In or Out? Faculty Research and Consulting Richard Jensen University of Notre Dame Jerry Thursby Emory University Marie Thursby Georgia Tech & NBER Supported.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ishva Minefee September 25, 2012
Advertisements

Kevin Van Kevin Van Future Computer Technologist.
Personal financial benefit or economic interest from one’s position that may inappropriately: influence the employee’s judgment compromise the employee’s.
University IPRs and Knowledge Transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient? Gustavo Crespi (SPRU) Aldo Geuna (SPRU & ICER) Bart Verspagen (ECIS)
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980: Policy Model for Other Industrial Economies? David C. Mowery Haas School of Business U.C. Berkeley & NBER Bhaven N. Sampat University.
QUESTIONS Has licensing generated sponsored research? How has it affected knowledge sharing & use of research? Has faculty research been diverted in response.
Discussion of: “In or Out: Faculty Research and Consulting” by Richard Jensen, Jerry Thursby, and Marie Thursby Saturday, September 30, 2006 EPFL Lausanne,
Alvin Kwan Division of Information & Technology Studies
Employee Screening: Theory and Evidence Fali Huang Peter Cappelli SESS, SMU Wharton, UPenn Dec. 18, 2006.
Unconventional Financing of Intellectual Property: Patent Donations Varda N. Main Associate Director, Intellectual Property Rochester Institute of Technology.
Science, Innovations and Institutions: Comments Paula Stephan, Georgia State University June 2005.
Order up! How to Build a Service Catalog. A Service Catalog is …  The services being provided, a summary of their characteristics and details of the.
Knowledge Flows Embodied in Recent PhDs…or The News from Texas this August Paula Stephan Andrew Young School Georgia State University September 2006.
Nanotechnology: The Public and Emerging Technologies Nanotechnology: Public Dr. William Y. B. Chang Director Beijing Office U.S. National Science Foundation.
TTO Role in University / Corporate Partnership
Industrial Partnerships & Technology Transfer Keeping Your Name Out Of The Gossip Columns Of Nature and Science BC Cancer AgencyJ. D. Litster March 24,
Scholarship and Inventive Activity in the University: Complements or Substitutes? Brent Goldfarb University of Maryland Gerald Marschke University at Albany,
The Different Channels of University- Industry Knowledge Transfer: Empirical Evidence from Biomedical Engineering R. Brennenraedts, R. Bekkers and B. Verspagen.
February 25, 2014 SERIES 4, SESSION 2 OF AAPLS APPLICANTS & ADMINISTRATORS PREAWARD LUNCHEON SERIES Material Transfer and Confidentiality Agreements.
“Research on Academic Entrepreneurship in the U.S. and Europe: Lessons Learned and a Research Agenda” Professor Donald Siegel Dean-School of Business University.
Vilnius Lithuania BSc.: Biochemistry Neuropsychology J.D.: University of Oregon LL.M.:University College London Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Intellectual Property and Senior Design Projects.
Industrial Affiliates Programs ABC Stanford University May 9, 2007.
WIPO Dispute Resolution in International Science & Technology April 25, 2005 Ann M. Hammersla Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property Massachusetts Institute.
History, Status, and Trends for Technology Transfer in U.S. Universities & The Stanford Model Presentation by Jon Sandelin Stanford University Office of.
Methods Overview.  Description: What happens?  Prediction: When does it happen?  Explanation: Why does it happen? ◦ Theory ◦ Causal Inferences  Intervention/Application:
28 February 2007Réka Horváth 1 Residential Internet and Broadband take-up in Portugal.
Invention Disclosure Analysis / Triage. Overview Decision making Components of an invention disclosure Review process Qualitative factors – art vs. science.
Influence of vocational training on wages and mobility of workers - evidence from Poland Jacek Liwiński Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
Department of Business Administration Authors Paper Title Journal, Volume, Year Presenters and Group number.
What should you know about Intellectual Property? Katharine Ku Office of Technology Licensing.
Author’s Rights And the Role of Copyright Slides produced by the Copyright Education & Consultation Program.
Company LOGO Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches Kathleen M. Eisenhardt Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering management, Stanford.
Developing an IP Policy at Smaller Institutions James R. Zanewicz, J.D. Director Office of Technology Development.
Introduction to the Offices of Biotechnology & Business Development John L. Harb Director, Office of Biotechnology __________________________________ October.
IP Audit Prelude to IP Strategy June, 2005 Maputo, Mozambique Intellectual Property and New Technologies Division.
Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology Nicholas S. Argyres Senior Associate Dean-Faculty and Vernon.
POLICY INCENTIVES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PEREZ W.J ODERO LEGAL CONSULTANT 5 TH JUNE 2005.
Mary Frank Fox Co-Principal Investigator Georgia Tech ADVANCE Conference March 2005 NSF ADVANCE Research Program.
Academic Technology Transfer Operations and Practice Knowledge Economy Forum IV Istanbul, Turkey March 22-25, 2005 Alistair Brett Oxford Innovation.
Developing/Protecting Your Idea Peter H. Durant Nixon Peabody LLP March 30/31, 2005 Copyright © 2005 Nixon Peabody LLP.
Roundtable on Entrepreneurship Education - Program Highlights - Georgia Institute of Technology/ Emory University TI:GER ® Marie Thursby, Carolyn Davis.
Intellectual Property at USC October 27, 2003 Dr. Michael Muthig.
January 17, 2006Lecture 1aSlide 1 BUSH 623: Getting Beyond Fear and Loathing of Statistics Lecture 1 Spring, 2006.
Productivity of Research Scientists Jinyoung Kim, Sangjoon John Lee, Gerald Marschke Thoughts from Alex Bryson Policy Studies Institute SEWP Research Conference,
Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology Nicholas S. Argyres and Julia Porter Liebeskind Journal of.
Purdue University’s Approach to Industry-Sponsored Student Class Projects Sponsored Program Services Effective March 1, 2016.
Theory and Research Chapter 2. Concepts, Variables and Hypotheses Concepts W ords or signs that refer to phenomena that share common characteristics.
Here or There? A Survey on the Factors in Multinational R&D Location and IP Protection Jerry Thursby Goodrich C. White Professor & Chair, Department of.
1 Alternative Mechanism for Technology Transfer: Licensing YoungJun Kim Department of Economics The George Washington University
Management of Conflicts of Interest Mission Critical in Entrepreneurial Universities Dr. Bill Hunt, Professor Bioengineering, and Microelectronics/Microsystems.
Understanding SUNY’s New Patents and Inventions Policy
University Research Panel – Extending Your Research Capabilities
What can patent litigation tell us about patent examination?
ARP, New Faculty Orientation August 22, 2008 Simran Trana Director
IP Issues Relevant to Researchers and Scientists
Commercialization of University Intellectual Property & Biotechnology
Nicholas S. Argyres and Julia Porter Liebeskind
IP Ownership, Benefit Sharing and Incentive for Researchers
Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches
How Do Firms Choose Legal Form of Organization?
Exhibit Among Firms Offering Health Benefits with 50 or More Employees, Percentage of Covered Workers Enrolled at a Firm That Offers Benefits Through.
Unit 0 Science Fundamentals.
Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance CharlesP.Himmelberga R.GlennHubbardab DariusPaliaac.
Third International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making 16th- 17th.
Vocab Week 2 Mr. Addeo.
Empirical Research in Innovation
Disclosures The project was funded from the following sources:
Lower Wage Level Less Than 35% Earn $23,000 a Year or Less *
Presentation transcript:

In or Out? Faculty Research and Consulting Richard Jensen University of Notre Dame Jerry Thursby Emory University Marie Thursby Georgia Tech & NBER Supported by the E.M. Kauffman Foundation & National Science Foundation

Motivation: An Empirical Anomaly ¼ of sample of 5772 US patents with US university faculty inventor solely assigned to for-profit firms (Thursby, Thursby, and Fuller 2006) –Employment contracts specify university IP ownership –Bayh-Dole Act allows university ownership of federally funded IP –US universities typically insist on ownership of firm sponsored research Interviews suggest consulting as an explanation We argue explanation must include analysis not only of consulting decisions but also decisions of government and industrial funding agents Theory to derive implications and empirical testing

Theoretical Model Faculty can research own project in the university with gov and firm funding and receive c for time spent outside on the firm’s project –Patents from university project assigned to university –Patents from consulting assigned to firm Two stage game –Stage 1: Gov and firm choose G and F –Stage 2: Firm chooses c and Researcher chooses t Allow for –Projects of different difficulty (x I, x O ) –Differing faculty quality (q) β) –Benefit to firm project from faculty’s university research (β) α) –Difference in effectiveness of G and F for university research (1, α) –University and firm infrastructure (K I, K O )

Time in Consulting Unit Consulting Fee ↑ β, K o, x o rFrFrFrF r F // rIrIrIrI r I // ↑α, K I, x I ↑q ↑G ↑F

Firm Funding rFrFrFrF r F // rGrGrGrG r I // GovernmentFunding ↑q ↑ β, K o, x o ↑α, K I, x I

Thursby, Thursby & Fuller sample - Based on scientists and engineers - 87 RI US universities in Patenting over selected years in the 90’s to 2004 Due to data availability we consider 1990’s patents at Purdue MIT Stanford Wisconsin Georgia Tech Cornell Pennsylvania Texas A&M

Sample Characteristics 1767 Patent/Inventor Pairs Assignment Firm28.2% University67.2% Unassigned1.9% US Gov't0.9% Not-For-Profit & Firm1.6% US Gov't & Not-For-Profit0.2%

Econometric Model Dependent Variable = 1 if assigned to university = 0 if assigned to firm Independent Variables Total publications Total citations to these publications Federal research funds Industry research funds Other research funds Gender Age Fixed effects University Year Technology category

Means for Important Variables Publications7 Citations271 Federal funding Industry funding Other funding77000

Logit Results – Odds Ratio Odds Ratiop-Value Publications Citations Federal funding Industry funding Other funding No. Observations1280 Pseudo r-Square0.223