Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring public values implications of the I-Corps program

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines how the concept of public values can be operationalized in an ongoing public initiative to stimulate innovation in an emerging technology. Our study focuses on Innovation Corps (I-Corps)—a program initiated in 2011 by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to accelerate the process of commercializing science-driven discoveries. The I-Corps method has since spread rapidly across multiple US agencies. Separately, there has also been heightened attention to the early anticipation and mitigation of the implications of emerging science and technology. Drawing on the case of nanotechnology, the paper considers how public values related to nanotechnology commercialization can be integrated alongside the fast start-up procedures embedded in I-Corps. We use a public values framework to pose societal impact questions that can be probed in parallel with the current I-Corps process, highlighting values such as identification of societal problems that the technology might potentially address; types of potential customers likely to be overlooked; groups who might oppose the application as well as those who might support it; and potential environmental, health, and safety risks. The paper discusses the challenges of adding specifications related to equity as well as safety in efforts to foster rapid commercialization and considers how these can be integrated within the I-Corps approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford, J., & Yates, S. (2014). Mapping public value processes. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(4), 334–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronowitz, J. D. (1999). Controlling militarily significant emerging technologies. Carlisle, PA: Army War College.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benington, J., & Moore, M. H. (Eds.). (2010). Public value: Theory and practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S., Miura, A. K., Feiber, J. (2010). ENGR 245: The lean launch pad. Technology entrepreneurship and lean startups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://web.stanford.edu/group/e245/cgi-bin/2011/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/e245-syllabus-rev12.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

  • Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impacts of research. EMBO Reports, 13(8), 673–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44(1), 34–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, S., & Birley, S. (1998). Scientists and their attitudes to industry links. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2(01), 79–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chwolka, A., & Raith, M. G. (2012). The value of business planning before start-up—A decision-theoretical perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNS-ASU. (2015). Nanoquestions: An FAQ for Nanotechnology. [Website] Retrieved from http://cns.asu.edu/nanoquestions, 9 Dec 2015.

  • Committee to Review the National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2006). A matter of size: Triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coursey, D., & Bozeman, B. (1992). Technology transfer in US government and university laboratories: Advantages and disadvantages for participating laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39(4), 347–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Cuerel Burbano, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEA. (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation. European Environmental Agency. Report No 1/2013. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • EPSRC (2013). Framework for responsible innovation. Swindon, UK: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/index.cfm/research/framework/. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

  • European Commission. (2013). Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Science in Society, EUR25766 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Feller, I., & Nelson, J. P. (1999). The microeconomics of manufacturing modernization programs. Research Policy, 28(8), 807–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, A. (2010). Moratorium. In D. H. Guston (Ed.), Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society (pp. 443–445). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2005). Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the national nanotechnology program. Technology in Society, 27(3), 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frydrych, D., Bock, A. J., Kinder, T., & Koeck, B. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding. Venture Capital, 16(3), 247–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gately, C., & Cunningham, J. (2014). The contributions and disconnections between writing a business plan and the start-up process for incubator technology entrepreneurs. In Academic entrepreneurship: Creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth (Vol 16, pp. 197–241). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Georghiou, L. (2007). Demanding innovation: Lead markets, public procurement and innovation. London: Nesta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grose, T. (2014). To market, to market. PRISM: American Society for Engineering Education. December. http://www.asee-prism.org/to-market-to-market-dec/. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1), 155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2001). Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 167–198.

  • Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values an inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassicieh, S. K., Kirchhoff, B. A., Walsh, S. T., & McWhorter, P. J. (2002). The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies. Technovation, 22(11), 667–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, J. E., Mollov, A., Pearlmutter, M., Singh, S., & Bygrave, W. D. (2007). Pre-startup formal business plans and post-startup performance: A study of 116 new ventures. Venture Capital, 9(4), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (1996). The genome program’s conscience. Science New Series, 274(5287), 488–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (1988). The changing structure of the US national innovation system: Implications for international conflict and cooperation in R&D policy. Research Policy, 27(6), 639–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2015). NNI vision, goals, and objectives. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/about-nni/what/vision-goals, 7 Dec 2015.

  • NSF (2015) NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps). In FY 2016 Budget Request. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/pdf/38_fy2016.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

  • NSF (2016) NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps). In FY 2017 Budget Request. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2017/pdf/38_fy2017.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

  • OECD. (2011). Demand-side innovation policies. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A. (2012), August 29. Achieve product-market fit with our brand-new value proposition designer canvas. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://businessmodelalchemist.com/blog/2012/08/achieve-product-market-fit-with-our-brand-new-value-proposition-designer.html, 9 Dec 2015.

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S., Heyward, C., Kruger, T., Pidgeon, N., Redgwell, C., & Savulescu, J. (2013). The oxford principles. Climatic Change, 121(3), 499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L. (2012). I-Corps and the business of great science. Journal of Management, 64(10), 1132–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C., Harthorn, B., Guston, D., & Shapira, P. (2011). Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(9), 3557–3590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., Youtie, J. (2015). The economic contributions of nanotechnology to green and sustainable growth. In Green processes for nanotechnology (pp. 409–434). Cham Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swamidass, P. (2013). University startups as a commercialization alternative: Lessons from three contrasting case studies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 788–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. (2015). Changing campus culture of innovation and entrepreneurial thinking: Ripple effect of campus change-makers [white paper]. Retrieved from http://venturewell.org/open/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PELLICANE.pdf.

  • von Schomberg, R. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methode (pp. 39–61). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weilerstein, P. (2014). NCIIA: Students as the vanguard in a geographically dispersed approach to stimulating science and technology innovation. In J. Engel (Ed.), Global clusters of innovation: Entrepreneurial engines of economic growth around the world (pp. 359–377). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetmore, J. (2010). Benny the Bear. In D. H. Guston (Ed.), Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society (p. 45). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2015). President Obama announces new commitments from investors, companies, universities, and cities to advance inclusive entrepreneurship at first-ever White House Demo Day [Press Release]. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/04/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-commitments-investors-companies. 7 Dec 2015.

  • Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2008). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 315–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., Porter, A., Shapira, P., Tang, L., & Benn, T. (2011). The use of environmental, health and safety research in nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 11(1), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken with support from the US National Science Foundation under Award # 0937591 (Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University), Award # 1235693 (Collaborative Research: Workshop on the Anticipatory Governance of Complex Engineered Nanomaterials), and Award # 1542174 (NNCI: Southeastern Nanotechnology Infrastructure Corridor). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. The authors thank David Bridges, Brandy Nagel, and Ernesto Escobar for their assistance in understanding societal considerations parallel to the I-Corps framework. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Public Values Consortium, January 7–8, 2015, Phoenix, Arizona.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA

    Jan Youtie

  2. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Philip Shapira

  3. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Philip Shapira

Authors
  1. Jan Youtie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Youtie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Youtie, J., Shapira, P. Exploring public values implications of the I-Corps program. J Technol Transf 42, 1362–1376 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9518-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9518-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation