The role of technology transfer offices in building the South African biotechnology sector: an assessment of policies, practices and impact
- 480 Downloads
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.
KeywordsTechnology transfer office Research and development
JEL ClassificationsO3 O32 O34 O38
- 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.
- Association of University Technology Managers (2003) AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 2002 Survey Summary.Google Scholar
- Biotechnology Industry Organization (2006). Biotechnology industry facts. http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp?p = yes.Google Scholar
- CENIS (2002). South African S&T indicators. Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
- 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
- Crown Copyright (2003). Lambert review of Business–University collaboration.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Department of Science and Technology (2001). A National Biotechnology Strategy for South Africa, http://www.dst.gov.za/programmes/biodiversity/biotechstrategy.pdf.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Mulder, M. (2003). South African National Biotechnology Survey, http://www.egolibio.co.za/pages/biotech_survey.pdf.
- National Advisory Council on Innovation (2002). South Africa Science and Technology key facts and figures 2002.Google Scholar
- Scherer, F. M., & Harhoff, D. (2000). Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 559–566.Google Scholar
- 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