Abstract
Developed and developing economies alike face increased resource scarcity and competitive rivalry. Science and technology increasingly appear as a main source of competitive and sustainable advantage for nations and regions alike. However, the key determinant of their efficacy is the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship-enabled innovation that unlocks and captures the pecuniary benefits of the science enterprise in the form of private, public, or hybrid goods. In this context, linking university basic and applied research with the market, via technology transfer and commercialization mechanisms including government–university–industry partnerships and risk capital investments, constitutes the essential trigger mechanism and driving device for sustainable competitive advantage and prosperity. In short, university researchers properly informed, empowered, and supported are bound to emerge as the architects of a prosperity that is founded on a solid foundation of scientific and technological knowledge, experience, and expertise and not in fleeting and conjectural “ financial engineering” schemes. Building on these constituent elements of technology transfer and commercialization, Innovation Diplomacy encompasses the concept and practice of bridging distance and other divides (cultural, socio-economic, technological, etc.) with focused and properly targeted initiatives to connect ideas and solutions with markets and investors ready to appreciate them and nurture them to their full potential.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The following questions were adapted from an interview by the Lithuanian Business Daily provided by the first author (Prof. Dr. Elias G. Carayannis) in October 2010.
In a very recent market analysis on US consumers’ attitude towards Greece and Greek products (Kairos Consumers for the Greek Exporters Association October 2010—www.pse.gr/en), the test groups associated Greece with nothing but historical/cultural and geographical landmarks (i.e., Acropolis, ancient history, Pythagoras, islands, Athens, etc) and food products (i.e., feta cheese, olives, yogurt, etc). To the question “which three products would you label as ‘made in Greece,’” the responses further solidified the findings: ouzo, feta cheese, olive oil, grape leaves, yogurt, etc. As one quoted answer perfectly epitomizes: “Olives, olive oil, feta cheese, yogurt; I can’t think of any other products that are produced in Greece other than food.”
Article 16 of the Greek Constitution, which regulates Education, Art, and Science, especially the correlation of provisions “Art and science, research and teaching shall be free and their development and promotion shall be an obligation of the State” (§1), “Education constitutes a basic mission for the State and shall aim at the moral, intellectual, professional and physical training of Greeks” (§2) and “Education at university level shall be provided exclusively by institutions which are fully self-governed public law legal persons. These institutions shall operate under the supervision of the State (…)” (§5) of this Article, have been widely and consistently (mis)interpreted as practically forbidding any kind of commercial implications (let alone exploitation) of academic research.
This idealization (one is tempted to say sanctification) of academic research impeded the transformation of research to tangible novel goods and procedures, despite the fact that a number of targeted laws have been enacted to revert that distortion. Paragraph 3A of law 2741/1999 (further amended in 2000 by law 2843) clearly states that “The outcomes of research and the knowledge created in research centers, educational institutions, companies or other entities in Greece and abroad can be economically exploited in various ways, including:
-
a.
Direct commercial use by producing and trading goods or services from the very knowledge-producing institution. In case the entity is an academic institution, those activities can be undertaken by the companies managing the institution’s property.
-
b.
Out-licensing the commercialization from the knowledge-creating institution to a third-party entity or company, under a concession agreement defining the economic terms.
-
c.
Founding a targeted subsidiary corporation or participating in a third-party company to commercialize the knowledge produced.
-
d.
Technology companies where the economically exploitable knowledge-creating individuals (scientists, technologists, and researchers) engage in entrepreneurial activity; the institution where the knowledge was created can participate in these companies in any desirable form as can third parties (individuals or legal persons).
-
e.
A combination of any of the above-mentioned forms and other ways.
-
a.
The mix of counties is arbitrary, chiefly by virtue of comparable size with Greece, yet also reputation and significance in the R&D and innovation field. Data provided by Directorate of International S&T Cooperation, European Union Division of the Greek General Secretariat of Research & Technology (www.gsrt.gr) and the Greek national contact points for EU ICT programs.
The ECO made use of in-kind contributions also in a number of other, non-innovation/modern entrepreneurship-related events it implemented, offering in return onsite promotional opportunities to the sponsors and, of course, the high visibility of the Embassy.
The 2009 Conference was sponsored by the Embassy of the UK; in fact the impact of the 2009 Conference was viewed as so positive, that the UK Embassy decided to also sponsor the 2010 Conference (1–3 December 2010, Washington, DC).
Note: Similar webinars had already been held for Brazil, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, UK, and France; to follow after Greece were The Netherlands, China, India, and Russia.
References
Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context. Westview Press, Boulder
Arieti S (1976) Creativity: the magical synthesis. Basic Books, New York, Back
Berridge GR, Alan James (2003) A dictionary of diplomacy, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Christensen CM (1997) The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, http://books.google.com/books/about/?id=SIexi_qgq2gC. ISBN 978-0-87584-585-2
Drazin R, van de Ven A (1985) Spinning on symbolism: the problem of ambivalence. J Manage 11:101–102
Hofstede G (1980) Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values. Sage, Newbury Park
Kao J (1996) Jamming: the art and discipline of business creativity. HarperCollins. ISBN 0887308643
Kaplan SM (1999) Discontinuous innovation and the growth paradox. Strategy & Leadership 27(2):16–21
Kneller GF (1965) The art and science of creativity. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York
Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rana KS (2007) Economic diplomacy: experience of development countries. Manas Publication, New Delhi
Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Paperback, Free Press, pp 518
Santarelli E, Piergiovanni R (1996) Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators: the Italian experience Research Policy 25(5):689–711
Woodman RW, Schoenfeldt LF (1990) An interactionist model of creative behaviour. Journal of Creative Behaviour 24(4):279–290
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
-
V.1.
DEMOKRITOS Backgrounder and Evaluation Form “Demokritos Roadshow” (2008)
-
V.2.
Biotech Mission and Evaluation Form from BIO Cluster Visit (2009)
-
V.3.
Evaluation Form Webinar “Innovation in Nutrition—The case of Greece in a US and Global Perspective” (2010)
Demokritos Backgrounder and Evaluation Form “Demokritos Roadshow” (2008)
Case-in-Point—Institutional Stakeholder Profile: The NCSR “Demokritos”
History and Scientific Activities
Our vision
«Promoting Excellence in Research
Serving the Greek Citizen»
The National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos” (NCSR “D”) is a multidisciplinary research center conducting excellent research in the physical sciences. The center opened in 1958 as an independent public service known as the Demokritos Nuclear Research Centre. Its name was changed in 1985, and it became an autonomous, legal entity governed by public law, under the auspices of the General Secretariat for Research and Technology of the Ministry of Development.
The initial objective of the newly established center was to promote nuclear research and technology for peaceful means. Within this context and for the first time in the history of modern Greece, an opportunity was provided for the repatriation of many Greek scientists who, gradually, began to create the structures and organization of scientific research in Greece, while at the same time laying the foundations for postgraduate research opportunities at the center.
The NCSR “D” is today a reference point, not only for Greece but for the rest of the world for the broad range of scientific fields that coexist in the same campus—physics, chemistry, microelectronics, biology, IT, telecommunications, nuclear technology and nuclear physics and astroparticles, and radiopharmaceuticals—all operating at the level of excellence. It is also a reference point for its scientific and technological achievements, the quality of the postgraduate education that it offers, and the technology transfer initiative through its Attica Technology Park “Lefkippos”.
The Centre’s scientific activities are carried out in eight, independent Institutes:
-
Institute of Nuclear Physics (INP)
-
Institute of Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection (INT&RP)
-
Institute of Materials Science (IMS)
-
Institute of Informatics &Telecommunication (II&T)
-
Institute of Microelectronics (IM)
-
Institute of Physical Chemistry (IPC)
-
Institute of Biology (IB)
-
Institute of Radioisotopes & Radiodiagnostic Products (IRRP)
The result of this collective, interdisciplinary effort was recognized by the state with the creation of six Centers of Excellence in 2000, in the following areas:
-
Nanostructured materials
-
Micro/nanotechnologies
-
Nuclear technology and radiation protection
-
CMS experiment on the CERN LCH accelerator
-
Functional and functionalized biomolecules in biodiagnosis and radiopharmacy
-
Advanced functional materials
The scientific achievements are complemented by its large facilities, such as the Nuclear Reactor, the TANDEM accelerator, the Silicon Nanotechnology laboratory in Greece, as well as with many other facilities, of smaller scale but unique in Greece, which are available for use by the scientific community as well as the wider public sector and industry.
Administration—Facilities
The Centre is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors, made up of the Director of the Centre, who is also President of the Board, the Directors of the eight Institutes, and two elected staff representatives (administrative and research).
The everyday operation of the Centre is supported by two directorates—the Administrative Directorate and the Directorate of Applied Technology—the Special Accounts Department, which primarily manages the research programs, and by autonomous offices which provide support to the Centre, under the auspices of the Director (Legal Affairs Office, Educational Affairs Office, Public Relations and Press Office, Technological Park, Liaison Office, Medical Centre).
The NCSR Demokritos is located in Agia Paraskevi in Attica, in an area of 600,000 m2. The building facilities cover 40,000 m2.
Goals for the Future
A large number of activities have been planned:
-
(a)
Grouping of the Centre’s research activities into thematic priorities, such as:
-
Health—Biotechnology
-
IT & Telecommunications
-
New Materials
-
Nuclear Physics & Astrophysics
-
Micro/nanotechnology
-
Nuclear Technology
-
Energy, Environment, Sustainable Development
-
Cultural Heritage
-
Education
-
-
(b)
Measures for the modernization of the Centre, with the aim of continuously increasing its competitiveness:
-
Drawing up a business plan for 2008–2012
-
New IT systems to reduce bureaucracy
-
Adoption of modern management strategies (TQM, BPR, BPM)
-
-
(c)
Transfer of Technology Know-How through the management and operation of the Attica Technology Park “Lefkippos”
-
(d)
Establish a National Nuclear Metrology Lab and extend it to a National Nanotechnology Lab
-
(e)
Disseminating research results to the public, with activities such as:
-
Summer School—General information for around 200 graduates
-
Open Doors—around 5000 visitors to Demokritos, providing information
-
School visits, on a weekly basis
-
-
(f)
Linking with research centers and universities abroad for mutual exchanges of researchers and students.
The Innovation Activities—Technology Park “Lefkippos” and Resident Spin-Offs of NCSR “Demokritos”
-
NCSR “DEMOKRITOS”
-
SPIN-OFFs DATA
Company | Type of activity | Date of approval by NCSR “D” | Date of establishment | Terms and conditions for NCSR“D” IP rights |
Enditec S.A | Non-destructive testing | 26/5/2006 | 19/7/2006 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 3,000,000 EURO |
Plinios S.A. | Asbestos auditors | 18/7/2003 | 25/1/2005 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 1,000,000 EURO, or alternatively for the period of 10 years |
Biogenomica S.A | Genetic studies and analysis | 21/1/2004 | 19/3/2004 | 5% of the pre-tax net profit in favor of NCSR“D” |
i-Sieve Technologies | IT products and services | 21/1/2004 | 6/7/2004 | 2% of the gross income in favor of NCSR“D” up to the sum of 1,000,000 Euro, or alternatively for a period of 7 years |
Advanced Industrial Technologies S.A. | Microwave applications in ceramics industry | 6/4/2005 | 20/7/2004 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 1,000,000 EURO |
Dendrigen S.A. | Biophysics | 28/7/2004 | OCT/2006 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 1,000,000 EURO |
Hellenic Radiopharmaceuticals | Orphan drug development | 2007 | 2007 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 3,000,000 EURO |
Demokritos-Radiopharmaceuticals | PET-FDG(18 F, O,N) | 2007 | 2008 | 25% of shares in favor of NCSR “D” |
Biophylaxis | Stem cell research | 2007 | 2008 | 3% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 3,000,000 EURO |
Under procedures of establishment | ||||
Hellenic Nanotechnologies | Nanomaterials and nanotechnologies for energy applications | Spring 2008 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 3,000,000 EURO | |
Biologistics S.A. | Radiopharmaceuticals distribution | 27/7/2006 | 3% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 3,000,000 EURO; 35% of the company’s shares to NCSR“D” | |
Micro2Gen | Microelectronics | 20/10/2005 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 1,000,000 EURO | |
Innovative Nano Solutions S.A. | Nanotechnologies | 20/10/2005 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 1,000,000 EURO | |
IRISyS S.A. | IT products and services (telemedicine and teletraining) | 21/9/2005 | 7% of the company’s shares as privileged shares not diluted up to their value equivalent of 1,000,000 Euro | |
Waterxpert S.A. | Nanotechnologies for water treatment | 21/9/2005 | 7% of the company’s shares as privileged shares not diluted up to their value equivalent of 1,000,000 Euro | |
MEMs Hellas S.A. | Microelectronics | 6/4/2005 | 2% of gross income in favor of NCSR“D” and up to the sum of 1,000,000 EURO |
NCSR “Demokritos” Roadshow (2008)
Evaluation
Six evaluation forms submitted = All of the participating entities (Prof. Niarchos submitting a combined Evaluation Form for both “Demokritos” and company Hellenic Nanotechnologies plus companies Advent, AIT, Biogenomica, Dendrigen, and i-Sieve)
Quantitative evaluation tool: 1–5 scale (1 = minimum, 5 = maximum rating)
Qualitative evaluation tool: comments of participating entities
NCSR “Demokritos” Roadshow Washington, DC, 27–30 March 2008 | ||
Evaluation at a glance | ||
Quantitative evaluation tool: 1–5 scale (1 = minimum, 5 = maximum) | Qualitative evaluation tool: comments of participating entities | |
Median rating | Comments | |
Phase I, Preparation | 4.33 | Three entities submitted qualitative comments. They all assess the Roadshow preparation phase as impeccable. |
Phase II, Roadshow | 4.69 | Only two entities did not submit qualitative comments under this evaluation phase. The analysis of the submitted comments converges to the following: |
There are no negative perceptions or assessments by the participants concerning the organizational aspects or the value/quality of the individual modules of the Roadshow. | ||
The comments are in general very encouraging, some even expressing surprise over the overall quality and professionalism of the organizers. | ||
One comment is directed against the governmental agencies for not moving in to capitalize the success of this Roadshow and to build upon the business opportunities it created. | ||
Three comments draw special attention to the ETC working luncheon with US high-tech start-ups, as one of the highlights of the program; two comments refer to the targeted Reception at the Embassy of Greece as the event with the most interesting networking opportunities; one comment assesses the working breakfast in Falls Church (VA) as the most successful component of the program; and one company highlights the closed working luncheon with bankers/investors, adding that the company’s lack of similar experience and expertise did not allow for making the best out of the doing-business opportunities it presented. | ||
Phase III, Follow-Up | 2.6 | All but one entity submitted qualitative comments under this part of the evaluation. |
None of the comments expresses a negative assessment towards the ECO Washington. | ||
One comment points out the need for continuous efforts in promoting cutting-edge technology made in Greece and not one-off events. | ||
Two comments criticize the Greek state for not promoting enough the success of this mission through the media and for the lack of continuous support for such endeavors. | ||
Three other comments emphasize that the respective companies were lacking either the necessary expertise or the resources at that stage, to capitalize all the contacts and opportunities the Roadshow brought along. | ||
One company points at the economic crisis that broke out in Greece, rendering any kind of serious follow-up actions for the company in the US financially impossible. | ||
Finally, one entity cites the contract it signed with a US business development company, through a contact made during the Roadshow, which aims to facilitate the company’s access to the US market. |
Evaluation Form (Template)
Biotech Mission and Evaluation Form from BIO Cluster Visit (2009)
Evaluation
The Roadshow evaluation was conducted by PRAXI Help-Forward Network. The following chart summarizes the evaluation results (participating company names and other sensitive company data have been concealed for privacy reasons).
GR Biotech/Life Sciences Business and Scientific Roadshow
Boston, MA, and Washington, DC
12–16 May 2009
Entity no. | Technologies promoted | Number of meetings | US entities matched | Meeting results | Evaluation (scale 1–5) |
1: (Present only in the Boston leg of the Roadshow) | Platform of proprietary oncological and neurological products | Boston, 4 | Arisaph, Genzyme, Mersana, Millenium | Expressed interest by participating US companies to make use of the patented products on neuro-degenerative diseases. Entity no. 1 has engaged negotiations with US companies for product evaluation. | |
2 | Preclinical model testing animals service provider | Boston, 5 | Kard Scientific, Wyeth, Biogen Idec, SHS Sciences, | Discussions with two US companies to use Entity no. 2 services. | |
– | US business interest also in directly commissioning Entity no. 2 to develop new services. | ||||
Washington, 8 | Ception, Wexford Science, Theragnostics Health, Amplimmune, KJV Group, Merchand & Gould, Sauls & Wing, Palau Pharma | Research collaboration discussed with a US company, to use Entity no. 2 model in developing a new drug. | |||
Entity no. 2 entered agreement(s) with US company/ies, during and/or as a result of its participation in the Roadshow. | |||||
3 | Novel Bio-pharmaceuticals for out-licensing (oncology, inflammation and neuro-degenerative diseases) | Boston, 8 | Aphios, Ascent, Millenιum Pharma, TEI Biosciences, SBH Sciences, Vertex, Genzyme, Biogen Idec | Interest expressed by participating US companies to in-license and commercialize Entity no. 3 technologies. Technology evaluation phase reached with tentative business cooperation talks in progress. | |
– | |||||
Washington, 5 | Ception Therapeutics, Theranostics Health, Center for New Technology Enterprise, NIH, Alpha Genics | ||||
4 | Drug repositioning services | Boston, 4 | |||
Washington, 4 | |||||
5 | Biosensors technology platform | Boston, 4 | SBH Sciences, The Wellman Center for Photomedicine | US company expressed interest in cooperating with Entity no. 5 to commonly develop a cytokine detection tool based on the Entity’s proprietary biosensor technology. Exchange of information for initial trials agreed. | |
– | Interest by the Wellman Center to explore the development of biosensors by Entity no. 5 to detect hospital (acquired) infections. | ||||
Washington, 9 | Wexford Science&Technology, Adjuvant, SAIC, MAKROnanoKosmos, NSF, Theranostics Health, Holland& Knight, J. Sitilides, Center for New Technology Enterprise | Discussions with two US universities to create dedicated biosensor faculties. | |||
6 | Proprietary technology for diagnostics and high throughput screening applications | Boston, 9 | Vertex, British Consulate Trade & Investment, Center for Drug Discovery Northeastern University, Broad Institute, MOITI, Novartis, Ventac partners, Bioventures Investors | Special interest expressed from many sides (i.e., the Center for Drug Discovery of Northeastern University, the joint MIT–Harvard Broad Institute, Novartis) for the use of Entity no. 6 proprietary biomagnetic technology in drug discovery. | |
– | Interest also from two US companies for research cooperation and the application of Entity no. 6 technology platform in developing new diagnostic tools. | ||||
Washington, 7 | KJV Group, J. Stilides, Vivia Biotech, Ception Therapeutics, Center for New Technology Enterprise, Science Applications International Corporation, Theranostics Health | Information exchange agreements with US scientists to explore further research cooperation | |||
Four US Venture Funds requested a full-scale business plan from Entity no. 6, for in-depth screening. | |||||
7 | Peptides manufacturing | Boston, 5 | Millenium, Gezyme, Ascent, BiogenIdec | Two US companies expressed interest in using Entity no. 7 proprietary peptide manufacturing technology, as they predicted increased needs | |
– | Interest also from Entity no. 7 to use the more competitively priced services of a participating US company | ||||
Washington, 2 | NWV Market Discovery Inc., NIH | Research cooperation negotiations with NIH scientists to design common toxicity studies. | |||
8 | Is this Medicon? | Boston, 3 | Affinity Life Sciences, Biolabs Enzyme Technology, MBL | Business negotiations both for purchasing raw materials from US companies and for out-licensing the Entity’s products to the US market. | |
Diagnostics manufacturer | Medical and Biological Laboratories | ||||
– | |||||
Washington, 5 | Merchant & Gould, Saul Ewing, Adjuvant, Theranostics Health, Alpha Genics, HSBC Premier | ||||
9 | Cell and animal models for drug development and preclinical testing of novel pharmaceuticals (cancer, neurodegeneration, heart disease, etc.) , novel biomarkers | Boston, 7 | BiogenIdec, Millenium Arisaph, Genzyme, SBH sciences, CDD Northeastern, Broad Institute | Interest by a participating US company particularly for Entity no. 9 Parkinson’s Disease cellular model. | |
– | Agreement on exchange of information and data with the Broad Institute; negotiations also for research cooperation in preclinical trials. | ||||
Washington, 5 | Ception Therapeutics, Theranostics Health, Center for New Technology Enterprise, NIH, Alpha Genics | Discussions with the Center for Drug Discovery of Northeastern University for research cooperation in cellular disease indicators. | |||
10 | Cell and animal models for inflammatory and immune diseases, neurodegenaration. | Boston, 7 | BiogenIdec, Millenium, Vertex, Wyeth, CDD Northeastern, CBL, Anavex | Interest expressed by a participating US company and the Center for Drug Discovery for the use of Entity no. 10 proprietary model in new drug development | |
– | Interest also by two large US pharmaceutical companies in the Entity’s new cancer treatment technologies (autotaxin) and also its neuro-degenerative and rheumatoid arthritis disease models. | ||||
Washington, 4 | Theranostics Health, Center for New Technology Enterprise, Ception Therapeutics, NIH |
Evaluation Form Webinar “Innovation in Nutrition—the Case of Greece in a Us and Global Perspective” (2010)
Evaluation
Seven evaluation forms submitted = all of the participants
Quantitative evaluation tool: 1–5 scale (1 = minimum, 5 = maximum rating)
Qualitative evaluation tool: comments of participating panelists
Webinar “Innovation in Nutrition—The Case of Greece in a US and Global Perspective,” 25 October 2010 | ||
Evaluation at a glance | ||
Quantitative evaluation tool: 1–5 scale (1 = minimum, 5 = maximum) | Qualitative evaluation tool: comments of participating entities | |
Median rating | Comments | |
Phase I, Groundwork | 4.71 | Three participants submitted qualitative comments. Both assess the effort put into laying the groundwork for this project and the quality of the preparation work as superb. One comment highlights the circumstances (i.e., first time effort and many participating panelists) |
Phase II, Webinar | 4.5 | Three qualitative comments were made for the webinar’s main evaluation phase: |
Under “Overall quality of the project” one participant rates the effort as “Just excellent”. | ||
The second comment points at some technical difficulties and bugs that delayed the progress of the project, especially during the coordination/preparation phase; it also expresses dissatisfaction about the low attendance of the webinar. | ||
Finally, a third participant turns to the Q&A session, where the available time was not always evenly distributed among the panelists, not giving each participant enough time to interact with the audience; the assessment cites a need for a better coordination. | ||
Phase III, Follow-Up | 4.16 | Only one qualitative comment under the “Follow-Up” part of the evaluation. It criticizes the lack thereof. |
Evaluation Form (Template)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carayannis, E.G., Papadopoulos, C.B. The Innovation Diplomacy Concept and the Hellenic-American Innovation Bridge as a Special Case-in-Point. J Knowl Econ 2, 257–326 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0056-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0056-5