Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 343–365 | Cite as

The role of technology transfer offices in building the South African biotechnology sector: an assessment of policies, practices and impact

  • Rosemary A. WolsonEmail author
Article

Abstract

While South Africa appears to have many of the building blocks in place to support a vibrant biotechnology sector, the potential which exists has not yet been realised. Several policies and programmes have therefore been introduced by government in recent years in order to address some of the barriers. The poor flow of technologies from research laboratories to industry has been identified as an area of particular concern, with the role of institutional technology transfer offices (TTOs) as facilitators of improved technology transfer being highlighted. This paper describes the status quo of biotechnology in South Africa, discusses relevant policy developments and against this background, examines the status of TTOs, the constraints which are faced and how these might be overcome.

Keywords

Technology transfer office Research and development 

JEL Classifications

O3 O32 O34 O38 

References

  1. Advisory Council on Science and Technology (1999). Public investments in university research: reaping the benefits, Report of the expert panel on the commercialization of university research presented to the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology, http://www.acst-ccst.gc.ca/comm/rpaper_html/report_title_e.html.
  2. Association of University Technology Managers (2003) AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 2002 Survey Summary.Google Scholar
  3. Biotechnology Industry Organization (2006). Biotechnology industry facts. http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp?p = yes.Google Scholar
  4. CENIS (2002). South African S&T indicators. Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  5. Chaturvedi, S. (2005). Dynamics of biotechnology research and industry in India: Statistics, perspectives and key policy issues. OECD STI Working Paper 2005/6: Statistical analysis of science, technology and industry.Google Scholar
  6. Crown Copyright (2003). Lambert review of Business–University collaboration.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (1996). White paper on science and technology, http://www.dst.gov.za/legislation_policies/white_papers/Science_Technology_White_Paper.pdf.
  8. Department of Science and Technology (2001). A National Biotechnology Strategy for South Africa, http://www.dst.gov.za/programmes/biodiversity/biotechstrategy.pdf.
  9. Department of Science and Technology (2002). South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy, http://www.dst.gov.za/legislation_policies/strategic_reps/sa_nat_rd_strat.pdf.
  10. Department of Science and Technology (2005). High-level key results: National survey of research and experimental development (R&D) (2003/04 Fiscal Year).Google Scholar
  11. Heher, A. D. (2003). Return on investment in innovation: implications for institutions and national agencies. Paper prepared for the First Globelics Conference on Innovation Systems and Development Strategies for the Third Millennium, Rio de Janiero.Google Scholar
  12. Motari, M., Quach, U., Thorsteinsdóttir, H., Martin D. K., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2004). South Africa—blazing a trail for African biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 22, Supplement, December.Google Scholar
  13. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy, 31(3), 399–418.Google Scholar
  14. Mulder, M. (2003). South African National Biotechnology Survey, http://www.egolibio.co.za/pages/biotech_survey.pdf.
  15. National Advisory Council on Innovation (2002). South Africa Science and Technology key facts and figures 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Scherer, F. M., & Harhoff, D. (2000). Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 559–566.Google Scholar
  17. Valoir, T (2000). Government funded inventions: The Bayh-Dole Act and the Hopkins v CellPro March-In Rights Controversy. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 8, 211.Google Scholar
  18. Wolson, R. (2005). Towards the establishment of a vibrant South African biotechnology industry: will the recent policy interventions achieve their objectives? International Journal of Biotechnology, 7, 1/2/3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCT InnovationUniversity of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations