Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The case of the interrupting funder: dynamic effects of R&D funding and patenting in U.S. universities

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

Abstract

Federal funding for biomedical research at U.S. universities increases universities’ research funding from non-federal sources. Most previous research on the relationship between research and development (R&D) expenditures and patenting has considered aggregate R&D expenditures or funding contributed from a single source. However, the dynamic relationships between federal and non-federal R&D funding may confound single-source funding estimates. This paper uses a novel dataset with university patents for drug and medical inventions, non-self-citations to those patents in subsequent drug and medical inventions’ patent applications, and R&D expenditures by funding source for 16 U.S. research universities, with a panel vector autoregression (PVAR) methodology to account for endogeneity and dynamic effects. Results confirm prior research findings showing that increases in federal research funding yield subsequent increases in non-federal funding. This subsequent receipt of non-federal research funding significantly decreases universities’ number of patents filed. Results also suggest that federal R&D funding may contribute to universities' patenting more useful (or more broadly used) inventions.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1 
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important to note that prior to the America Invents Act of 2012, patents were assumed to be owned by their human inventor applicants, and only became the legal property of the university if a valid “assignment” was made transferring the inventor’s legal interests to the university (Graham, Marco, & Myers, 2018).

  2. NBER Patent Data Project website, at https://sites.google.com/site/patentdataproject/, last accessed November 14, 2011.

  3. The NSF's new Higher Education R&D (HERD) Survey, successor to their Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, remedies this problem, but only for FY2010 onwards.

  4. Because the data are first-differenced, the earliest lag that can be used as an instrument is the second lag of the variable.

References

  • Abrigo, M. R. M., & Love, I. (2016). Estimation of panel vector autoregression in Stata. The Stata Journal, 16(3), 778–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stein, J. C. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(3), 617–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Does policy influence the commercialization route? Evidence from National Institutes of Health funded scientists. Research Policy, 39(5), 583–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altuzarra, A. (2019). R&D and patents: Is it a two way street? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 28(2), 180–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 637–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., Li, D., & Sampat, B. N. (2019). Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: Evidence from NIH funding rules. Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 117–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babina, T., He, A. X., Howell, S. T., Perlman, E. R., & Staudt, J. (2020). The Color of Money: Federal vs. Industry Funding of University Research. NBER Working Paper. NBER. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w28160

  • Baraldi, A. L., Cantabene, C., & Perani, G. (2014). Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: An interpretation of the innovation persistence. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(3), 304–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, C., & Allaoui, S. (2012). Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: The case of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 41(9), 1589–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, C., & Kananian, R. (2013). Follow the (industry) money-the impact of science networks and industry-to-university contracts on academic patenting in nanotechology and biotechnology. Industry and Innovation, 20(3), 241–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blume-Kohout, M. E. (2012). Does targeted, disease-specific public research funding influence pharmaceutical innovation? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(3), 641–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blume-Kohout, M. E., Kumar, K. B., & Sood, N. (2015). University R&D funding strategies in a changing federal funding environment. Science and Public Policy, 42(3), 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottazzi, L., & Peri, G. (2007). The international dynamics of R&D and innovation in the long run and in the short run. The Economic Journal, 117(518), 486–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N. (2007). Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corredoira, R. A., Goldfarb, B. D., & Shih, Y. (2018). Federal funding and the rate and direction of inventive activity. Research Policy, 47(9), 1777–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupet, J., & Ba, Y. (2022). Benchmarking university technology transfer performance with external research funding: A stochastic frontier analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(2), 605–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drivas, K., & Economidou, C. (2013). Government sponsorship and nature of patenting activity of US universities and corporations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(8), 775–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., & Lissoni, F. (2010). University research and public-private interaction. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 275–314): Elsevier.

  • Graham, S. J. H., Marco, A. C., & Myers, A. F. (2018). Patent transactions in the marketplace: Lessons from the USPTO Patent Assignment Dataset. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27(3), 343–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1981). Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics Letters, 7(2), 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerzoni, M., Aldridge, T. T., Audretsch, D. B., & Desai, S. (2014). A new industry creation and originality: Insight from the funding sources of university patents. Research Policy, 43(10), 1697–1706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurmu, S., Black, G. C., & Stephan, P. E. (2010). The knowledge production function for university patenting. Economic Inquiry, 48(1), 192–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27, 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citations data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. Retrieved from Cambridge, MA: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w8498.pdf

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). The NBER patent-citations data file: lessons, insights, and methodological tools. In A. B. Jaffe & M. Trajtenberg (Eds.), Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., & Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica, 56(6), 1371–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z., Chen, H., Yan, L., & Roco, M. C. (2005). Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1991–2002): National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(4), 343–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, B., & Motohashi, K. (2020). Academic contribution to industrial innovation by funding type. Scientometrics, 124(1), 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and innovation in universities. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F. (2010). The Oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 16(2), 341–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Higher Education Research and Development: Fiscal Year 2019. Retrieved from Alexandria, VA: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21314/

  • NSF. (2013). Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2010–2012. Detailed Statistical Tables. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13326/pdf/tab61.pdf

  • Nugent, A., Chan, H. F., & Dulleck, U. (2022). Government funding of university-industry collaboration: Exploring the impact of targeted funding on university patent activity. Scientometrics, 127(1), 29–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A. A., & Siow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 3(1), 1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, J., & Fajebe, A. (2019). Variation in patent impact by organization type: An investigation of government, university, and corporate patents. Science and Public Policy, 46(4), 589–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, N. C., Ziedonis, A. A., & Mowery, D. C. (2018). University licensing and the flow of scientific knowledge. Research Policy, 47(6), 1060–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. B. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, N., & Hagedoorn, J. (2014). The lag structure of the relationship between patenting and internal R&D revisited. Research Policy, 43(8), 1275–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008). Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university-industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy, 37(10), 1854–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Fong, J. (2014). Connecting Outcome Measures in Entrepreneurship Technology and Science (COMETS) database, public use version COMETS 2.0. Retrieved from: https://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/research/comets

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1064215 and Grant No. 1355279.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret E. Blume-Kohout.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Research universities included in the sample

Boston University

Columbia University

Cornell University

Harvard University

Johns Hopkins University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Stanford University

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Davis

University of California, Los Angeles

University of California, San Diego

University of California, San Francisco

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Minnesota

University of Utah

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Appendix 2: Patent class assignments for drug and medical inventions

Class

Sub Class

Description

Hall et al. (2001, 2002) Category 3 "Drugs & Medical" Classes

128

600–607

 

Surgery

351

 

Optics: Eye examining, vision testing, and correcting

424

514

 

Drug, bio-affecting and body treating compositions

433

 

Dentistry

435

 

Chemistry: molecular biology and microbiology

623

 

Prosthesis (i.e., artificial body members), parts thereof, aids & accessories

800

 

Multicellular living organisms and unmodified parts thereof

Additional Drug & Medical Subclasses

250

363

Body scanner or camera with radiant energy source

461

Biological cell identification with an ultraviolet source

492.1

Irradiation of objects or material

492.3

Subclass of 492.1, with ion or electric beam irradiation

324

306

Determine fluid flow rate

307

Using nuclear resonance spectronmeter system

309

Obtaining localized nuclear magnentic resonance within a sample

310

Subclass of 307—scanning frequency spectrum

318

MRI Components

319

Subclass of 318: Polarizing field magnet structure for use with spectrometer

320

Subclass of 318: Spectrometer components

356

39

Blood Analysis

40

Hemoglobin concentration

41

Oximeters

378

37

X-Ray or Gamma Ray Systems or Devices: Mammography

38

Dental panoramic

62

Imaging

63

Imaging combined with non-X-ray imaging

64

Irradiating

65

Irradiation therapy

68

Irradiation including object support or positioning

69

Irradiation with object moving

382

128

Image analysis: Biomedical applications

129

Subclass of 128: DNA or RNA pattern reading

130

Subclass of 128: Producing difference image (angiography)

131

Subclass of 128: Tomography (CAT scan)

132

Subclass of 128: X-ray film analysis (radiography)

133

Subclass of 128: Cell analysis, classification or counting

134

Subclass of 133: Blood cell analysis

554

213

Fatty acid compounds with additional oxygen in the acid moiety

214

Subclass of 213: Alicyclic ring (e.g., prostaglandin analogs)

215

Subclass of 214: with a benzene ring

218

Subclass of 213: with a benzene ring

219

Subclass of 213: polyunsaturated

224

Polyunsaturated fatty acids

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blume-Kohout, M.E. The case of the interrupting funder: dynamic effects of R&D funding and patenting in U.S. universities. J Technol Transf 48, 1221–1242 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09965-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09965-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation