© marc isabelle 20061 knowledge, finance and innovation international symposium, dunkerque, france...

© Marc Isabelle 2006 1

“Knowledge, Finance and Innovation”International Symposium, Dunkerque, France26-30 September 2006

Marc ISABELLEIMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA

<[email protected]>http://marc.isabelle.free.fr/

Expanding Pasteur’s Quadrant with the proprietary vs. open-access dimension:

Illustration in a large public research organisation


Outline of the presentation

Introduction– K & T transfer: a third new mission for public research?

Overview– A new taxonomy than expands on Pasteur’s quadrant

– Changes in profiles are towards more applied research

Implications for public policy and perspectives

Main references

– The linear model and its parricide children

– Strong substitution features show at the margin

– Tracking sources of financial support is the main drive for change

Results– Research activities are distributed rather than dichotomous



– The increased relevance of public research: some pitfalls

– Why using the expanded taxonomy at CEA?

– The survey / the sample


K & T transfer: a third new mission for public research?

Reforms since 1980s, first experienced in US (Bayh-Dole act)

– more collaboration between PROs and firms

– growth in patent filing by PROs

– increase in commercialisation of Knowledge & Technologies by PROs

Reforms have double purpose =

increased pressure for relevance of public research (Pavitt, 2001)

– speed the innovation rate in the economy

– increase leveraging of resources from their activities by PROs



Traditional missions = research, higher education

connected to surge of biotechs and ICT

NB – applies to universities– but for government research centres, traditional missions have long been research and K & T transfer does this increased pressure for relevance apply to them?


Linear model = innovation stems from scientific knowledge developmentborn 1945, 1980

In practice, especially since 1980s– multiple feedback loops (Kline & Rosenberg, 1986)

– highly interactive process (triple helix: Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1996)

– multidisciplinary (Gibbons et al., 1994)

– use-inspired basic research (Stokes, 1997)

Applied research & Development

New products & processes

Basicresearch

in principle, zero pressure for relevance (not in practice)

research activities are not exogenous (irrelevant?) anymore

The linear model and its parricide children




The increased relevance of public research: some pitfalls (1)



Skewing problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999) = shift to more short-term and applied research in response to the requirements of industrial partners

Market misallocation of research resources = can not trigger research activities that aren’t expected to be useful but that can end up extremely useful

empirical evidence = Yes (Rahm; Morgan; Henderson & al., 1998; Blumenthal & al., 1986; Goddard & Isabelle, 2006)

No (Hicks & Hamilton, 1999; Ranga & al., 2003; Van Looy & al., 2004)

Tragedy of anti-commons (Heller & Eisenberg, 1998) = IP over basic inventions fragments the S&T knowledge base

– coordination costs to gather complementary inventions for innovation– slows down innovation as well as further research

empirical evidence in upstream research =Yes (Murray & Stern, 2006)

No (Walsh, Cho & Cohen, 2005)


The increased relevance of public research: some pitfalls (2)



i. Secrecy problem (Florida & Cohen, 1999) = delays and restrictions over disclosure of results imposed by industrial partners

empirically documented (Cohen & al., 1994; Blumenthal & al., 1997; Isabelle & Goddard, 2006)

– more empirical studies required to provide clear-cut answers

– do these pitfalls come together of separately?

– what exactly are the drives for change?

Restrictions on formal (i.) or informal (ii.) scientific communication – slow down further research– duplicate efforts

i. Withholding of results, restrictions on informal exchange

empirical evidence = Yes (Walsh & Hong, 2003; Goddard & Isabelle, 2006)

No (Blumenthal & al., 1997)


Stokes’ 2D taxonomy of research activities

No Yes

YesPure basic research (Bohr)

Use-inspired basic

research (Pasteur)

NoPure applied

research (Edison)

Considerations of use?



A new taxonomy than expands on Pasteur’s quadrant

Qu

est

for

fund

am

enta

l un

ders

tandin

g?

The expanded taxonomy

‘Technical achievements’

‘Curiosity-driven’

‘Use-inspired’

‘Open access’

‘Proprietary’

– more complete (proprietary vs. open-access)– more precise (e.g. room for activities that are use-inspired and curiosity-driven)– operational (?)

‘Fundamental knowledge’


Why using the expanded taxonomy at CEA?

A government research centre, not a university



2nd largest public research organisation in France

CEA

Sci

enti

fic

rese

arc

h

S&TfieldsE

nerg

y

Defe

nce

Info

rmati

on &

Healt

h

Tech

nolo

gic

al

rese

arc

h

Activities distributed over large bandwidth of the Science – Technology spectrum while focused on three S&T fields

– ranks 4th in France in terms of publications’ quality (citations)

– 3rd French applicant of European patents (2000)

– specific technological missions, a scientific pool

– no statutory difference between scientists and engineers

– two divisions dedicated to SR, three ‘’ ‘’ TR

– an established capacity to design, build and operate large scientific instruments

every dimension of expanded taxonomy anticipated to apply more than marginally


First wave to test expanded taxonomy (January 2006) Target = network of outstanding researchers within CEA (“Research Directors”)

Likert-scale based questionnaire

Distributed over CEA’s divisions, over S&T fields

The sample

37 answers (very good response rate, over 80%)

Division of Matter Sciences over-representedDivision of Nuclear Energy under-represented

DAM DEN DRT DSM DSV All together

27% 16% 16% 27% 14% 100%

10 6 6 10 5 37

Note: DAM = Division of Military Applications DEN = Division of Nuclear Energy DRT = Division of Technological Research DSM = Division of Matter Sciences DSV = Division of Life Sciences

bias towards basic research vs. applied research as compared to whole CEA



The survey


Yes, essentially

Use-inspired Yes, to a lower extent

No

Curiosity-drivenYes, essentially Yes, to a lower extent No

5% 62% 11%

16% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

Yes, essentiallyTechnical

Yes, to a lower extentachievements

No

Fundamental knowledgeYes, essentially Yes, to a lower extent No

3% 51% 3%

24% 3% 3%

8% 0% 0%



Research activities are distributed rather than dichotomous

Yes, essentially

Proprietary Yes, to a lower extent

No

Open-accessYes, essentially Yes, to a lower extent No

3% 27% 5%

38% 11% 0%

11% 0% 0%

Stokes’ taxonomy cannot grasp this mixed picture




Changes in profiles are towards more applied research

Q2 Technical achievements (+-)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

=1 =2 =3 =4 =5 =NR

Q2 Use-inspired (+-)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

=1 =2 =3 =4 =5 =NR

Q2 Proprietary (+-)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

=1 =2 =3 =4 =5 =NR

Q2 Fundamental knowledge (+-)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

=1 =2 =3 =4 =5 =NR

Q2 Curiosity-driven (+-)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

=1 =2 =3 =4 =5 =NR

Q2 Open-access (+-)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

=1 =2 =3 =4 =5 =NR

… but not that clearly towards less basic research

1=Much more 2 = More 3 = Unchanged 4 = Less 5 = Much less


Strong substitution features show at the margin

When one type of research is said to be increasing, the other is systematically said to be decreasing of left unchanged

– use-inspired vs. curiosity-driven



– technical achievements vs. fundamental knowledge generation

– proprietary vs. open-access


49% of respondents answer that sources of financial support are essential drive for change (competitive resources include government grants, European projects, contracts with firms)

For these researchers, changes are very homogenously biased towards more applied research and less fundamental research

Tracking sources of financial support is the main drive for change

More &Much more

Less &Much less

Tech

nica

l

achi

evem

ents

Use

-insp

ired

Prop

rieta

ryFu

ndam

enta

l

know

ledg

eCu

riosi

ty-

driv

enO

pen-

acce

ss

78%(46%)

94%(68%)

72%(51%)

28%(16%)

50%(30%)

33%(16%)

% subset(% whole sample)

All types of research are impacted (no differences between subset profile and whole sample profile)




Implications for public policy…

THANK YOU!

Pressure for increased relevance of research also at play in government labs (not only universities)

Increase sample size by launching survey’s second wave Perform non-parametric statistical tests to better assess robustness of results Design and run econometric ordered logit model to better analyse relations

between research style, changes and sources of change

Balance between recurring / non-recurring financial support has strong impact on research style



funding policies should be explicit about their choice in terms of the relative volumes of fundamental and applied research

Changes occur homogenously across various dimensions of expanded taxonomy and exhibit substitution features

… and perspectives


Main references

Florida R., Cohen W.M., (1999), “Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development”, in: L.M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, Florida R., (eds), Industrializing Knowledge. University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Heller M., Eisenberg R., (1998), “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research”, Science, Vol. 280.

Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., (1998), “Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-27.

Pavitt K., (2001), “Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn)”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 761-779.

Ranga L.M., Debackere K., von Tunzelmann N., (2003), “Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium”, Scientometrics, 58(2), 301-20.

Van Looy B., Ranga M., Callaert J., Debackere K., Zimmermann E., (2004), “Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?”, Research Policy, 33, 425-41.

Hicks D., Hamilton K., (1999), “Does university-industry collaboration adversely affect university research?”, Issues in Science and Technology, Real Numbers.



Murray F., Stern S., (2006), “Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis”, Paper presented at the Druid Summer Conference, Copenhagen, June 18-20.

Walsh J.P., Cho C., Cohen W.M., (2005), “Patents, Material Transfers and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research”, Final Report to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Inventions, September.

© marc isabelle 20061 knowledge, finance and innovation international symposium, dunkerque, france...

Documents

upstream research

practice research activities

basic research stokes

research empirical evidence

basic research pasteur

applied research implications

government research

research duplicate efforts