Abstract
Recent initiatives by a number of OECD governments suggest considerable interest in emulating the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, a piece of legislation that is widely credited with stimulating significant growth in university-industry technology transfer and research collaboration in the US. We examine the effects of Bayh-Dole on university-industry collaboration and technology transfer in the US, emphasizing the lengthy history of both activities prior to 1980 and noting the extent to which these activities are rooted in the incentives created by the unusual scale and structure (by comparison with Western Europe or Japan) of the US higher education system. Efforts at “emulation” of the Bayh-Dole policy elsewhere in the OECD are likely to have modest success at best without greater attention to the underlying structural differences among the higher education systems of these nations.
This paper draws extensively on research conducted with Professors Richard Nelson of Columbia University and Arvids Ziedonis of the University of Michigan. Much of that work appears in ‘Ivory Tower’ and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act (Stanford University Press, 2004).
This paper draws extensively on research conducted with Professors Richard Nelson of Columbia University and Arvids Ziedonis of the University of Michigan. Much of that work appears in ‘Ivory Tower’ and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act (Stanford University Press, 2004).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 1998, AUTM Licensing Survey 1998, Survey Summary. Norwalk, CT: AUTM.
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 2000, The AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 1999, Association of University Technology Managers.
Breschi, S., F. Lissoni, and F. Montobbio, 2004, Open Science and University Patenting: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Italian Case Mimeo.
Christie, A.F., S.D ’Aloisio, K.L. Gaita, M.J. Howlett, and E.M. Webster, 2003, ‘Analysis of the Legal Framework for Patent Ownership in Publicly Funded Research Institutions,’ Commonwealth of Australia, Division of Education, Science, and Training.
Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J.P. Walsh, 2002, ‘Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D,’ Management Science 48, 1–23.
Colyvas, J.M. Crow, A. Gelijns, R. Mazzoleni, R. R. Nelson, N. Rosenberg, and B.N. Sampat, 2002, ‘How Do University Inventions Get into Practice?’ Management Science 48, 61–72.
Dasgupta, P. and P. David, 1994, ‘Towards a New Economics of Science,’ Research Policy 23(5), 487–521.
Eisenberg, R., 1996, ‘Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research,’ Virginia Law Review 82, 1663–1727.
Eisenberg, R, 2001, ‘Bargaining over the Transfer of Proprietary Research Tools: Is This Market Emerging or Failing?,’ in D.L. Zimmerman, R.C. Dreyfuss, and H. First, (eds.), Expanding the Bounds of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, New York: Oxford University Press.
Geiger, R. 1986, To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press.
Geiger, R.L., 1993, Research And Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II, New York: Oxford University Press.
Government University Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR), 1991, Industrial Perspectives on Innovation and Interactions with Universities, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hall, B.H. and R.H. Ziedonis, 2001, ‘The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979–95,’ RAND Journal of Economics 32(1), 101–128.
Heller, M.A. and R.S. Eisenberg, 1998, ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,’ Science 280, 298.
Henderson, R., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 1998, ‘Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–88,’ Review of Economics & Statistics 80, 119–127.
Henderson, R., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 1998, ‘University Patenting Amid Changing Incentives for Commercialization,’ in G. Barba Navaretti, P. Dasgupta, K.G. Mäler and D. Siniscalco (eds.), Creation and Transfer of Knowledge, New York: Springer.
Innovation’s Golden Goose, 2002, The Economist 365, T3.
Katz, M.L. and J.A. Ordover, 1990, ‘R&D Competition and Cooperation,’ Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics: 137–192.
Kilger, C. and K. Bartenbach, 2002, ‘New Rules for German Professors,’ Science 298, 1173–1175.
Levin, R.C., A. Klevorick, R.R. Nelson and S. Winter, 1987, ‘Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development,’ Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3, 783–820.
Liebeskind, J., 2001, ‘Risky Business: Universities and Intellectual Property,’ Academe 87.
Mansfield, E., 1991, ‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovations,’ Research Policy 20, 1–12.
Merges, R. and R. Nelson, 1994, ‘On Limiting or Encouraging Rivalry in Technical Progress: The Effect of Patent Scope Decisions,’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 25, 1–24.
Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, B.N. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis, 2001, ‘The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by US Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980,’ Research Policy 30, 99–119.
Mowery, D.C. and B.N. Sampat, 2001a, ‘Patenting and Licensing University Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation,’ Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 317–355.
Mowery, D. C. and B.N. Sampat, 2001b, ‘University Patents, Patent Policies, and Patent Policy Debates, 1925–1980,’ Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 781–814.
Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, B.N. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis, 2004, Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University Industry Technology Transfer Before and After Bayh-Dole, Stanford University Press.
National Science Board, 2000, Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
OECD, 2000, A New Economy? Paris: OECD.
OECD, 2003, Turning Science Into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations, Paris: OECD.
Reimers, N., 1998, Stanford’s Office of Technology Licensing and the Cohen/Boyer Cloning Patents, An Oral History Conducted in 1997 by Sally Smith Hughes, Ph.D., Regional Oral History Office, Berkeley, CA: The Bancroft Library, U.C Berkeley.
Rosenberg, N, 1998, ‘Technological Change in Chemicals: The Role of University-Industry Relations,’ in A. Arora, R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds.), Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth, New York: John Wiley.
Rosenberg, N. and R.R. Nelson, 1994, ‘American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry,’ Research Policy 23, 323–348.
Trow, M., 1979, ‘Aspects of Diversity in American Higher Education,’ in H. Gans (ed.), On the Making of Americans, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Trow, M., 1991, ‘American Higher Education: “Exceptional” or Just Different,’ in B.E. Shafer (ed.), Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism, New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mowery, D.C., Sampat, B.N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?. In: Link, A.N., Scherer, F.M. (eds) Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25022-0_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25022-0_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-25010-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-25022-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)