrepreneurship: Does the Scientific Field Make a Difference?” Taylor Aldridge, David B. Audretsch & Venkata Nadella • Ask What Scientists Do & Not What the TTO Does to Commercialize Research • Move Beyond Traditional Individual-Specific Characteristics in Explaining Propensity for Scientist to Engage in Entrepreneurship • Move Beyond University Characteristics in Explaining Scientist Commercialization • Why & How Do Scientists Become Entrepreneurs ?
Creating a Scientist Entrepreneurship Database • Web of knowledge database contained email addresses of 9361 scientists that received NSF funding between 2005 and 2012-Q2. • Online survey questionnaire directed to the entire population of 9361 scientists in the first round of survey administration • 30 scientists were on sabbatical, 9 scientists were inactive, and email addresses of 172 scientists were returned since they were incorrect/incomplete. • Survey sample of 9150 scientists (97.75 percent of the population
Creating a Scientist Entrepreneurship Database • Scientists spanned 6 different fields of research, • 1899 scientist responses (response rate of 20.75%) from three rounds of administering questionnaire
Hypothesis 1: Age is positively related to the propensity for scientists to become an entrepreneur • For general entrepreneurship literature, age has negative impact on entrepreneurship (Parker, 2010, The Economics of Entrepreneurship , Oxford University Press; Reynolds, Carter, Gartner & Greene (2004 ) “The Prevalence of Nascent Entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics ,” Small Business Economics ) • Levin and Stephan, (1991), “Research Productivity Over the Life Cycle; Evidence for Academic Scientists,” American Economic Review; Stephan, Paula., & Levin, Sharon (1992), Striking the Mother Lode in Science: the Importance of Age, Place, and Time, Oxford University Press
Hypothesis 2: Female scientists less likely to be an entrepreneur • Studies from general population find likelihood of female entrepreneurship lower than male entrepreneurship (Minniti & Nardone (2007) “Being in Someone Else’s Shoes: The Role of Gender in Nascent Entrepreneurship,” Small Business Economics ) • Aldridge & Audretsch (2011) find no difference for gender for cancer scientists
Hypothesis 3 : The propensity for a scientist to become an entrepreneur is positively related to human capital • Positive relationship found between human capital and entrepreneurship for general population (Davidsson & Honig (2003 ) “The role of Social and Human Capital among Nascent Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Business Venturing) • Aldridge & Audretsch (2011) find human capital to have no impact on scientist entrepreneurship for cancer researchers
Recommend
More recommend
