Skip to main content
Log in

The Changing Rewards to Science: The Case of Biotechnology

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Little is known about the form and or magnitude of compensation provided university-based scientists working on firm R&D. This is unfortunate, given the important role that university-based scientists play in R&D, and the growing literature concerning compensation and innovation. This paper sheds some light on these issues by examining the compensation of university-based scientists involved with 52 biotech firms that made an initial public offering between March of 1990 and November of 1992. Although the stock holdings of the university scientists are of particular interest, additional forms of compensation received by the scientists are also examined.

We find that approximately 10 percent of the university-based scientists affiliated with these companies hold sufficient options or stock to require disclosure at the time of the public offering. A far larger proportion has an equity position in the firm. In many instances the scientists also receive consulting fees or salary from the firm and enter into licensing agreements with the firm. In addition to providing information concerning the compensation of university-based scientists, the empirical work suggests that the rewards to science can be significantly greater than previous work would suggest.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1988, ‘Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis’, American Economic Review 78(4), 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, Philippe and Jean Tirole, 1994, ‘The Management of Innovation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109(4), 1185–1209.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Men and Women of Science, 1992, 18th ed., New York: Bowker.

  • Audretsch, David B., 1995, Innovation and Industry Evolution, Cambridge: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, David B. and Paula Stephan, 1994, ‘Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology,’ American Economic Review 86(3), 641–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Fischer and Myron Scholes, 1973, ‘The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities,’ Journal of Political Economy 81(3), 637–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, David, Nancyanne Causino, Eric Campbell, and Karen Seashore Louis, ‘Relationships Between Academic Institutions and Industry in the Life Sciences — An Industry Survey’, The New England Journal of Medicine 334(6), 368–373.

  • Burrill, G. Steven, 1987, Biotech 88: Into the Marketplace, San Francisco, Ca: The Arthur Young High Technology Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, Partha and Paul A. David, 1987, ‘Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology’, in George R. Feiwel (ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, New York: New York University. Press, pp. 519–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Arthur, 1990, ‘What is a Citation Worth?’ Journal of Human Resources 21(2), 200–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, Warren, 1965, The Scientific Community, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmstrom, Bengt, 1989, ‘Agency Costs and Innovation’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 12, 305–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Michael C., 1993, ‘The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems’, The Journal of Finance 48(3), 831–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, Martin 1986, Biotechnology: The University Industrial Complex, New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1989, ‘Firm Size and Innovation: Observations in Dutch Manufacturing Industries’, Small Business Economics 1(3), 315–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Kenneth B. and G. Steven Burrill, 1994, Biotech 95: Reform, Restructure, Renewal, Palo Alto, Ca: Ernst & Young.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Sharon G. and Paula E. Stephan 1991, ‘Research Productivity Over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists’, American Economic Review 81(1), 114–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, David, 1988, ‘The Market for Fame and Fortune’, History of Political Economy 20(4), 615–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Edwin, 1995, ‘Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing’, Review of Economics and Statistics 77(1), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert, 1957, ‘Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science’, American Sociological Review 22(6), 635–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, Roy, 1989, ‘Small Firms, Innovation and Industrial Change’, Small Business Economics 1(1), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosovsky, Henry, 1990, The University: An Owner's Manual, New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, Paula E., 1994, ‘Differences in the Post-entry Value of Biotech Firms: The Role of Human Capital’, Paper presented at a Conference on the Post-entry Performance of Firms, Lisbon, May 27–28, 1994.

  • Stephan, Paula E., 1996, ‘The Economics of Science’, Journal of Economic Literature 34(3), September.

  • Stephan, Paula E. and Sharon G. Levin, 1992, Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place and Time, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, Paula E. and Sharon G. Levin, 1996, ‘Property Rights and Entrepreneurship in Science’, Small Business Economic 8(3), 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, Howard, 1976, Publication, Teaching and the Academic Reward Structure, Lexington, Ma: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, Howard and Jack Leahey, 1975, ‘What is an Article Worth?’, Journal of Political Economy 83(5), 951–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, Lewis and Alison Richards, 1988, A Passion for Science, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, Lynne G., Michael R. Darby and Jeff Armstrong, 1994, ‘Intellectual Capital and the Firm: The Technology of Geographically Localized Knowledge Spillovers’, Cambridge, Ma: National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 4946.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stephan, P.E., Everhart, S.S. The Changing Rewards to Science: The Case of Biotechnology. Small Business Economics 10, 141–151 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007929424290

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007929424290

Keywords

Navigation