1. © Goddard & Isabelle 20061 Groupe de Travail JERIP 03 mars 2006 John Gabriel GODDARD IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) Marc ISABELLE IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France

2. © Goddard & Isabelle 20062  Outline of the presentation Introduction –Public research and industry: the context Overview –The survey –The sample –The collaborations –Extra resources are effectively leveraged Conclusions and perspectives Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France References –PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg? –Traditional outcomes outstrip IP-related ones –Labs’ activities significantly impacted by collaborations Results –Probing into the invisible part of the iceberg

3. © Goddard & Isabelle 20063  Public research and industry: the context Shift since 1980s, first experienced in US (Bayh-Dole act) Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France –more collaboration between public research and firms –increase in patent filing by public research organisations –increase in licensing agreements from PROs to firms double purpose =  In France, loi de 1999 –speed the innovation rate in the economy –increase leveraging of resources from their activities by PROs

4. © Goddard & Isabelle 20064  PROs’ patents and licenses: the visible part of the iceberg? Most survey-based studies focus on PROs’ patenting and licensing activities (Thursby et al., 2001; Thursby & Thursby, 2003) Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France Very few address the issue of other channels of K&T transfer to firms (Cohen et al. work with Carnegie-Mellon survey, Levin et al. with Yale survey) –fit with linear model –involve codified knowledge –transfer embodied technologies Possible reasons for this bias = –two-way interactions –involve tacit knowledge –technologies issued from PROs are embryonic –substantive:patented inventions expected to be commercially useful –methodological:extensive record of information / databases associated with patents

5. © Goddard & Isabelle 20065  The survey Focus on IP issues (protection of intangible assets, transmission / diffusion of knowledge) Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France Questionnaire sent to 1800 lab directors 1st semester, 2004 Questionnaire similar to Cohen (1994) Questionnaire Large French government labs (CNRS, CEA, INRA, INSERM, INRIA, Institut Pasteur, Institut Curie) Selected S&T fields: chemistry, life sciences, ICT Targeted on public research labs

6. © Goddard & Isabelle 20066  The sample 146 responses130 labs have collaborations with firms Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France  PROs PROs number=146  region region number=146  size size number=146  S&T fields S&T fields number=146  7,200 personnel wide variation, long tail (4 megalabs over 250 pers.)  fairly representative of PROs’ size (except INSERM)  life sciences dominant, ICT marginal  dominance of IDF, probable bias in favour of PACA (many chemistry labs of CEA there)

7. © Goddard & Isabelle 20067  The collaborations 874 collaborations of every nature(6,9 per lab on average) Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France  localisation of partners localisation of partners number=874  location of collaborative work number=130  number of partners number of partners number=130  duration of collaborations duration of collaborations number=130  weak correlation with size  mostly national, significant regional drive  predominantly long-term  essentially done in public-lab (87%)

8. © Goddard & Isabelle 20068  Probing into the invisible part of the iceberg Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France 14 pre-identified modalities of collaboration Answers on a 4-point scale  Distribution of responses for each modality Distribution of responses for each modality number=130 Interpretation –prevalence of informal / knowledge-targeted / two-way modalities –IP-related K&T transfer through license agreements at a distant 2 nd place

9. © Goddard & Isabelle 20069  Extra resources are effectively leveraged Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France 9 pre-identified benefits of collaboration for the public lab Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each benefit Rate of “Yes” for each benefit number=130 Interpretation –perceived benefits closely connected to tangible / intangible inputs obtained –development of technology transfer activities and mobility towards industry again at a distant 2 nd place “Significant” + “Decisive”  “Yes”

10. © Goddard & Isabelle 200610  Traditional outcomes outstrip IP-related ones Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France 14 pre-identified outcomes of collaboration Answers on a 4-point scale  Rate of “Yes” for each outcome Rate of “Yes” for each outcome number=130 Interpretation –… related to dominance of research-type modalities –patents & copyrights, licenses of all types 2 to 3 times less frequent than publications or theses… “Frequent” + “Very frequent”  “Yes” –however, embodied technologies (new products & processes + software) as frequent as publications

11. © Goddard & Isabelle 200611  Labs’ activities significantly impacted by collaborations Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France Significant impact on research programmes and themes (rate of “Significant” + “Decisive” = 58%) number=130  Impact on research style answers on a 3-point scale Impact on research style number=130  Impact on research practices 7 pre-identified practicesanswers on a 4-point scale “Significant” + “Decisive”  “Yes” Impact on research practices number=130 Interpretation –stands out against secondary importance of IP- and technology-related modalities / benefits / outcomes? –firms’ preferences shape collaborative labs’ activities –exposure to skewing problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999)

12. © Goddard & Isabelle 200612  Conclusions and perspectives THANK YOU! Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France Lack of IP culture in French PROs (OST) Perform in-depth comparison with Cohen, 1994 Mirror survey with subset of ERIE database Identification of cluster effects Collaboration build-up capabilities on top of (rather than?) transfer technologies Collaborations revolve around knowledge production / transfer / diffusion rather than technology Technologies transferred are embryonic  require two-way interactions and tacit knowledge transfer

13. © Goddard & Isabelle 200613  References Modalities and Outcomes of Research Collaboration with Industry: A Survey of Public Laboratories in France Agrawal A., (2001), “University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302. Cohen W.M., Florida R., Goe R., (1994), “University-Industry Research Centers in the United States”, Report to the Ford Foundation, Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University. Cohen W.M., Florida R., Randazzese L., Walsh J., (1998), “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance”, in Roger Noll (ed.), Challenge to the Research University, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J., (2002), “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D”, Management Science, 48, 1-23. 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, 119-27. Jaffe, A. (1989), “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, 79, 957-70. Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., (2005), “The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115-27. Thursby J.G., Jensen R., Thursby M.C., (2001), “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72. Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., (2003), “Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from the Perspective of the Buyer”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 207-13.