Abstract
This study examines the role of university spin-out (USO) companies in the emergence of a new technology, in our case nanotechnology. Three unique data-sets based on patents, co-publications, and firm data pertaining to the unfolding field of nanotechnology in the UK were developed. Subsequent analysis suggests that USOs play an important though not a dominant role. Furthermore, the results indicate that USOs in certain subfields of nanotechnology do not have a strong and growing proprietary technology base, raising questions about the commercial sustainability of these ventures. Overall, we observed that USOs are important contributors to technological change in specific subfields of nanotechnology, but that other actors, notably, large firms and (non-university affiliated) new technology-based firms are even more significant agents of technological change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D.W. Budworth (1996) Overview of Activities on Nanotechnology and Related Technology Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Seville
H. Etzkowitz A. Webster C. Gebhardt B. Terra (2000) ArticleTitle‘The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm’ Research Policy 29 IssueID2 313–330 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
M. Ferrary (2003) ArticleTitle‘Managing the Disruptive Technologies Life Cycle by Externalizing Research: Social Network and Corporate Venturing in Silicon Valley’ International Journal of Technology Management 25 165–181 Occurrence Handle10.1504/IJTM.2003.003096
R. Florida (1999) ArticleTitle‘The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions and Innovation’ Research Policy 28 IssueID8 907 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00020-7
A. Franks (1987) ArticleTitle‘Nanotechnology’ Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments 20 1442–1451 Occurrence Handle10.1088/0022-3735/20/12/001
Geuna, A. and L. Nesta, 2004, ‘University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research: the Emerging European Evidence’, Research Policy, Forthcoming in 2006.
Ikezawa, N., 2004, ‘The Role of Venture Businesses in Supporting the Commercialization of Nanotechnology’, Working Paper No 74, Nomura Research Institute.
INNI, 2003, ‘Nanotechnology: National Strategy for Israel’, Final Report, The Israel Nanotechnology Trust, available at www. Nanotrust.org.il/inni.asp.
Lambert, R., 2003, Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, Final Report, HM Treasury Department, UK.
R.A. Lowe (2004) Inventor-founded Start-ups and the Development Process of University Inventions Mimeo Temper School of Business Carnegie Mellon
Malsch, I., 1997, Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts’ Perceptions and Scientific Relations between Sub-areas, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.
E. Mansfield (1991) ArticleTitle‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovations’ Research Policy 26 773–776 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00043-7
Meyer, M., P. Morlacchi, E. Archambault and O. Persson 2004, CPD in Emerging Technology Sectors, A SPRU Report for the ETB (Engineering and Technology Board), SPRU, University of Sussex Brighton.
M. Meyer (2003) ArticleTitle‘Academic Entrepreneurs or Entrepreneurial Academics? Research-based Ventures and Public Support Mechanisms’ R&D Management 33 IssueID2 107–115 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9310.00286
Meyer, M., O. Persson and Y. Power, 2002, Mapping Excellence in Nanotechnologies, Preparatory Study, European Commission, DG-Research, Brussels.
Molas-Gallart, J., A. Salter, P. Patel, A. Scott, and X. Duran, 2002, Measuring Third Stream Activities, Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities, SPRU, University of Sussex.
D.C. Mowery R.R. Nelson B.N. Sampat A.A. Ziedonis (2004) Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation Stanford Business Books Stanford CA
J. Nesheim (2001) High Tech Start Up: The Complete Handbook for Creating Successful New High Tech Companies Free Press New York
E. Roberts (1991) Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond Oxford University Press New York
N. Rosenberg (1992) ArticleTitle‘Scientific Instrumentation and University Research’ Research Policy 21 381–397 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0048-7333(92)90035-3
N. Rosenberg R. Nelson (1994) ArticleTitle‘American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry’ Research Policy 23 IssueID3 323–348 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0048-7333(94)90042-6
Salter, A., P. D’Este, K. Pavitt, A. Scott, B. Martin, A. Geuna, and P. Patel, (2000), Talent, Not Technology: Publicly Funded Research and Innovation in the UK, A report commissioned by the CVCP and HEFCE, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton, available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/1–4-14-1-2.html last accessed 27/10/2004.
Saxl, O., 2004, Telephone conversation with Mrs. O. Saxl, CEO, Institute of Nanotechnology, 21 June.
S. Shane (2002) ArticleTitle‘Executive Forum: University Technology Transfer to Entrepreneurial Companies’ Journal of Business Venturing 17 537–552 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00084-2
A. Vohora M. Wright A. Lockett (2004) ArticleTitle‘Critical Junctures in the Development of University High-tech Spinout Companies’ Research Policy 33 IssueID1 147–175 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00107-0
Waitz, A. and W. Bokhari, 2003, Nanotechnology Commercialization Best Practices, White Paper, Quantum Insight, Menlo Park, CA. available at http://www.quantuminsight.com/papers/030915_commercialization.pdf, last acce-ssed 8/11/2004.
Wood, S., R. Jones, and A. Geldart, 2003, The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology Swindon, Economic and Social Science Research Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Libaers, D., Meyer, M. & Geuna, A. The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology. J Technol Transfer 31, 443–450 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-0005-9
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-0005-9