, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 239–269 | Cite as

Do material transfer agreements affect the choice of research agendas? The case of biotechnology in Belgium

  • Victor Rodriguez
  • Frizo Janssens
  • Koenraad Debackere
  • Bart De Moor


In this paper we examine whether and to what extent material transfer agreements influence research agenda setting in biotechnology. Research agendas are mapped through patents, articles, letters, reviews, and notes. Three groups are sampled: (1) documents published by government and industry which used research materials received through those agreements, (2) documents published by government and industry which used in-house materials, (3) documents published by academia. Methodologically, a co-word analysis is performed to detect if there is a difference in underlying scientific structure between the first two groups of documents. Secondly, interviews with practitioners of industry and government are intended to capture their opinion regarding the impact of the signed agreements on their own research agenda choices. The existence of synchronic and diachronic common terms between co-word clusters, stemming from the first two groups of publications, suggests cognitive linkage. Moreover, interviewees generally do not consider themselves constrained in research agenda setting when signing agreements for receiving research materials. Finally, after applying a co-word analysis to detect if the first group of documents overlaps with the third group we cannot conclude that agreements signed by industry and government affect research agenda setting in academia.


Research Agenda Noun Phrase Stability Diagram Common Term Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bastide, F., Courtial, J. P., Callon, M. (1989), The use of review articles in the analysis of research area. Scientometrics, 15: 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-hur, A., Elisseeff, A., Guyon, I. (2002), A stability based method for discovering structure in clustered data. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 7: 6–17.Google Scholar
  3. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Laville, F. (1991), Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22: 155–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., Bauin, S. (1983), From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22: 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carayol, N. (2003), Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32: 887–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coase, R. H. (1960), The problem of social costs. Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Council of Governmental Relations (1997), Material Transfer in Academia. Council of Governmental Relations, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Courtial, J. P. (1989), Qualitative models, quantitative tools and network analysis. Scientometrics, 15: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courtial, J. P. (1998), Comments on Leydesdorff’s article. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49: 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dasgupta, P., David, P. A. (1994), Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23: 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunning, T. (1993), Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19: 61–74.Google Scholar
  12. Enserink, M. (1999), NIH Proposes Rules for Materials Exchange. Science, 284: 1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glänzel, W., Meyer, M., Schlemmer, B., Du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Debackere, K., Veugelers, R. (2003), Biotechnology: An Analysis Based on Publications and Patents. Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Leuven.Google Scholar
  14. Hansen, S., Brewster, A., Asher, J. (2005), Intellectual Property in the AAAS Scientific Community: A Descriptive Analysis of the Results of a Pilot Survey on the Effects of Patenting in Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Heller, M. A., Eisenberg, R. S. (1998), Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280: 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jain, A., Dubes, R. (1988), Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaufman, L., Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990), Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  18. Krattiger, A. F. (2004), Financing the bioindustry and facilitating biotechnology transfer. IP Strategy Today, 1: 1–45.Google Scholar
  19. Law, J., Bauin, S., Courtial, J. P., Whittaker, J. (1988), Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics, 14: 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leydesdorff, L. (1997), Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48: 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manning, C. D., Schütze, H. (2000), Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Merton, R. K. (1942), Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1: 115–126.Google Scholar
  23. Merton, R. K. (1968), The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murray, F. (2002), Innovation as overlapping scientific and technological trajectories: exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31: 1389–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murray, F. (2006), The Oncomouse that roared: Resistance and accommodation to patenting in Academic Science. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper.Google Scholar
  26. Murray, F., Stern, S. (2005), Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 11465.Google Scholar
  27. National Academies (2005), Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. National Academic Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. Noyons, E. (2001), Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context. Scientometrics, 50: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pisano, G. (2002), Pharmaceutical biotechnology. In: Nelson, R. R., Victor, D. G., Steil, B. (Eds), Technological Innovation and Economic Performance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  30. Porter, M. F. (1980), An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14: 130–137.Google Scholar
  31. Rip, A., Courtial, J. P. (1984), Co-words maps of biotechnology. An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6: 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodriguez, V. (2005), Material transfer agreements: Open science vs. proprietary claims. Nature Biotechnology 23: 489–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987), Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20: 53–65.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Stephan, P. E. (1996), The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34: 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  36. Streitz, W. D., De Bear, I., Calmettes, C. S., Reinhart, F. (2003), Material Transfer Agreements: A Win-Win for Academia and Industry. Association of University Technology Managers, Northbrook, IL.Google Scholar
  37. Turner, W. A., Rojouan, F. (1991), Evaluating input/output relationships in a regional research network using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 22: 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Overwalle, G., Van Zimmeren, E., Verbeure, B., Matthijs, G. (2006), Models for facilitating access to patents on genetic inventions. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7: 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Zimmeren, E., Verbeure, B., Matthijs, G., Van Overwalle, G. (2006), A clearing house for diagnostic testing: The solution to ensure access to and use of patented genetic inventions? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84: 352–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verbeure, B., Matthijs, G., Van Overwalle, G. (2006), Analysing DNA patents in relation with diagnostic genetic testing. European Journal of Human Genetics, 14: 26–33.Google Scholar
  41. Verbeure, B., Van Zimmeren, E., Matthijs, G., Van Overwalle, G. (2006), Patent pools and diagnostic testing. Trends in Biotechnology, 24: 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walsh, J. P., Cho, C., Cohen, W. M. (2005), View from the bench: Patents and material transfers. Science, 309: 2002–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whittaker, J. (1989), Creativity and conformity in science: Titles, keywords and co-word analysis. Social Studies of Science, 19: 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, R., Law, J. (1980), Beyond the bounds of credibility. Fundamenta Scientiae, 1: 295–315.Google Scholar
  45. World Health Organization (2006), Public Health: Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights. World Health Organization Press, Geneva.Google Scholar
  46. Ziman, J. (1987), The problem of ‘problem choice’. Minerva, 25: 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zipf, G. K. (1949), Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Frizo Janssens
    • 2
  • Koenraad Debackere
    • 1
  • Bart De Moor
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and InnovationKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations