Improving or Impairing? Following Technology Transfer Changes at the University of Cambridge

Abstract

Breznitz S. M. Improving or impairing? Following technology transfer changes at the University of Cambridge, Regional Studies. At academic and policy levels, universities are finding themselves in heated debate about their role in fostering entrepreneurship and local economic growth. Theories that encourage university involvement in the region perceive a straightforward positive correlation between the level of the university contribution and industrial growth in the region. Accordingly, the adaptation of a successful model will have positive results on local economic growth. Utilizing a case study of the University of Cambridge, this paper contends that the impact on regional economies depends on universities' resources, policies, and organization, as well as on industry's response to the knowledge and innovation generated.

Breznitz S. M. Améliorer ou affaiblir? Suivre l'évolution du transfert technologique à l'Université de Cambridge, Regional Studies. Aux niveaux académique et de politique, les universités se retrouvent au coeur d'un débat animé au sujet de leur rôle dans la promotion de l'esprit d'entreprise et de la croissance économique locale. Les théories en faveur de l'engagement régional voient une corrélation étroite directe entre l'importance de la contribution de l'université et le taux de croissance industrielle de la région. Il s'ensuit que l'adaptation d'un modèle réussi aura des effets positifs sur la croissance économique locale. En se servant d'une étude de cas de, à savoir l'Université de Cambridge, cet article affirme que l'effet régional dépend des ressources, des politiques, et de l'organisation de l'université, aussi bien que de la réponse de l'industrie à la connaissance et à l'innovation créées.

Aménagement du territoire Transfert technologique Universités Biotechnologie

Breznitz S. M. Verbesserung oder Beeinträchtigung? Untersuchung der Veränderungen im Bereich des Technologietransfers in der Universität Cambridge, Regional Studies. Die Universitäten befinden sich auf akademischer und politischer Ebene in einer hitzigen Debatte über ihre Rolle bei der Förderung von Unternehmertum und lokalem Wirtschaftswachstum. In den Theorien zugunsten einer Beteiligung der Universitäten an der Region wird eine einfache positive Korrelation zwischen dem Ausmaß des Beitrags der Universität und dem industriellen Wachstum in der Region gesehen. Dementsprechend wirkt sich die Anpassung eines erfolgreichen Modells positiv auf das lokale Wirtschaftswachstum aus. Anhand einer Fallstudie der Universität Cambridge wird in diesem Beitrag argumentiert, dass die Auswirkung auf die Regionalwirtschaften von den Ressourcen, Politiken und der Organisation der Universitäten abhängt sowie auch von der Reaktion der Industrie auf das erzeugte Wissen und die entstandene Innovation.

Regionale Wirtschaftsentwicklung Technologietransfer Universitäten Biotechnologie

Breznitz S. M. ¿Mejora o perjuicio? Análisis de los cambios de la transferencia tecnológica en la Universidad de Cambridge, Regional Studies. Las universidades debaten con interés a nivel académico y político qué papel desempeñan a la hora de fomentar el empresariado y el crecimiento económico local. En las teorías que abogan por la participación de las universidades en la región se percibe una correlación positiva y directa entre el nivel de la contribución universitaria y el crecimiento industrial de la región. En consecuencia, la adaptación de un modelo de éxito tendrá resultados positivos en el crecimiento económico local. Con ayuda de un estudio de caso en la Universidad de Cambridge, en este artículo sostenemos que el efecto en las economías regionales depende de los recursos, las políticas y la organización de las universidades así como de la respuesta de la industria al conocimiento y la innovación que genera.

Desarrollo económico regional Transferencia tecnológica Universidades Biotecnología

Keywords:

• Regional economic development
• Technology transfer
• Universities
• Biotechnology

JEL classifications:

• O
• O1
• O3
• O18
• O32
• R
• R1
• R11

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Mia Gray, Martin Kenney, John Walsh, Dan Breznitz, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks are extended to the interviewees in the project; their insight provides the foundation of this article. Partial support for this article was provided by the Cambridge Political Economy Society Trust, and the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge through the Philip Lake Fund II and the William Vaughan Lewis Fund.

Notes

Theories such as systems of innovation both national and regional, cluster theories, and university–industry relationships view the university as important for economic growth (see the section on ‘Theory and Arguments’).

Government pressure for university contribution to the economy came in the form of reports: Dearing (1997), Sainsbury (1999), as well as funding: the Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community (HEROBC) Funding Programme – 1998 gave £20 million to establish technology transfer activities; and the 1999 University Challenge Fund gave £45 million to support university spinout companies.

As was the case in the UK following the Sainsbury Report (Sainsbury, 1999), encouraging UK institutions to learn from the entrepreneurship courses and $50k competition in MIT.

Early-stage biotechnology is found in university laboratories, in pharmaceutical companies, and public research institutes.

Social capital is a concept created to describe the importance of the relationships and networks of individuals with increases in productivity and the promotion of economic growth (Putnam et al., 1994).

Formally known as the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).

About US$130 million at the time of writing.

BioConcepts is an institutional bridge between investors and local firms. i10 supports innovation and the success of regional firms by helping companies tap into the expertise and resources of universities in the east of England.

In 1967, the university established a subcommittee, headed by Professor Nevill Mott, to examine the relationships between university and industry. The report (Committee on Higher Education, 1967) supported the expansion of research base facilities in the area.

The author was asked whether one of the reasons that led the university to attempt to coordinate research collaborations with industry was the number and consequences of contracts that were loss-making due to a pervasive and consistent underestimate of overhead costs. However, no evidence was found to support this claim. The CMI was created and funded by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) with £84 million = £68 million and another £16 million from private industry.

The presence of government is apparent in the form of a series of reports, programmes, and funding. (1) The Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community (HEROBC) Funding Programme – 1998 provided £20 million to assist in the establishment of activities such as technology transfer offices. (2) the Dearing Report (Dearing, 1997) is a collection of reports, resulting in ninety-three recommendations referring to funding, students, and teaching in higher education. Funding was a significant part of the report's recommendation. Accordingly, the committee found that an additional £350 million were required in 1998–1999 and £565 million in 1999–2000. Thus, the report recommended that government should continue to increase its support for higher education with the growth of gross domestic product. (3) The Sainsbury Report (Sainsbury, 1999) is a report on the UK's biotechnology clusters.

The college recruited Walter Herriot, formally with Barclays Bank, who led Barclays' investment in Cambridge companies, to manage the Centre.

Department of Chemistry, Corporate Associates Scheme (2006).

Following a formal request from the university's TTO for historical data on licences, the university claimed it did not keep these records, and in order to recover this information, a formal search through university records needs to be performed.

The Cambridge University Reporter is the official journal of the university.

A high selectivity model is where the TTO chooses which technologies in which to invest, but has a relatively low support system, that is, no direct support to spinouts, very little funding, etc. For more about the high selectivity, low support system model, see Roberts and Malone (1996) and Breznitz et al. (2008).

Existing studies found that higher percentages of royalties given to inventors result in higher levels of licences versus spinouts (Di Gregorio and Shane, 2003; Link and Siegel, 2005).

Studies show that much of the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’ was based on social networks (Segal Quince & Partners, 1985; Segal Quince Wicksteed, 2000).