Intellectual Property management in publicly funded R&D centres—A comparison of university-based and company-based research centres

Recent thinking on open innovation and the knowledge-based economy have stressed the importance of external knowledge sources in stimulating innovation. Policy-makers have recognised this, establishing publicly funded Centres of R&D Excellence with the objective of stimulating industry–science links and localised innovation spillovers. Here, we examine the contrasting IP management practices of a group of 18 university- and company-based R&D centres supported by the same regional programme. Our analysis covers all but one of the Centres supported by the programme and suggests marked contrasts between the IP strategies of the university-based and company-based centres. This suggests the potential for very different types of knowledge spillovers from publicly funded R&D centres based in different types of organisations, and a range of alternative policy approaches to the future funding of R&D centres depending on policy-makers’ objectives.

The development of University Technology Transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level: Lessons for the future

The increasing importance placed upon regional development and the knowledge-based economy as economic growth stimuli has led to a changing role for Universities and their interaction with the business community through (though not limited to) the transfer of technology from academia to industry. With the emergence of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) replacing the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), there is a need for policy and practice going forward to be clearly informed by a critique of TTO (Technology Transfer Office)–RDA stakeholder relationship in a lessons learned approach so that LEPs can benefit from a faster learning curve. Thus, the aim of this paper is to examine the stakeholder relationship between three regional universities in the context of its TTO and the RDA with a view to determining lessons learned for the emerging LEP approach. Although the issues raised are contextual, the abstracted stakeholder conceptualisation of the TTO–RDA relationship should enable wider generalisation of the issues raised beyond the UK. Stakeholder theory relationship and stage development models are used to guide a repeat interview study of the TTO and RDA stakeholder groupings. The findings, interpreted using combined category and stage based stakeholder models, show how the longitudinal development of the TTO–RDA stakeholder relationship for each case has progressed through different stakeholder pathways, and stages where specific targeting of funding was dependant on the stakeholder stage. Greater targeted policy and funding, based on the stakeholder relationship approach, led to the development of joint mechanisms and a closer alignment of performance measures between the TTO and the RDA. However, over-reliance on the unitary nature of the TTO–RDA relationship may lead to a lack of cultivation and dependency for funding from other stakeholders.

Catalysing open innovation through publicly funded R&D: A Comparison of University and Company-based research centres

Public funding of university and company-based R&D centres of excellence is widespread both in core and more peripheral regions. What is less well-known is whether these R&D centres can catalyse multi-directional, multi-actor and iterative innovation. Based on data from a real-time monitoring study, this article explores the development of 18 R&D centres’ external connections. University-based R&D centres establish more new connections than company-based centres and are more likely to be interacting with small or micro-firms. However, there is a general bias towards links with larger firms; micro, small and medium-sized enterprises also are less likely to be involved in collaborative R&D with research centres than other types of relationships. The results suggest the potential for R&D centres to act as a catalyst for open innovation but emphasise the need to ensure that the focus of the R&D being conducted is relevant to the needs of smaller firms.

Optimizing Research on End-of-Life Care for Seniors:The Collective New Emerging Team on End of Life Care for Seniors University of Ottawa, Institute of Palliative Care

Background: End-of-life care for seniors is an important and neglected area of research. The University of Ottawa Institute of Palliative Care has expanded its research capacity by developing a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funded new emerging team on end-of-life care for seniors. This initiative brings together an interdisciplinary team of researchers from palliative care and geriatrics to develop a comprehensive program of research. Methods: 1) A variety of investigators from the fields of palliative care and geriatrics and disciplines of epidemiology, medicine, nursing, psychology and social work will collaborate on the development of a research agenda focussed on end-of-life care for seniors. 2) The conceptual model for the research program consists of 4 broad interrelated domains that are congruent with the CIHR themes of health services, clinical issues, population health and psychosocial, cultural, spiritual and ethical issues; this framework will guide the research program and all studies emanating from the program. 3) Research studies will focus on 5 areas of inquiry that are central to end-of-life care for seniors: palliative end-of-life care for rural seniors, care settings, burden, role of volunteers, and delirium. Results: This new team has the potential to obtain peer-reviewed funding, recruit and train a new generation of researchers, and build a network of concerned researchers. Conclusions: The new team should ultimately contribute to an improved quality of care for seniors who are approaching death.

Neoliberalism, the University, Public Goods, and Agricultural Innovation

After World War II, most industrialising nations adopted some form of welfare-state approach to balance the economic activities of self-interested agents and social welfare. In the realm of scientific research and innovation, this often meant that governments took primary responsibility for funding public research organisations, including research universities and government laboratories. Over the past four decades, however, the significance of private funding for agricultural research has increased, and academic scientists now often work in public-private partnerships. We argue that this trend needs to be carefully monitored because public goods are likely to be overlooked and undervalued in such arrangements. In the interest of developing indicators to monitor the trend, we document public and private funding for agricultural research and agricultural innovation in four countries: the USA, the UK, Ireland and Germany. Our results show that although neoliberalism is evident in each country, it is not homogeneous in its application and impacts, suggesting that national and institutional contexts matter. This article is directed at stimulating debates on the relationships between university research, agricultural innovation and public goods.