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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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).
NBER Patent Data Project website, at https://sites.google.com/site/patentdataproject/, last accessed November 14, 2011.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Altuzarra, A. (2019). R&D and patents: Is it a two way street? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 28(2), 180–196.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.
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.
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.
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.
Carayol, N. (2007). Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 119–138.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Griliches, Z. (1981). Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics Letters, 7(2), 183–187.
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.
Gurmu, S., Black, G. C., & Stephan, P. E. (2010). The knowledge production function for university patenting. Economic Inquiry, 48(1), 192–213.
Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27, 265–283.
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.
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.
Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., & Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica, 56(6), 1371–1395.
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.
Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
Kang, B., & Motohashi, K. (2020). Academic contribution to industrial innovation by funding type. Scientometrics, 124(1), 169–193.
Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and innovation in universities. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.
Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Payne, A. A., & Siow, A. (2003). Does federal research funding increase university research output? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 3(1), 1018.
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.
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.
Thompson, N. C., Ziedonis, A. A., & Mowery, D. C. (2018). University licensing and the flow of scientific knowledge. Research Policy, 47(6), 1060–1069.
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.
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.
Wang, N., & Hagedoorn, J. (2014). The lag structure of the relationship between patenting and internal R&D revisited. Research Policy, 43(8), 1275–1285.
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.
Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297–316.
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.
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
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
Corresponding author
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.
About this article
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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09965-7