![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Since the mid‐1990s, Japan has instituted a series of policy reforms in order to encourage greater university participation in commercial activity. Using data from a survey of scientists in engineering and biomedical fields in Japanese universities, we find that there has been a significant increase in commercial activity during this period, in particular, links to small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises. We also find that scientists are increasingly considering business potential when choosing projects. However, we find little evidence of the increasing commercialization leading to barriers to access to research tools. We also find that, despite the growing importance of formalized university–industry ties, university–industry linkages continue to be dominated by informal ties and gift‐exchange.
Notes
1. Funding for this research was provided by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Grants in Aid of Special Coordination for Promoting Science and Technology and the Abe Fellowship Program. We benefited from helpful comments from Sadao Nagaoka, Fumio Kodama, Jun Suzuki, Pablo D’Este, Kate Walsh, and participants in the following meetings and seminars: International Schumpeter Society Meeting (Nice), Japan Science and Technology Studies Associated Annual Meeting (Tokyo), University of Chicago Workshop on the Sociology and Cultures of Globalization, University of Illinois at Chicago Sociology Department Seminar Series, Technology Transfer Society Annual Meeting (Atlanta), Workshop on Exploring and Mapping University–Industry Relationships (Imperial College, London) and Workshop on Japanese Approaches to Local Development, Clusters, Industry–University Linkages and Implications for British Columbia (University of British Columbia, Vancouver).
2. V. Bush, Science, the Endless Frontier, USGPO, Washington, 1945; R. R. Nelson, ‘The simple economics of basic scientific research’, The Journal of Political Economy, 67, 1959, pp. 297–306.
3. H. Odagiri and A. Goto, Technology and Industrial Development in Japan, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.
4. A. Sunami, ‘Learning for the Japanese: research and development policies of the United Kingdom and the United States in the 1980s’, Political Science, Columbia University, New York, 2001.
5. M. Hashimoto, ‘New Japanese initiative for industry–university cooperation’, in AUTM 2003 Annual Meeting, 2003 (mimeo); R. Kneller, ‘Intellectual property rights and university–industry technology transfer in Japan’, in L. Branscomb, F. Kodama and R. Florida (eds), Industrializing Knowledge: University Linkages in Japan and the United States, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, pp. 307–47.
6. G.. S. McMillan, F. Narin and D. L. Deeds, ‘An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology’, Research Policy, 29, 2000, pp. 1–8; F. K. Narin and D. Olivastro, ‘The increasing linkage between US technology and public science’, Research Policy, 26, 1997, pp. 317–30.
7. See National Science Foundation, Tokyo Regional Office, 3 April 1996, Japan’s Basic Law for Science and Technology, Report Memorandum #96–11, available at: http://www.nsftokyo.org/rm96-11.html, accessed December 2007.
8. H. Odagiri, ‘University–industry collaboration in Japan: facts and interpretations’, in Branscombe et al. (eds), op. cit., pp. 252–65.
9. OECD, Turning Science into Business, OECD, Paris, 2003.
10. A. Agrawal and R. Henderson, ‘Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT’, Management Science, 48, 2002, pp. 44–60; W. M. Cohen, R. R. Nelson and J. P. Walsh, ‘Links and impacts: survey results on the influence of public research on industrial R&D’, Management Science, 48, 2002, pp. 1–23.
11. M. Gibbons and R. Johnson, ‘The role of science in technological innovation’, Research Policy, 3, 1975, pp. 220–42; S. J. Kline and N. Rosenberg, ‘An overview of innovation’, in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds), The Positive Sum Strategy, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1986; R. R. Nelson, ‘Innovation supporting technical advance in industry’, American Economic Review Proceedings, 76, 1986, pp. 186–9.
12. D. Blumenthal, E. G. Campbell, M. S. Anderson, N. Causino and K. S. Louis, ‘Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty’, JAMA, 227, 1997, 1224–8; E. G. Campbell, B. R. Clarridge, G.. Manjusha and L. Blumenthal, ‘Data withholding in academic genetics’, JAMA, 287, 2002, pp. 473–80; P. A. David, ‘The economic logic of “open science” and the balance between information: a primer’, SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 02–30, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2003; Nelson, 1959, op. cit.; S. Slaughter and L. L. Leslie, Academic Capitalism, The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1997.
13. R. R. Nelson, ‘The market economy and the scientific commons’, Research Policy, 33, 2004, pp. 455–71.
14. Kneller, 1999, op. cit.; M. Yoshihara and K. Tamai, ‘Lack of incentive and persisting constraints: factors hindering technology transfer at Japanese universities’, in Branscomb et al. (eds), op. cit., pp. 348–64.
15. Because there are self‐reported survey responses, we should be aware that there may be some response biases. In order to limit this, we will generally look for with‐in respondent differences, rather than absolute values, when making inferences. The cross‐national comparison may be especially sensitive to differences in understanding question wordings and so on. To limit this, we tried to be specific about the content of words such as ‘research tie’ by giving several examples of possible research ties (see below). However, we should be sensitive to possible response biases and socially desirable response effects when interpreting results, especially absolute averages, which are likely to be biased upwards for many items.
16. The question was: ‘We would like to ask you about your research ties (including joint research, contract research, personnel exchanges, consulting, etc.) with researchers from other organizations. For each of the following, do you currently have a research tie to such organizations? Did you have a tie with someone from these organizations five years before?’
17. We were concerned about a particular form of response bias resulting from younger respondents being more likely to say ‘no’ to questions about any kind of tie from five years ago. To check whether our results on changes are due to cohort effects, we reran this analysis for only those respondents with 10 or more years seniority. Not surprisingly, the percent having research ties with firms were higher for more senior scientists (83% having ties to large firms and 55% having ties to SMEs in 2003). However, the change over the last five years was quite similar for the older respondents compared to the whole (see Figure ). For the more senior scientists, who were at risk for having ties in both 1998 and 2003, we find a 12 percentage‐point increase in ties to large firms (compared to an 11 point increase for the whole sample) and a 20 percentage‐point increase in ties to SMEs (compared to an 18 point change for the whole sample) [results available from the contact author]. These similar findings for the senior researchers suggest that the observed change is not due simply to younger scientists reporting activity in the later period but not the earlier period due to being not at risk for ties five years ago, giving us more confidence that our findings are not due to this type of response bias.
18. The question was: ‘For each research partner, please choose the most important reason for having a research tie with that partner’.
19. A. Goto, ‘Japan’s national innovation system’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 3, 1975, pp. 147–60; J. P. Walsh and W. M. Cohen, ‘Does the golden goose travel? A comparative analysis of the influence of public research on industrial R&D in the US and Japan’, in International Schumpter Society Annual Meeting, Milan, Italy (mimeo).
20. The question was: ‘Links between universities and firms (including domestic and foreign corporations, small and medium size firms, venture firms, etc.) can take many forms and have various effects. Which of the following ties have you had with firms? Please tell us about now, and about five years ago’.
21. See R. W. Kneller, ‘University–industry cooperation and technology transfer in Japan compared with the US: another reason for Japan’s economic malaise?’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 42, 2003, pp. 329–449; J. P. Walsh and M. Saegusa, ‘Broadening “academic” research: adapting to university reforms in Japan’, Journal of Science Policy and Research Management, 18, 2003, pp. 47–58.
22. Field‐level results available from contact author.
23. P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 1983, pp. 147–60.
24. D. C. Mowery, R. R. Nelson, B. N. Sampat and A. A. Ziedonis, Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University–Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh–Dole Act, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 2004.
25. Compare with Hashimoto, op. cit.; M. E. Porter, ‘Can Japan compete? New findings from the global competitiveness report 2002’, in HBS Japan Research Office, Tokyo (mimeo); M. E. Porter, H. Takeuchi and M. Sakakibara, Can Japan Compete?, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 2000.
26. D. Hicks, ‘University–industry research links in Japan’, Policy Sciences, 26, 1993, pp. 361–96; K. Pechter, ‘Empirical support for significant university–industry linkage in Japan’, in Management in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 2000 EEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Singapore (mimeo), 2000; J. P. Walsh, C. Cho and W. M. Cohen, ‘When excludability matters’, (mimeo), 2007.
27. J. P. Walsh, C. Cho and W. M. Cohen, ‘The view from the bench: patents, material transfers and biomedical research’, Science, 309, 2005, pp. 2002–3.
28. Compare with Mowery et al., op. cit.
29. Blumenthal et al., op. cit.; Campbell et al., op. cit.; David, op. cit.; Nelson, ‘The market economy and the scientific commons’, op. cit.; Slaughter and Leslie, op. cit.
30. Nelson, 2004, op. cit.
31. S. Breschi, F. Lissoni and F. Montobbio, University Patenting and Scientific Productivity. A Quantitative Study of Italian Academic Inventors, CESPRI, Centre for Research on Innovation and Internationalization, Universita Bocconi, Milano, Italy, 2006.
32. H. Etzkowitz, ‘The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages’, Research Policy, 27, 1998, pp. 823–33; R. K. Merton, ‘The normative structure of science’, in R. R. Nelson (ed.), The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1942, pp. 267–78.
33. The question was: ‘In your research over the last five years how have the following changed?’ Specific items included: consideration of the business potential when choosing research projects; likelihood of delaying publication due to business considerations; likelihood of your requests for research materials being denied; likelihood of your responding to other’s requests for research materials (reverse coded); willingness to discuss ongoing research with those outside the collaboration (reverse coded); having to stop research because of someone else’s patent. The answers were on a five‐point scale, from ‘substantial decrease’ to ‘substantial increase’. We recoded the answers as ‘increase’ (four or five on the five point scale) or ‘no increase’ (one, two, or three).
34. M. A. Heller and R. S. Eisenberg, ‘Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research’, Science, 280, 1998, pp. 698–701.
35. W. O. Hagstram, ‘Competition in science’, American Sociological Review, 39, 1974, pp. 1–18; J. P. Walsh and Wei Hong, ‘Secretary is increasing in step with competition’, Nature, 422, 2003, pp. 801–2.
36. Campbell et al., op. cit.; National Research Council, Sharing Publication‐Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences, National Academic Press, Washington, DC, 2003; Walsh et al., 2007, op. cit.
37. Agrawal and Henderson, op. cit.; Cohen et al., op. cit.
38. D. E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant, Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, 1997.