Transfer and Licensing of University Research and Technology in Canadian Agriculture

Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)


Reports from the past decade have indicated that Canada is a highly innovative country, but suffers from a bottleneck in technology transfer and commercialization. In fact, many of the reports give Canada a failing grade when it comes to the commercialization of innovation technologies. With substantial investments into public sector research, such a problem would reduce the public good from government funding of innovative research. This chapter assesses Canadian university technology transfer activities from 1998 to 2008, with a particular focus on the transfer of agricultural technologies.


  1. Bercovitz, J., and M. Feldmann. 2006. Entrepreneurial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge Based Economic Development. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bozeman, B. 2000. Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory. Research Policy 29: 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calderaa, A., and O. Debande. 2010. Performance of Spanish Universities in Technology Transfer: An Empirical Analysis. Research Policy 39: 1160–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Council of Canadian Academies. 2006. The State of Science and Technology in Canada. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
  5. Eisenberg, R.S. 1996. Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research. Virginia Law Review 82 (8): 1663–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Government of Canada. 1999. Report of the Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2007. Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2012. Canada’s Science, Technology and Innovation System: Aspiring to Global Leadership. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
  10. Grimaldi, R., M. Kenney, D.S. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2011. 30 Years After Bayh-Dole: Reassessing Academic Entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40: 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heher, A.D. 2006. Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heisey, P.W., and S.W. Adelman. 2009. Research Expenditures, Technology Transfer Activity, and University Licensing Revenue. Journal of Technology Transfer 36: 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holguin-Pando, N.C., S.J. Smyth, and P.W.B. Phillips. 2014. Technology Transfer in Transitional Economies: The Case of Mexico. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 14 (2): 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Link, A.N., D.S. Siegel, and D.D. Van Fleet. 2011. Public Science and Public Innovation: Assessing the Relationship Between Patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act. Research Policy 40: 1094–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Noisi, J. 2006. Success Factors in Canadian Academic Spin-Offs. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Owen-Smith, J., and W.W. Powell. 2001. To Patent or not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2003. The Expanding Role of University Patenting in the Life Sciences: Assessing the Importance of Experience and Connectivity. Research Policy 32: 1695–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Siegel, D.S., D.A. Waldman, L.E. Atwater, and A.N. Link. 2004. Toward a Model of the Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners: Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 21: 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Statistics Canada. 1999. Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector, 1998. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2003. Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector, 2001. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2005. Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector, 2003. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2006. Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector, 2004. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2008. Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector, 2006 and 2005. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2010. Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector, 2008. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
  25. Swamidass, P.M., and V. Vulasa. 2008. Why University Inventions Rarely Produce Income? Bottlenecks in University Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 34: 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. The Global Innovation Index. 2016. Global Innovation Index Rankings, Available at: Accessed 26 Aug 2017.
  27. Trune, D.R., and L.N. Goslin. 1998. University Technology Transfer Programs: A Profit/Loss Analysis—A Preliminary Model to Measure the Economic Impact of University Licensing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 57 (3): 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations