Advertisement

The Role of Academic Spin-Off Founders’ Motivation in the Hungarian Biotechnology Sector

  • Katalin Erdős
  • Attila VargaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Increasing attention towards the role of universities in regional development has resulted in a large number of publications over the past quarter of a century. A sizeable body of literature shows a specific focus on academic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial activities in academia may take the forms of externally funded research, earning of supplemental income, trade secret generation (Louis et al. 1989), contract research, sales and testing, external teaching, patenting, licensing or spin-off firm formation (Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000). Some of these activities have long been present in the scientific domain. However, there seems to be a recent turn in academic entrepreneurship as specific tasks related to science-directed commercialization in forms of patenting, licensing and spin-off firm formation have become significant elements of scientists’ everyday activities (Gulbrandsen and Slipersaeter 2007). Etzkowitz (1983) argues that entrepreneurial universities created by the second academic revolution are the result of a natural evolutionary process of these institutions as a response to declining resources, increasing competition and requirements set by the knowledge economy (Etzkowitz et al. 2000; Goldstein 2009).

Keywords

Intrinsic Motivation Entrepreneurial Activity Extrinsic Motivation Technology Transfer Office Regional Innovation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement n° 216813. We would like to express our special thanks to the useful comments and suggestions by Zoltán Bajmócy, János Barancsuk, Attila Buday-Sántha, Edward Bergman, Pablo D’Este, Javier Revilla-Diez, Harvey Goldstein, Simona Iammarino, Annamária Inzelt, Jan-Philipp Kramer, Francesco Lissoni, Gunther Maier, Gerd Schienstock, Sabine Sedlacek, Helen Lawton-Smith, Zoltán Szabó, László Szerb, Franz Tödtling, Michaela Trippl and Nick von Tunzelmann and also for the experts and consultants who offered their help by providing contacts to interviewees: Norbert Buzás, Kata Dobay, Arnold Fehér, Kinga Homolay, Zsolt Makra, Lenke Rónaszegi and Marcell Veidner and to all of the researchers who agreed to be interviewed. Comments and suggestions of the anonymous referee are gratefully acknowledged. Of course the usual disclaimers apply.

References

  1. Agrawal A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manage Sci 48(1):44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge TT, Audretsch D (2011) The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship. Res Policy 40(8):1058–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bains W (2005) How academics can make (extra) money out of their science. J Commer Biotechnol 11(4):353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bajmócy Z (2005) “Vállalkozó egyetem” vállalkozásfejlesztési szemszögből. In: Buzás N (szerk.) Tudásmenedzsment és tudásalapú gazdaságfejlesztés. SZTE Gazdaságtudományi Kar Közleményei. JATE Press, Szeged, pp 312–327Google Scholar
  5. Balázs K (1996) Academic entrepreneurs and their role in “knowledge” transfer. STEEP Discussion Paper No. 37Google Scholar
  6. Bodas Freitas IM, Verspagen B (2009) The motivations, organisation and outcomes of university-industry interaction in the Netherlands. UNU-MERIT Working Paper #2009-11, 42 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Bok DC (2003) Universities in the marketplace. The commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Colyvas J, Crow M, Gelijns A, Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR, Rosenberg N, Sampat BN (2002) How do university inventions get into practice? Manage Sci 48(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Convincive Consulting – HBA (Hungarian Biotechnology Association) (2008) A biotechnológia ágazati stratégia kialakítását megalapozó szakmai, átvilágító tanulmány. Budapest, 90 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooke P (2001) Biotechnology clusters in the U.K.: lessons from localisation in the commercialisation of science. Small Bus Econ 17(1–2):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Este P, Patel P (2007) University-industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Res Policy 36(9):1295–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. di Gregorio D, Shane S (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res Policy 32(2):209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erdős K, Varga A (2012) The Academic Entrepreneur: myth or reality for increased regional growth in Europe? In: van Geenhuizen M, Nijkamp P (eds) Creative knowledge cities: myths, visions and realities. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 157–181Google Scholar
  14. Ernst & Young (2006) Beyond borders. Global biotechnology report 2006Google Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res Policy 29(2):313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz H (1983) Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in academic science. Minerva 21:198–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz H (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university– industry linkages. Res Policy 27(8):823–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Res Policy 32(1):109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman M, Feller I, Berkovitz J, Burton R (2002) Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Manage Sci 48(1):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franzoni C, Lissoni F (2009) Academic entrepreneurs: critical issues and lessons for Europe. In: Varga A (ed) Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development: geography, entrepreneurship and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 163–190Google Scholar
  22. Gökpete-Hulten D, Mahagaonkar P (2010) Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? J Technol Transf 35(4):401–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldstein H (2009) What we know and what we don’t know about the regional economic impact of universities. In: Varga A (ed) Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development: geography, entrepreneurship and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 11–35Google Scholar
  24. Goldstein HA (2007) Institutions for knowledge generation and knowledge flows—building innovative capabilities for regions. Paper for the 10th Uddevalla symposium, Uddevalla, 14–16 June 2007Google Scholar
  25. Gulbrandsen M, Slipersaeter S (2007) The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In: Bonaccorsi A, Daraio C (eds) Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 112–143Google Scholar
  26. Helm R, Mauroner O (2007) Success of research-based spin-offs. State-of-the-art and guidelines for further research. Rev Managerial Sci 1(3):237–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inzelt A (2002) Restructuring and financing R&D: new partnerships. In: Varga A, Szerb L (eds) Innovation, entrepreneurship, regions and economic development. Pécs: University of Pécs Press, pp 27–50Google Scholar
  28. Klofsten M, Jones-Evans D (2000) Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Bus Econ 14(4):299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koschatzky K, Hemer J (2009) Firm formation and economic development—what drives academic spin-offs to success or failure? In: Varga A (ed) Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development: geography, entrepreneurship and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 191–218Google Scholar
  30. Lacatera N (2009) Academic entrepreneurship. Managerial Decis Econ 30(7):443–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lam A (2011) What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Res Policy 40(10):1354–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Landry R, Amara N, Rherrad I (2006) Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Res Policy 35(10):1599–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawton Smith H, Bagchi-Sen S (2008) Academic entrepreneurship in Oxfordshire: emergence, growth and the locality. Paper to be presented at DRUID conference, 17–20 June 2008, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawton smith H, Glasson J (2005) High-tech spin-offs: measuring performance and growth in Oxfordshire. Oxfordshire Economic Observatory, England, 46 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Lengyel I (2009) Knowledge-based local economic development for enhancing competitiveness in lagging areas of Europe: the case of the University of Szeged. In: Varga A (ed) Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development: geography, entrepreneurship and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 321–349Google Scholar
  36. Louis KS, Blumenthal D, Gluck ME, Stoto MA (1989) Entrepreneurs in academe: an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Adm Sci Q 34:110–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowe RA, Gonzalez-Brambila C (2007) Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. J Technol Transf 32(3):173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luger MI, Goldstein HA (1997) What is the role of public universities in regional economic development? In: Bingham RD, Mier R (eds) Dilemmas of urban economic development. Issues in theory and practice. Urban affairs annual reviews, vol 47. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  39. Merton RK (1988) The Matthew effect in science, II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS 79:606–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer M (2003) Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Manage 33(2):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morgan RP, Kruytbosch C, Kannankutty N (2001) Patenting and invention activity of U.S. scientists and engineers in the academic sector: comparison with industry. J Technol Transf 26(1–2):173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2004) Ivory tower and industrial innovation: university-industry technology transfer before and after Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Stanford Business Books, Stanford, 241 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Murray F (2004) The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life. Res Policy 33(4):643–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Musselin C (2004) Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. High Educ 48(1):55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD (2004) Biotechnology for sustainable growth and development. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/2/33784888.PDF. Download 24 Jan 2012
  46. O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, O’Gorman C, Roche F (2004) Universities and technology transfer: a review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Ir J Manage 25(2):11–29Google Scholar
  47. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2001) To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. J Technol Transf 26(1–2):99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Owen-Smith J, Riccaboni M, Pammolli F, Powell WW (2002) A comparison of U.S. and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Manag Sci 48(1):24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. PCA (Proventa Capital Advisors) (2004) Human biotechnology in Hungary. PCA–Hungarian Biotechnology Association, Budapest, 86 ppGoogle Scholar
  50. Phan PH, Siegel DS (2006) The effectiveness of university technology transfer: lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative research in the U.S. and the U.K. Renssealer Working Papers in Economics No. 0609. http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0609.pdf. Download 13 June 2010
  51. Powell WW, Owen-Smith J (1998) Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. J Policy Anal Manage 17(2):253–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Renault CS (2006) Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. J Technol Transf 31(2):227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roberts EB, Pet DH (1981) Commercial innovation from university faculty. Res Policy 10(2):108–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shane S (2002) Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Manage Sci 48(1):122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shinn T, Lamy E (2006) Paths of commercial knowledge: forms and consequences of university–enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Res Policy 35(10):1465–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Slaughter S, Leslie LL (1997) Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  57. Szerb L, Márkus G (2007) Nemzetközi felmérés az egyetemi hallgatók vállalkozói aktivitásáról: Magyarország 2006. Pécsi Tudományegyetem Közgazdaságtudományi Kar Gazdaságpolitikai Kutatások KözpontjaGoogle Scholar
  58. Thursby JC, Thursby MC (2003) Industry/university licensing: characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer. J Technol Transf 28(3–4):207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trippl M, Tödtling F (2007) Developing biotechnology clusters in non-high technology regions—the case of Austria. Ind Innov 14(1):47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Varga A (2000) Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. J Reg Sci 40(2):298–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Policy 33(1):147–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wicksteed S (1985) The Cambridge phenomenon. The growth of high technology industry in a university town. Wicksteed, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS (2002) Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manage Sci 48(1):138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Brewer MB (1998) Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88(1):290–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Regional Studies, Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of PécsPécsHungary

Personalised recommendations