The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 367–405

Bridging knowledge to commercialization: the good, the bad, and the challenging

Special Issue Paper


This paper investigates a new emerging phenomenon in the debate of knowledge-based economic growth called “bridging knowledge to commercialization”. The paper considers commercialization of knowledge as a complex and a multi-faceted phenomenon and aims to highlight “the good”, “the bad” and “the challenging” in commercialization of knowledge from a taxonomic perspective. The paper has four objectives: (1) to examine the emerging concepts in bridging knowledge to commercialization while addressing related issues in the literature and to offer a conceptual framework on the basis of a typology of metaphores for knowledge; (2) to highlight the societal benefits of commercialization of knowledge in a regional development context; (3) to underline the value conflicts and differences in culture and perspectives in the valuation of knowledge in order to better understand the commercialization process; and (4) to highlight the challenges for academia, industry and government while describing the critical framework conditions that are needed to effectively foster commercialization of knowledge. While addressing the academic, societal, spatial, cultural and ethical implications of knowledge commercialization, the paper highlights retrospects and prospects from regional development perspective.

JEL Classification

O17 O31 O32 O33 O34 O38 


  1. Adelman DE, DeAngelis KL (2006) Patent metrics: the mismeasure of innovation in the biotech patent debate. Texas Law Rev 85:1679–1741Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal A (2001) University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. Int J Manag Rev 3(4):285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manag Sci 48:44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriessen D (2005) Value, valuation, and valorisation. In: Swarte S (ed) Inspirerend innoveren; meerwarde door kennis. Den Haag, Krie. Available at
  5. Andriessen D (2006) On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: a textual analysis. J Intellect Cap 7(1):93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch DB, Aldridge TT (2009) Scientist commercialization as conduit of knowledge spillovers. Ann Reg Sci 43(4):897–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch D, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86:630–640Google Scholar
  8. Baldini N (2006) The entrepreneurial university: a debate.
  9. Baldini N, Grimaldi R, Sobrero M (2007) To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70:333–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progr Hum Geogr 28:31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bayton JA, Chapman RL (1972) Transformation of scientists and engineers into managers. Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Behrens TR, Gray DO (2001) Unintended consequences of co-operative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Res Policy 30:179–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bengtsson L, Nilsson AS, Rickne A (2009) Why and how do researchers engage themselves in commercialization of research? In: Paper presented at the International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC). 26–28 April 2009, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. Bercovitz J, Feldmann M (2008) Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Organ Sci 19(1):69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bird BJ (1988) Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Acad Manag Rev 13:442–453Google Scholar
  16. Bird BJ, Allen DN (1989) Faculty entrepreneurship in research university environments. J High Educ 60(5):583–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bird BJ, Hayward DJ, Allen DN (1993) Conflicts in the commercialization of knowledge: perspectives from science and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract 17(4):57–77Google Scholar
  18. Blair D, Hitchens D (1998) Campus companies—UK and Ireland. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  19. Bok D (2003) Universities in the market place: the commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Boucher G, Conway C, Meer ELS (2003) Tiers of engagement by universities in their region’s development. Reg Stud 37(9):887–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bramwell A, Wolfe D (2008) Universities and regional economic development: the entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Res Policy 37:1175–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Breznitz SM (2007) What is wrong with technology transfer model adaptation?
  23. Buchbinder H (1993) The market-oriented university and the changing role of knowledge. High Educ 26:331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier. A report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
  25. Charles D, Conway C (2001) High Educ Bus Interact Surv. Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  26. Charles D, Howells J (1992) Technology transfer in Europe: public and private networks. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Cohen W (2000) Taking care of business. ASEE Prism Online, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  28. Colyvas J, Crow M, Annetine G, Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR, Rosenberg N, Sampat BN (2002) How do university inventions get into practice. Manag Sci 48(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cooke P, Heidenreich M, Braczyk HJ (eds) (2004) Regional innovation systems: the role of governances in a globalized world. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Cooke P, Uranga M, Etxebarria G (1997) Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy 26:475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davenport TH, Prusak L (2000) Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Deem R (2001) Globalization, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: is the local dimension still important? Comp Educ 37:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Drazen JM (2002) Institutions, contracts and academic freedom. New Engl J Med 347:1362–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Duch N, García-Estévez J (2011) Do universities affect firms’ location decisions? Evidence from Spain, Document de treball de l’IEB 2011/7, Institut d’Economia de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  35. Duch N, García-Estévez J, Parellada M (2011) Universities and regional economic growth in Spanish regions, Document de treball de l’IEB 2011/6, Institut d’Economia de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  36. Eisenberg RS (1996) Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Va Law Rev 82:1663–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Etzkowitz H (2002) Bridging knowledge to commercialization: the American way. Science Policy Institute, State University of New York.
  38. Etzkowitz H (1990) The capitalization of knowledge: the decentralization of United States industrial and science policy from Washington to the States. Theory Soc 19(1):107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (1996) Emergence of a triple-helix of university-industry-government relations. Sci Public Policy 23:279–286Google Scholar
  40. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Cantisano BR (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res Policy 29:313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fabrizio KR (2006) Opening the dam or building channels: university patenting and the use of public science in industrial innovation.
  43. Fisher WW (2001) Theories of intellectual property. In: New essays in the legal and political theory of property. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  44. Frenken K, van Oort FG (2004) The geography of research collaboration: theoretical considerations and stylized facts in biotechnology in Europe and the United States. In: Cooke P, Piccaluga A (eds) Regional Economics as Knowledge Laboratories. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 38–57Google Scholar
  45. Geiger RL (2006) The quest for ‘economic relevance’ by US research universities. High Educ Policy 19:411–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gibson LJ (1988) Economic development: the university and commercialization of research. Econ Dev Rev 6(2):7–11Google Scholar
  47. Göktepe-Hulten D, Mahagaonkar P (2010) Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? J Technol Transf 35:401–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Goldfarb B, Henrekson M (2003) Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Res Policy 32(4):639–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Goldman M (1984) Building a mecca for high technology. Technol Rev 86:6–8Google Scholar
  50. Goldstein HA, Renault CS (2004) Contributions of universities to regional economic development: a quasi-experimental approach. Reg Stud 38(7):733–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gouldner A (1979) The future of intellectuals and the rise of the new class. Seabury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Guena A, Nesta LJJ (2006) University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Res Policy 35:790–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gulbrandsen M (2005) But Peter’s in it for the money—the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists. VEST J Sci Technol Stud 18(1–2):49–75Google Scholar
  54. Gulbranson CA, Audretsch DB (2008) Proof of concept centers: accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. J Technol Transf 33:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hansen S, Brewster A, Asher J, Kisiewlewski M (2006) The effects of patenting in the AAAS scientific community. American Academy for Advancement of Science, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. Heaton GR Jr, Hill CT, Windham P, Cheney DW (2011) The entrepreneurial university in a global context: a report to NEDO. Technology Policy InternationalGoogle Scholar
  57. Henderson R, Jaffe AB, Trajitenberg M (1998) Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965–88. Rev Econ Stat 80:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Henrekson M, Rosenberg N (2001) Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: lessons from the US and Sweden. J Technol Transf 26(2):207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, Yamamoto S, Rubinstein L, Budd T et al (2005) Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 352:895–904Google Scholar
  60. Howell J, McKinlay C (1999) Commercialization of university research in Europe. Report to the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  61. Hudson CH (2006) Regional development partnership in Sweden: a way for higher education institutions to develop their role in the processes of regional governance? High Educ 51:387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Huggins R (2008) Universities and knowledge-based venturing: finance, management and networks in London. Entrepreneurship Reg Dev 20(2):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jacob M, Lundqvist M, Hellsmark H (2003) Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers university of technology. Res Policy 32(9):1555–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jensen K, Murray F (2005) The intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310(10):239–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Johannessson C (2008) University strategies for knowledge transfer and commercialisation—an overview based on peer reviews at 24 Swedish universities 2006, VINNOVA Report VR 2008:17. VINNOVA-Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation SystemsGoogle Scholar
  66. Johnston J, Wasunna A (2007) Patents, biomedical research and treatments: examining concerns, canvassing solutions, special report. Hastings Center Rep 37(1):1–36Google Scholar
  67. Kenney M (1987) The ethical dilemmas of university-industry collaborations. J Bus Ethics 6:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kenney M, Patton D (2009) Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Res Policy 38:1407–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kitagawa F, Wigren C (2010) From basic research to innovation: entrepreneurial intermediaries for research commercialization at Swedish ‘strong research environments’, Center for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Paper No. 2010/02, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  70. Kobus J (1992) Universities and the creation of spin-off companies. Ind High Educ 6(3):136–42Google Scholar
  71. Kortum S, Lerner J (1999) What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Res Policy 28:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kumar MN (2010) Ethical conflicts in commercialization of university research in the post-Bayh-Dole era. Ethics Behav 20(5):324–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lazzaretti L, Tavoletti E (2005) Higher education excellence and local economic development: the case of the entrepreneurial University of Twente. Eur Plan Stud 13(3):475–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lebovitz RM (2007) The duty to disclose patent rights. Northwest J Technol Intellect Prop 6(1):36–45Google Scholar
  75. Lee YS (1996) Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Res Policy 25:843–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lee JJ, Rhoads RA (2004) Faculty entrepreneurialism and the challenge to undergraduate education at research universities. Res High Educ 45:739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Levin SG, Stephan PE (1991) Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for academic scientists. Am Econ Rev 81(4):114–132Google Scholar
  78. Leydesdorff L (2000) The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations. Res Policy 29:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007a) The university as innovator: bumps in the road. Issues Sci Technol XXIII:57–66Google Scholar
  80. Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007b) Commercializing university innovations: alternative approaches. Innov Policy Econ 8:31–57Google Scholar
  81. Louis KS, Blumenthal D, Gluck ME, Stoto MA (1989) Entrepreneurs in academe: an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Adm Sci Q 34:110–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Markman G, Gianiodis P, Phan P (2004) Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: do incentive systems matter? J Technol Transf 29:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Markman G, Gianiodis P, Phan P (2008) An agency theoretic study of the relationship between knowledge agents and university technology transfer offices. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 55:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mazzoleni R, Nelson R (2005) The roles of research at universities and public labs in economic catch-up. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM) Working Paper Series, PisaGoogle Scholar
  85. McManis CR, Noh S (2006) The impact of the Bayh-Dole on genetic research and development: evaluating the arguments and empirical evidence to date.
  86. McMullan WE, Melnyk R (1988) University innovation centers and academic venture formation. R&D Manag 18(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Merton RK (1973) The normative structure of science. In: The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (original work published 1942)Google Scholar
  88. Meyer M (2003) Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Manag 33(2):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Mitchell L (2010) From lab to bench to market: house subcommittee holds hearing on improving commercialization. Testimony by Lesa Mitchell, June 10, 2010. (
  90. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Res Policy 30:99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Mowery DC, Shane S (2002) Introduction to the special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Manag Sci 48(1):V–IXGoogle Scholar
  92. Munson JM, Posner BZ (1979) The values of engineers and managing engineers. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 26(4):94–100Google Scholar
  93. Murray F, Stern S (2005) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis, Working Paper 11465. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  94. Murray F (2003) Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Res Policy 31:1389–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Muscio A, Geuna A (2008) Governance of university knowledge transfer in Europe. In: Paper presented at the DRUID 25th Celebration Conference, 17–20 June 2008, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  96. Mustar P (1997) Spin-off enterprises. How French academics create high-tech companies: conditions for success or failure. Sci Public Policy 24(1):37–43Google Scholar
  97. National Research Council (2005) Reaping the benefits of genomic and proteomic research: intellectual property rights in innovation and public health. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  98. Nelson RR (2004) The market economy and the scientific commons. Res Policy 33:455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Niller E (2001) ‘Biotech and health’: report fails to address the downside of academic-industry collaborations. Wall Street J (Eur) 17.
  100. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  101. NSF (2008) Science and engineering indicators. [Appendix table 5–1].
  102. OECD (2003) Turning science into business: patenting and licensing at public research organizations. OECD Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  103. Owen-Smith J, Powell W (2001) Careers and contradictions: faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences research. Sociol Work 10:109–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Owen-Smith J, Powell W (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res Policy 32:1695–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Palfreyman D (1989) The Warwick way: a case study of entrepreneurship within a university context. Entrepreneurship Reg Dev 1:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Pattyn B (2006) The ethical implications of patenting academic research. Ethical Perspect 13:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Pierre de Maret P (2007) Universities of the world: what for? In: Sadlak J, Liu NC (eds) The world class university and ranking: aiming beyond status. UNESCO-CEPES/Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Bucharest, p 38Google Scholar
  108. Powers JB (2004) R&D funding sources and university technology transfer: what is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial? Res High Educ 45(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Pressman L (ed) (2002) AUTM licensing survey: FY 2001. Association of University Technology Managers, NorthbrookGoogle Scholar
  110. Pressman L, Burgess R, Cook-Deegan RM, McCormack SJ, Nami-Wolk I, Soucy M (2006) The licensing of DNA patents by U.S. academic institutions: an empirical survey. Nat Biotechnol 24:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. PriceWaterhouseCooper (2007) Staying in control while unlocking the knowledge (in cooperation with TechnoPartner)Google Scholar
  112. Rai AK (2005) Open and collaborative research: a new model for biomedicine. In: Hahn RW (ed) Intellectual property rights in frontier industries. Brookings-AEI Press, Washington, DC, p 158Google Scholar
  113. Rasmussen E, Moen Ø, Gulbrandsen M (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26(4):518–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Rosenbloom JL (2007) The geography of innovation commercialization in the United States during the 1990s. Econ Dev Q 21(1):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rubins I (2007) Risks and rewards of academic capitalism and the effects of presidential leadership in the entrepreneurial university. Perspect Public Aff 4:3–18Google Scholar
  116. Sampat BN (2004) Genomic patenting by academic researchers: bad for science?
  117. Sampat BN (2006) Patenting and U.S. academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole. Res Policy 35:722–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Sampat BN, Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA (2003) Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: a re-examination. Int J Ind Organ 21:1371–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Samson KJ, Gurdon MA (1990) Entrepreneurial scientists: organizational performance in scientist-started high technology firms. In: Paper presented at the Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Wellesly, MAGoogle Scholar
  120. Schachman HK (2006) From publish or perish to patent and prosper. J Biol Chem 281:6889–6903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Shamoo A, Resnik D (2003) Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  122. Shane SA (2004) Academic entrepreneurship: university spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  123. Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M (2007) Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 23(4):640–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater L, Link AN (2004) Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. J Eng Technol Manag 21(1–2):115–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sullivan P (2000) Value-driven intellectual capital. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  126. Slaughter S, Rhoades G (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, states and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  127. Smilor RW, Dietrich GB, Gibson DV (1993) The entrepreneurial university: the role of higher education in the United States in technology commercialization and economic development. Int Soc Sci J 135:1–11Google Scholar
  128. Stern S (2004) Do scientists pay to be scientists? Manag Sci 50:835–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Stiglitz J (2006) Give prizes, not patents. New Sci 21.
  130. Tassey G (2001) R&D policy models and data needs. In: Feldman MP, Link AN (eds) Innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy. Kluwer, Boston, p 71Google Scholar
  131. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2003) University licensing under Bayh-Dole: what are the issues and evidence?
  132. Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby M (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. J Technol Transf 26:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2002) Industry/university licensing: characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer. J Technol Transf 28:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2005) Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. J Technol Transf 30:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tighe TJ (2003) Who’s in charge of America’s universities? A blueprint for reform. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  136. Uranga MG, Kerexeta GE, Campàs-Velasco J (2007) The dynamics of commercialization of scientific knowledge in biotechnology and nanotechnology. Eur Plan Stud 15(9):1199–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. van Dierdonck R, Debackere K (1988) Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian universities. R&D Manag 18(4):341–353Google Scholar
  138. van Geenhuizen M (2010) Patterns of knowledge commercialization at universities: project level results in The Netherlands. In: Paper presented at ERSA Conference, 19–23 August 2010, Jonkoping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  139. van Looy B, Ranga M, Callaert J, Debackere K, Zimmerman E (2004) Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Res Policy 33:425–441Google Scholar
  140. van Looy B, Callaert J, Debackere K (2006) Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Res Policy 35:596–608Google Scholar
  141. van Overwalle G (2006) Reconciling patent policies with the university mission. Ethical Perspect 13:231–247Google Scholar
  142. Viale R, Etzkowitz H (eds) (2010) The capitalization of knowledge: a triple helix of university-industry-government. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  143. Vogeli C, Yucel R, Bendavid E, Jones LM, Anderson MS, Louis KS et al (2006) Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: results of a national survey. Acad Med 81:128–136Google Scholar
  144. Walsh JP, Cho C, Cohen WM (2005) View from the bench: patents and material transfers. Science 299:1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Warren A, Hanke R, Trotzer D (2008) Models for university technology transfer: resolving conflicts between mission and methods and the dependency on geographic location. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 1:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Washburn J (2005) Colleges and industry can work together. Chron High Educ 51.
  147. Waugh WL Jr (1998) Conflicting values and cultures: the managerial threat to university governance. Policy Stud Rev 15:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Wright M, Clarysse B, Mustar P, Lockett A (2007) Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  149. Wright M, Vohora A, Lockett A (2002) Annual UNICO-NUBS survey on university commercialisation activities: financial year 2001. Nottingham University Business School, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  150. Wubben EFM, Omta SWF, Van Lieshout R, Goorden JG (2005) Towards a classification of instruments for valorisation of academic& industrial knowledge. Stichting Kvie, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  151. Ziman J (1996) Is science losing its objectivity? Nature 382:751–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations