Post on 15-Jan-2016
Bayh-Dole and Entrepreneurship Reconsidered: University versus
Inventor Ownership*
Martin KenneyMartin KenneyDept. of Human and Community Development
UC Davis&
Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy
&Donald PattonDonald Patton
Dept. of Human and Community DevelopmentUC Davis
Presented in North Central Regional Center for Rural Development Webinar October 18, 2011
Motivation for Paper
• Appreciative modeling exercise suggested inventor ownership should be effective (Kenney and Patton 2009)
• Entrepreneurship and technology transfer long time US policy goals
Motivation• In response to increasing questioning in the
academic literature, a 2010 National Research Council Report stated:
“Arguments for the superiority of an inventor driven system of technology transfer are largely conjectural. There is certainly anecdotal evidence of faculty dissatisfaction with the technology licensing office-dominated model as well as evidence of faculty entrepreneurial success independent of such offices, but there is no systematically collected evidence that inventors have knowledge and skills superior to those of technology transfer personnel and their service providers in the various components of IP acquisition, management, and licensing.”
Methodology• Find inventor-ownership university
– Cambridge, Stanford, Wisconsin – all changed– Only Anglo-Saxon pure inventor ownership
univ. -- Waterloo, Canada
• Collect all technology-based startups– Internet search, documents, interviews, TLO
offices
• Extremely strict definition about firms to be included– Decisions made by both authors
HypothesisWith various controls, we expect greater With various controls, we expect greater entrepreneurship at inventor-ownership entrepreneurship at inventor-ownership university, i.e., Waterloo university, i.e., Waterloo
But conditioned by:1. University academic ranking
2. Academic field
3. University R&D expenditures
4. Number of professors
Population and Data
• Waterloo versus University of Wisconsin, Madison; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; UC Davis; UC Santa Barbara
• Spin-offs, University/Field ranking, R&D Expenditures, Number of Faculty
Spin-offsSpin-offs Academic Academic RankingRanking
R&D R&D Expenditures*Expenditures* Faculty SizeFaculty Size
Attribute Attribute DescriptionDescription
Number of Spin-Number of Spin-offs, 1957-2010 offs, 1957-2010
2010 SJTU 2010 SJTU RankingRanking
$ millions,$ millions, 2005-2008 2005-2008
avg.avg.
Total BMS, Total BMS, CS&EE, EPS CS&EE, EPS
facultyfaculty
UWMUWM 140140 1717 792792 2,1952,195
UMAAUMAA 8888 2222 724724 3,1933,193
UIUCUIUC 7272 2525 462462 2,1202,120
UCDUCD 4040 4646 563563 2,0382,038
UCSBUCSB 3737 3232 163163 559559
WaterlooWaterloo 138138 151-200151-200 9595 963963
Sources: various
* Total for BMS, CS&EE, and EPS; all others excluded
Overview of the DataOverview of the Data
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
19751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009
UWM
Waterloo
UMAA
UIUC
UCD
UCSB
Cumulative Number of Spin-offs by Cumulative Number of Spin-offs by University, 1957-2009University, 1957-2009
OverallOverallWorldWorld
RankingRanking
NaturalNaturalSciences andSciences andMathematicsMathematics
Eng., Tech. and Eng., Tech. and Computer Computer
ScienceScience
Life and Agric. Life and Agric. SciencesSciences
Medicine and Medicine and PharmacyPharmacy
Computer Computer SciencScienc
ee
UWMUWM 1717 1717 2323 1111 2020 52-7552-75
UMAAUMAA 2222 2121 77 2424 88 1818
UIUCUIUC 2525 2323 44 1818 n.a.n.a. 1313
UCSBUCSB 3232 1919 1515 51-7551-75 n.a.n.a. 4444
UCDUCD 4646 4646 4646 2121 n.a.n.a. 5050
WaterlooWaterloo 151-200151-200 n.a.n.a. 52-7552-75 n.a.n.a. n.a.n.a. 76-10076-100
2010 Shanghai Jiao Tong University Global Academic 2010 Shanghai Jiao Tong University Global Academic Rankings, Overall and Selected Technology CategoriesRankings, Overall and Selected Technology Categories
BiomedicalBiomedical CS&EECS&EE EPSEPS TotalTotal
UWMUWM2,1992,199 104104 866866 3,1693,169
(274.9)(274.9) (20.8)(20.8) (216.5)(216.5) (186.4)(186.4)
UMAAUMAA2,0562,056 193193 647647 2,8962,896
(228.4)(228.4) (32.2)(32.2) (323.5)(323.5) (170.4)(170.4)
UCDUCD1,8101,810 5757 386386 2,2532,253
(452.5)(452.5) (14.3)(14.3) (77.2)(77.2) (173.3)(173.3)
UIUCUIUC642642 440440 766766 1,8471,847
(642.0)(642.0) (88.0)(88.0) (127.7)(127.7) (153.9)(153.9)
UCSBUCSB 9191 173173 388388 652652
(15.2)(15.2) (43.3)(43.3) (194.0)(194.0) (54.3)(54.3)
WaterlooWaterloo7171 9797 212212 381381
(71.0)(71.0) (6.1)(6.1) (26.5)(26.5) (15.2)(15.2)
Total R&DTotal R&D 6,8696,869 1,0641,064 3,2653,265 11,19811,198
2005-20082005-2008Spin-offsSpin-offs 2929 4040 2727 9696
R&D$M per R&D$M per Spin-offSpin-off (120.9)(120.9) (116.6)(116.6)
R&D Expenditures, Total and Per Spin-off R&D Expenditures, Total and Per Spin-off by University and Technology, 2005-2008by University and Technology, 2005-2008
Da
ta fro
m 2
00
5-2
00
8
236.9236.9 26.626.6
MBSMBS CS&EECS&EE EPSEPS TotalTotal
UWMUWM1,385 1,385 155 155 655 655 2,195 2,195
(173.1)(173.1) (31.0)(31.0) (163.8)(163.8) (129.1)(129.1)
UMAAUMAA1,7901,790 172172 1,2311,231 3,1933,193
(198.9)(198.9) (28.7)(28.7) (615.5)(615.5) (187.8)(187.8)
UCDUCD1,3961,396 9999 543543 2,0382,038
(349.0)(349.0) (24.8)(24.8) (108.6)(108.6) (156.8)(156.8)
UIUCUIUC1,0231,023 276276 821821 2,1202,120
(1023.0)(1023.0) (55.2)(55.2) (136.8)(136.8) (176.7)(176.7)
UCSBUCSB148148 8989 322322 559559
(24.7)(24.7) (22.3)(22.3) (161.0)(161.0) (46.6)(46.6)
WaterlooWaterloo232232 165165 566566 963963
(232.0)(232.0) (10.3)(10.3) (70.8)(70.8) (38.5)(38.5)
Total FacultyTotal Faculty 59745974 956956 41384138 1106811068
2005-2008 Spin-2005-2008 Spin-offsoffs 2929 4040 2727 9696
Faculty per Spin-Faculty per Spin-offoff (153.3)(153.3) (115.3)(115.3)
University and Technology Field, Number of Faculty and Spin-offs per Faculty
Spin-offs 2005-2008; number of faculty 2006 except Waterloo which is 2011
206206 23.923.9
All Spinoffs2005 through 2008
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070
Spinoffs / R&D in millions of dollars
Spinoffs / Faculty
UWM (17)
UMAA (17)
UIUC (12)
UCSB (12)
UCD (13)
Waterloo (25)
5 US universities above
Decreasin
g as one m
oves t
oward orig
in
Spin-offs per Faculty and R&D Expenditures ($ million)
Waterloo
UCSB
BMSBMS CS&EECS&EE EPSEPS TotalTotal
Total Total %% TotalTotal %% TotalTotal %% TotalTotal %%
UWMUWM 7878 47.3%47.3% 4343 14.0%14.0% 1919 36.8%36.8% 140140 35.7%35.7%
UMAAUMAA 3737 67.6%67.6% 3838 39.5%39.5% 1313 38.5%38.5% 8888 51.1%51.1%
UIUCUIUC 88 87.5%87.5% 4040 35.0%35.0% 2424 58.3%58.3% 7272 48.6%48.6%
UCDUCD 2626 30.8%30.8% 66 33.3%33.3% 88 37.5%37.5% 4040 32.5%32.5%
UCSBUCSB 1212 8.3%8.3% 1717 29.4%29.4% 88 25.0%25.0% 3737 21.6%21.6%
WaterlooWaterloo 88 12.5%12.5% 9494 1.1%1.1% 3636 8.3%8.3% 138138 3.6%3.6%
TotalTotal 169169 46.7%46.7% 238238 18.1%18.1% 108108 31.5%31.5% 515515 30.3%30.3%
University Spin-offs, Number and Percentage Licensed by University and Technology Category, 1957-2010
Discussion• Inventor ownership proved to be conducive to
entrepreneurship– University of Wisconsin had inventor ownership in the
past
• Surprising differences in levels of entrepreneurship between study fields
• EE&CS appear far more efficient at generating startups
• EE&CS have no need for TLOs and are hard to police
• Some US universities are experimenting, e.g. North Carolina Express Agreement, for inventors wishing to establish their own firm.
Discussion (continued)
• TLOs would survive and even thrive as SERVICE organizations not bureaucratic control operations
• US needs to experiment with alternative models
Limitations and Further Research with Database
• Only one inventor-ownership university
• Role of student entrepreneurship can be explored in our database
• Extend to private universities and foreign universities
Thank you
mfkenney@ucdavis.edu