1

Research assessment criteria and university-industry linksin the social contract of ‘applicable’ science

Experiences from funding of biomedical science andstrategic environmental research in Sweden and the UK

Katarina Larsen

KTH – The Royal Institute of TechnologyDrottning Kristinasv. 30

100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

larsen@infra.kth.se

PAPER PRESENTED AT CONFERENCE IN HONOUR OF KEITH PAVITTWHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT INNOVATION?

ORGANISED BY SPRU – SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY RESEARCH,UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX, ENGLAND, 13-15TH NOVEMBER 2003

DRAFT: Please do not quote without author’s permission

2

ABSTRACT

This paper is concerned with research assessment procedures adopted by funding agents thattarget research with industrial applications and close links to socio-economic goals. Thefunding bodies of research are confronted with a ‘cry for applicability’ although it is arguedthat research and innovation are highly uncertain activities where all applications of sciencecannot be foreseen. This paper argues that analysis research funding with a strong rationalefor ‘applicable’ science (such as private non-profit and strategic research foundations) cancontribute to an improved understanding of university-industry relations in research. The aimof this study is to address what characterises the research assessment criteria used by fundingagents that target research with industrial application and close links to socio-economic goals.Special attention is paid to university-industry links in the social contract for ‘applicable’science in Sweden and the UK. Case studies from research funding in biomedical science andstrategic environmental research are selected to address the assessment procedures andcriteria that research-funding organisations use to assess prospects of successful application ofscience. A typology addressing views on university-industry relations is used to characterisethe case studies. The study shows that the foundations and trusts are attributing value touniversity-industry interaction in research. Promotion of such links is focusing on aspects ofhuman resources, best practices and intellectual property in targeting socio-economic goals.

PAPER OUTLINE

1. Introduction2. The social contract of ‘applicable’ science2.1 Rationale for research funding2.2 Trends in S&T policy targeting socio-economic goals2.3 Typology for views of university-industry links3. Case studies in biomedical research funding3.1 Swedish foundation for strategic research3.2 The Wellcome trust in the UK4. Case studies in strategic environmental research funding4.1 Swedish foundation for strategic environmental research4.2 Sustainable technologies initiative in the UK5. Comparative case study analysis6. The OSP-typology revisited7. Concluding remarks and further research

3

1. Introduction

This paper addresses the character of procedures of research assessment adopted byfunding agents that target research with industrial applications and close links tosocio-economic goals. The funding bodies of research are confronted with a ‘cry forapplicability’ although it is argued that research and innovation are highly uncertainactivities where all application of science cannot be foreseen (Nelson 1959; Pavitt1991) and caveats associated with demand for accountability are outlined (Geuna2001). Acknowledging this, there is still much to learn about assessment approachesand criteria used by research organisations targeting research characterised byindustrial applications and close links to socio-economic goals.

Public policies introduced to spur innovation and increased collaboration betweenuniversity and industry have been analysed (Senker and Senker 1997; Grimaldi andvon Tunzelman 2002). Less attention has been paid to analysing the role of policiesand research assessment procedures of private non-profit (PNP) organisations in thecontext of university-industry links. This paper argues that analysis of sources ofresearch funding with a strong rationale for ‘applicable’ science (such as private non-profit and strategic research foundations) can contribute to an improved understandingof university-industry relations in research. Studies of criteria for research funding canthereby provide complementary knowledge to existing methods of tracing linkagesbetween university-industry, such as analysis of public policy programmes, industrialfunding of university research, bibliometric methods of co-authorships (Patell andPavitt 1995; Calvert and Patell 2002), and by citation linkages between scientificpapers and patents (Meyer 2000; Tijssen, Buter et al. 2000). Examples of researchareas that could provide further insight are research funded by trusts and charityorganisations in the health and biomedical area or strategic research foundations thataim to promote competitiveness by supporting development in science andtechnology.

The aim of this study is to address what characterises the research assessment criteriaused by funding agents that target research with industrial application and close linksto socio-economic goals. To address this, the paper applies the typology developed byOwen-Smith and Powell (2001) to four case studies of research funding organisationsto illustrate how the policies of these foundations and trusts are positioned accordingto views of academy-industry relations and commercialization of university basedresearch. The empirical results were obtained using a semi-structured questionnaireand interviews (Appendix 1) and background material on the research fundingorganisations (Appendix 2). Existing data sources (OECD and national data) wereused to illustrate features of science and technology policy in Sweden and the UK.

The PNP funded research accounts for about 16-18 % of the total funds for research atuniversity (HERD) in Sweden and the UK, as shown in table 1. In Sweden, thestrategic research foundations (that were created in mid-nineties), account for onethird of the PNP funded research. These foundations target strategically importantknowledge creation and interaction between university-industry with importance forthe development of future competitiveness. This paper draws on studies of researchprojects and programmes in Sweden and the UK funded by strategic researchfoundations, trusts and charity foundations that emphasise the importance of‘applicability’ and socio-economic benefits. Paired case studies are selected from the

4

two areas biomedical research (the Swedish foundation for strategic research and theWellcome trust) and strategic environmental research (MISTRA - the Swedishfoundation for strategic environmental research and STI - the sustainable technologiesinitiative).

The paper is organised as follows. The second part of the paper discusses the socialcontract for ‘applicable’ science. This is done by addressing the rationale for publicinvestment in research discussed in the literature (2.1), trends in science andtechnology policy targeting socio-economic goals in Sweden and the UK (2.2), andintroducing a typology for views on university-industry relations (2.3). This isfollowed by the empirical case studies of research funding from private-non-profit(PNP) and strategic research organisations. Then, a comparative case study analysisof research assessment procedures is presented and discussed in the context of thetypology. Finally, concluding remarks and areas of further research are outlined.

2. The social contract of ‘applicable’ science

The notion of a social approach of ‘applicable’ science is suggested in the light of thedebate of the roles of basic and applied science and social returns of science (Nelson1959; Gibbons and Johnston 1974; Pavitt 1991; Callon 1994; Pavitt 1998; Pavitt2000). The distinction between basic and applied research provided in the Frascatimanual (OECD 1994) is that applied research is “directed towards a specific practicalaim or objective while basic research is undertaken without any particular applicationor use in mind”. However, the literature stresses the importance of basic science interms of usefulness of both theories and human resources in the industrial applicationof new knowledge. Another aspect is added to the debate on basic-applied sciencewhen considering strategic science as research required to achieve national strategicobjectives and originating either from market-pull or technology push (Senker 1990).

2.1 Rationale for research funding

The rationale for public funding of research at universities relates to their role ineducation, pursuing academic research and also increasingly responding to socio-economic expectations on science. Those expected benefits relate both to economicgrowth and societal utility (Benner and Sandström 2000). In the EU context, researchpolicy is increasingly motivated by its benefits to the European society at large(Petersen and Sharp 1998). In the Frascati manual R&D is described to “comprisecreative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock ofknowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use this stock ofknowledge to devise new applications” (OECD 1994). The definition itself givessome guidance of what the expected benefits of R&D are in terms of increasing thestock of knowledge and the use of knowledge in new applications.

The assessment processes in evaluating output of basic science is discussed inliterature highlighting the importance and difficulties in selecting criteriaacknowledging the wide range of outputs from different scientific activities (Irvineand Martin 1984) and also drawing on experiences of seminal studies such asHindsight and Traces (Mowery and Rosenberg 1979). Assessing the value ofacademic R&D is associated with considerable problems concerned with measuringthe benefits in ex ante evaluations (Jacobsson 2002). Four of these problems are

5

related to i) taking ‘secondary’ innovations into account when assessing potential ofnew technology, ii) assessing uncertainties about future impact of an innovation, iii)requirement of complementary technologies, and iv) assessing national or regionalbenefits that depends on the functioning of technological systems that are not limitedby national boarders.

Different lines of arguments are put forward in describing the contribution ofscientific activity to the innovation process. Arguments linked to public researchfunding are described with the classic market failure of private under-investment inbasic research due to limitations for industry to appropriate the benefits of the R&Dinvestments (Nelson 1959; Scherer 1999). The market failure is considered to be moreserious for basic than applied research and therefore justifies public intervention.Discussion on the contribution of basic research raises questions on quantifying thereturns of basic science. The returns of basic science are considered to be high butpossibilities of quantification limited borne in the rich set of relationships betweenresearch and innovation, science and technology (Scott, Steyn et al. 2001). Threeother arguments from literature on the contribution of basic science are outlinedbelow also stressing the importance of public funding.

First, one argument is related to the contribution of basic science to innovations(Gibbons and Johnston 1974). The character of information from scientificpublications used for innovation has been found to be two kinds of ‘scientific output’both with a character of being the core of scientific activities. The information fromscientific literature used for innovations was dealing with either properties ofmaterials and components, or with laws, theories and general principles. Secondly, theargument that science has an important role of providing flexibility and variety insociety (Callon 1994). Publicly funded science is seen as a source providingflexibility and variety as a counterbalance to mechanisms operating in the oppositedirection in private (market driven) science. In a similar line of argument,requirements of ‘demonstrated applicability’ may bias the capabilities formed at theexpense of quality (less path-breaking work) and variety (Jacobsson 2002). Thirdly,the complementarities of basic and applied science are suggested and justification ofpublic funding is not primarily based on the appropriability problem (Pavitt 1991).Instead arguments are based on: i) that history tells us that it is not possible to foreseeall possible applications in advance, ii) economic importance of basic science as aninfrastructure used to attract or sustain national or international firms in a region, andiii) the provision of research skills. The latter justification for public subsidy of basicresearch is especially emphasised and is based on that private firms do not fullybenefit from this investment since researchers once trained can move and workelsewhere.

To conclude, the debate on justification of R&D funding and allocation of funds forbasic and applied science is ongoing and further strengthened in a time characterisedby linking science policy to socio-economic goals and accountability. In this contextthe debate of the new role of universities in contributing to industrial innovation(Rosenberg and Nelson 1993; Mansfield and Lee 1996) and evaluations of universityperformance (RTD 2002) are other components of the social contract for science.

6

2.2 Trends in S&T policy targeting socio-economic goals

In addressing the social contract for science and development of S&T policy targetingsocio-economic goals, the influential report by Vannevar Bush gives further insightinto the boost and development of the research sector after the Second-World War.Bush’s report The Endless Frontier (Bush 1945) draws on the usefulness of science inthe war period and emphasises that ensuring the autonomy of scientific activities andresearchers best provides the added value of science. The Bush report served as arhetorical tool ensuring autonomy of science as well as funding for basic science(Crow and Tucker 2001). This period, just after the war is described as a phase wherescience policy was heavily influenced by the role of science during Second WorldWar and the Cold War. This supply-side approach of research policy wasaccompanied by a general acceptance that an expansion of scientific research wouldultimately benefit the economy (Freeman 1987). In Sweden, the first (technical)research council was established in 1942 followed by several other research councils(in natural sciences, medicine etc) during the 1940s.

A demand-driven approach in the 1960s and 1970s with emphasis on cost efficiencyand the demands from both government and industry followed this period. In the UK,this is manifested by the policy document the Rotschild report in the start of 1970semphasising the importance of demand driven research (Freeman 1987) based on acontractor-consumer approach. Programmes, such as the Teaching Company Scheme(TCS) were implemented in the 1970s to “support research which had economic,industrial or social relevance” (Senker and Senker 1997) in addition to LINKprogrammes for the promotion of university-industry links (Senker 1995; Gristockand Senker 1999). During the 1960s a number of sector oriented research councilswere established in Sweden. In the mid 1970s a reform of the research councils wascarried out resulting in the creation of the Council for Planning and Coordination ofResearch with a more applied mission and with lay people on the board (Skoie 1998)compared to than traditional (non-sector) research councils created in the 1940s.

The third period starting in early 1980s is characterised by an attempt to link scienceand technology policy to policy for industry and the economy (Freeman 1987). Theperiodization applied by Freeman is referred to reflecting the economist perspectivewith focus on the role of science for industrial innovation (Elzinga and Jamison1994). The start of the first period (1940-50s) also reflects the start of a new techno-economic paradigm based on innovations in electronics, petrochemicals and atomicenergy, followed by a second period (1960-70s) characterised by increased attentionto cost-effectiveness and the demand side. Then the third period with a combineddemand-supply focus starts in the mid 1980s with a techno-economic paradigm basedon microelectronics, biotechnology and new industrial materials.

The third period is also described as a shift from post Second World War rationale forfunding towards a ‘competitive approach to funding’ (Geuna 1999). This newapproach to funding has an increased focus on higher level of accountability, costreduction and also stressing the mechanisms, such as competitive funding, used toreinforce this. The White paper Realising Our Potential (HMSO 1993) sets the roadahead for the governmental S&T policy characterised by ‘value for money’ (Gristockand Senker 1999) and the introduction of technology Foresight in the UK. There wasalso a change in organisation of research councils following the 1993 White paper and

7

the mission of the research councils was changed with the explicit intention that eachcouncil should have a clear focus on meeting the needs of the users of research(Senker 1998). In Sweden technology policy was institutionally established in the late1960s with the creation of governmental agency for technological development(STU). Its current successor, Vinnova, aims to promote (efficient) collaborationadopting the innovation systems approach (Vinnova 2002b). A recent review of thesupport to demand-driven (or mission oriented) research highlighted areas of digitalcommunication, fibre-optics and biotechnology (Vinnova 2002a). The characteristicsof trends of S&T policy in the three periods are outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Characteristic features of three phases of S&T policy in UK and in Sweden.

The public research foundations play an important role in research policy in Swedenas well in the UK in terms of allocation policy for research funding. In Sweden,strategic research foundations were created by the transformation of “wage earners’investments funds” that took place in 1993 and 1994 when these funds weredeveloped into several independent (out of government control) research foundations.The origin of the wage earners’ funds is an industrial profit sharing scheme initiatedby the Social democrats to increase the influence of workers by union controlledownership stakes (Skoie 1998). Then these funds were transformed into researchfunds by the Conservative government. These strategic foundations fund research inthe areas of natural, technical, and medical science (Strategic research foundation)and strategic environmental research (MISTRA). The Bank of Sweden TercentenaryFoundation, that received a further donation from the wage earners’ funds, supportsresearch within humanities and social sciences (SRJ 2002; SSF 2002).

Supply-push1940s and 1950s

Expanding the resourcebase for research willultimately benefit the

economy

Demand-pull1960s and 1970s

S&T responsiveness toneeds and wants of

society

Social contract ofscience

1980s - today‘Competitive approach‘and S&T policy linked to

socio-economic goalsand industrial policy

UK Post WWII research Rothschild report:contractors-consumers

Policy programs foruniversity-industry links(TCS, LINK etc)

Support strategic scienceand new technologies

1993 White paper‘Value for money’

S&T Foresight

Sweden Development of researchcouncils for basic science

Development of sector-and mission orientedresearch councils andS&T policy

Creation of strategicresearch foundations, 1994

Policy for efficient andaccountable innovationsystem and R&D funding

Technology Foresight

8

One remark when comparing Sweden and UK with regards to university researchfunding from private non-profit organisations (PNP) is that the total level of fundingfrom private non-governmental foundations in Sweden (PNP and strategicfoundations from former wage earners’ funds) is at about the same level of relativefunding as private non-profit organisations accounted for in UK (Table 1). The twocountries have 16-18% of their funding secured from private (non-governmental)foundations. In the case of Sweden, one third of that is from strategic foundations(SCB 2001) with explicit aims stated about university-industry links in advances inknowledge and innovation, but also with regards to research-business interaction inenvironmentally strategic research (TFR 1997; Mistra 2003). The PNP researchfunding in the UK comes from charity organisations (heart foundation, cancerresearch, etc) where close networks with industry are rather recent developments inthe charitable sector (EC 1999).

Table 1. Relative importance of sources of university research during the 1990s in Swedenand the UK. Source OECD (2003).

Other measures of formal links between university and industry, shown in table 1, arefunding from business of university-based research (4% in Sweden and 7% in theUK). However less aggregated data at sector level provides more accurate informationand indicates a higher level in scientific fields like pharmaceuticals (17%) than inother areas (Sandström and Hällsten 2003). Experiences from industrial funding ofenvironmental research in the sustainable technologies initiative (STI) also show avariation between research projects with different consortium arrangements (47% forLINK projects and about 16% for other STI-projects).

2.3 Typology for views of university-industry links

Perceptions of added value of university-industry links are embedded in the trendstowards demands on higher social and economic relevance and accountability whererationale for funding now to a higher extent is targeting industrial and socio-economicobjectives. In the light of these trends of science and technology policy and the socialcontract for science, the debate of the contribution and returns of basic science to theeconomy and society at large and the commercialisation of research has received newattention.

The increased focus on commercialization of new knowledge and how to capitalisefrom investments in research has also raised concerns about possible consequences onthe nature of ‘open science’ community (David 1998a) and development of dualentrepreneurial and academic faculty roles (Owen-Smith and Powell 2001). The study

Source of funds for Higher Educationexpenditure on R&D

Sweden1995 1999

UK 1995 1999

General University funds (GUF) 56,8 % 47,3 % 37,7 % 34,8 %Direct Government Funding (DGF) 26,8 % 25,2 % 30,1 % 30,1 %Own funds (HE) 3,0 % 1,4 % 4,2 % 4,1 %Business (BUS) 4,6 % 3,9 % 6,3 % 7,3 %Private Non Profit organisations (PNP) 6,1 % 17,6 % 14,0 % 15,8 %Abroad 2,7 % 4,6 % 7,7 % 8,0 %

9

by Owen-Smith and Powell applies a typology1 that sheds some light on faculty viewson university-industry collaboration and commercialization that goes beyond thedichotomy of positive and negative views. Changing institutional mandates foruniversities are mentioned as one factor driving increased commercialization ofuniversity research (Owen-Smith and Powell 2001). The policymakers are concernedwith increased returns of research spending and how to enhance efficiency of theinnovation system also bringing attention to increased commercialization andpatenting of university-based research. Effects from university patenting have beenaddressed (Geuna and Nesta 2003) discussing (positive and negative) impact onuniversity activities in research and education.

The study by Owen-Smith and Powell (2001) characterises the researchers in fourtypes (A-D) according to their view on university and industry collaboration andwhether or not academia is threatened by commercialization. The typology wasdeveloped to characterise different types of academic views on university-industryinteraction and their responses to commercialization of research. In this paper thetypology is used to characterise policies and procedures of the funding agents foruniversity-industry interaction and responses to science based commercialopportunities. Below is a brief introduction to the views expressed in the typology:

A) Old-School: does not engage in commercial activities, different rewardstructures apply for industry (patent, start-ups) and academia (publications);

B) Reluctant Entrepreneur: engages in patenting ensure autonomy up ofuniversity-based research;

C) New-School: commercial engagement does not threat university science,successful research requires mobilisation of both academy and industry;

D) Engaged Traditionalist: engage in commercial activities, but share view withOld-school that academia is a special world governed by well understood rulesdesigned to advance and validate research.

The four case studies of this paper all engage in university-industry collaborationand also undertake commercialization activities, and hence represent the Reluctantentrepreneur, Engaged traditionalist or the New-school, rather than the Old-school. This will be further discussed later in the paper.

1 The Owen-Smith and Powell (2001) typology is hereafter referred to as the OSP-typology.

10

Figure 2. Typology of views of university-industry relations and responses to science basedcommercialization. Source: Owen-Smith and Powell (2001).

This paper acknowledges that the character of university-industry links vary betweendifferent scientific disciplines and technology areas. In this paper the analysis ofuniversity-industry interaction is applied to strategic environmental research andbiomedical science. Even though the two areas have quite different character withregards to scientific knowledge base and empirical methods, both have strong links topublic (environmental and health) policy. There are also associated expectations onsocial returns of research and application of research in society to enhance efficiency(of natural resource consumption) as well as reducing costs (for public health care).The typology above was developed for the life science area where thecommercialization is driven by new funding opportunities, changing institutionalmandates for university, and novel research technologies that bring basic science andproduct development into much closer contact (Owen-Smith and Powell 2001). In thearea of (strategic) environmental research, there is a strong emphasis on the role ofuser groups in assessing applicability of research (Scott 2001), even though there areexamples of policies with focus on commercialization (SOU 1998). The importanceof patient groups has also been addressed in the area of biomedical research(Rangnekar 2002).

In addition to this, there is an increased attention paid to ‘third stream activities’ ofuniversities (Caloghirou, Vonortas et al. 2002; Molas-Gallart, Salter et al. 2002) inboth Sweden and UK. This ‘third mission’ of universities is related to their interactionwith the rest of the society and adding up to the roles of teaching and researchtraditionally assigned to universities. University’s inputs to industry have beendescribed in trained individuals, publications, and joint research (Geuna 1999).Factors explaining increased university-industry links relate to both the supply-pushand demand-pull dimension of the interaction as well as the (technology-transfer)policies implemented to stimulate the market demand for scientific and technologicalknowledge (Senker 1995). In the case of Sweden this third role of universities islegally regulated in the law defining university tasks (Caloghirou, Vonortas et al.2002) and was introduced in 1997 (Riksdagen 1997). In the UK, the discussion ofthird stream activities makes a recent addition to the debate on how to measure andassess third stream activities (Molas-Gallart, Salter et al. 2002).

A) Old-SchoolB) ReluctantEntrepreneur

C) New-SchoolD) Engaged

Traditionalist

Academy threatened by commercialization

Academy not threatened by commercialization

Academy &industry are

distinct

Academy &industryoverlap

11

The UK emphasises commercial exploitation of research by establishments ofmechanisms such as LINK and development of technology transfer infrastructure (EC1999). Policy for interaction between university and business has also been active inSweden during the 1990s and includes the creation of bridging institutions anduniversity owned holding companies (Okubo and Sjöberg 2000;Näringsdepartementet 2001). These technology-bridging organisations and holdingcompanies are considered to be important components to assure that the knowledgethat is within universities to a greater extent can be utilised in products, services andprocesses to develop and create new companies (Näringsdepartementet 2001).Moreover, the research foundations created in 1994 are linked to policy of supportingstrategic research with prospects for industrial applications.

3. Case studies in biomedical research funding

The two case studies for the area of biomedical research are: the Swedish foundationfor strategic science (SSF) and the Wellcome trust in the UK.

Figure 3. Case studies in biomedical research: Swedish foundation for strategic research(SSF) and the Wellcome trust.

These two funding agents fund research in the area often referred to as biotechnologyor life sciences. In defining the biotechnology industry either a list approach is applied(EC 1999) or a general definition of biotechnology is outlined. Examples of the latter(BIO 2003) is to describe biotechnology by dividing the word ‘biotechnology’ intobio (the use of biological processes) and technology (to solve problems or makeuseful products) and thereby describing “biotechnology is a collection of technologiesthat capitalize on the attributes of cells, such as their manufacturing capabilities, andput biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, to work for us”. Biotechnologyis also described in the context of life sciences, where biotechnology is the applicationof biotech science and technology associated with molecular, cellular and geneticprocesses for development of products and services. The life sciences area, isnormally seen as a broader area, and includes medical equipment and instruments,research contracts, the pharmaceutical industry, animal and veterinary products (ITPS

Aim for funding research Yearestablished

Annual budget forresearch funding andCapital assets

SSF(Sweden)

Support scientific, technical, andmedical research and promote thedevelopment of important researchenvironments of the highestinternational standards with a viewof enhancing Swedishcompetitiveness

1994500 million SEKallocated in 2003(About 58 million €)

Capital:8 600 million SEK(About 946 million €)

TheWellcomeTrust(UK)

To foster and promote research withthe aim of improving human andanimal health

1936Annual expenditure:£ 400 million(About 556 million €)

Capital: £ 9,3 billion(About 13 billion €)

12

2003). The Wellcome trust applies the term ‘biomedical science’ on their researchwhile the Swedish foundation for strategic science (SSF) earlier used the term‘biosciences’ and now applies ‘life sciences’ including biochemistry, biomedicine andbiotechnology in the life sciences concept.

3.1 Swedish foundation for strategic research

The Swedish foundation for strategic research (SSF) statutes outline that“The objective of SSF is to support scientific, technical, and medical research. Weshall promote the development of important research environments of the highestinternational standards with a view of enhancing Swedish competitiveness” (SSF2003). The life sciences area accounted for about 23% of the research funded between1996 and 2001 (SSF Activity Report 2002). Other important areas of research fundingare information technology, chemistry and process technology, materials sciences,microelectronics, and manufacturing and production technology.

The foundation acknowledges the role of innovation and university industry links instating that: “There is no longer any doubt that economic growth and competitivenessof the country in general depends on the development of new and improved products,science, technology and the transfer of university generated knowledge to thedevelopers of the innovation system.” (SSF Activity Report 2002, p.19).Opportunities of interaction between university and industry is described in terms ofcreating win-win situations, using synergies among different actors, forming alliancesbetween scientists and industry, and creating networks and relationships with actors tointeract on technology transfer and market opportunities.

Assessment of research is made ex ante (before the project has started and hence thereare no results) and ex-post (when the project is finished and its results are known).Important issues included in ex-ante assessment2 are: the relevance to the objectivesof the call, the potential impact, the scientific and technical excellence, and the qualityof the proposers (including commitment to the task proposed and industrialconnections). Mid-term assessments (ad-interim) that are carried out for programs arealso addressing prospects for application of research. The ex-post evaluation includescriteria on the result and impact of the project, goal fulfilment, scientific and/ortechnical excellence that advances state-of-the-art, and how well members or projectteam fulfilled their obligations. Methods of evaluation applied by the foundation arebased on peer review and societal-science-based methods. A group of peers is used asa tool of scientific evaluation but can also be instructed to use a wider perspectivethan the ‘purely’ scientific context. Among societal-science-based methods appliedare cost/benefit analysis, econometric techniques, before/after comparisons, foresightstudies, benchmarking, interviews, enquires, bibliometrics and statistical methods.

3.2 The Wellcome trust in the UK

The Wellcome trust is an independent research-funding charity, established under thewill of Sir Henry Wellcome in 1936. It is funded from a private endowment, which ismanaged with long-term stability and growth in mind (Wellcome 2003). Its mission is'to foster and promote research with the aim of improving human and animal health'.

2 The foundation states that for ex ante the term ‘assessment’ is preferred as rather than ‘evaluation’.

13

The trust supports 'blue skies' research and applied clinical research and alsoencourages the exploitation of research findings for medical benefit.

The operational objectives that are formulated to achieve the goal address four areasof activities (Annual review 2002):• Knowledge: supporting basic, applied and strategically important research in

biomedical sciences and address the societal impact of biomedical science;• Resources: human resources (training and career development of researchers) and

physical resources (building suitable conditions for research);• Translation: promoting patent oriented research and health services research, and

advance dissemination and exploitation of research funded by the trust;• Public engagement: stimulate an informed dialogue for improved understanding

of biomedical science (achievements, applications and implications).

Assessments of grant applications are based on peer review process where the Trust’sadvisory committees comprise independent scientist from the research community.The Wellcome trust also funds research in consortiums with both researchers fromuniversity and industrial partners. Two examples of such consortiums where there isalso industrial funding are the SNP3 consortium and the Structural genomicsconsortium.

4. Case studies in strategic environmental research funding

The two case studies selected the area of strategic environmental research are theSwedish foundation for strategic environmental research (MISTRA) and theSustainable Technologies Initiative (STI) in the UK.

Figure 4. Case studies in strategic environmental research: the Swedish foundation forstrategic environmental research (MISTRA) and the Sustainable technologies initiative (STI)in the UK.

3 Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP): DNA sequence variation among individuals.

Aim for funding research Yearestablished

Annual budget forresearch funding andCapital assets

MISTRA(Sweden)

Support research of strategicimportance for a good livingenvironment and promote thedevelopment of robust researchenvironments of the highestinternational class that will have apositive impact on Sweden's futurecompetitiveness

1994250 million SEK(About 28 million €)

Capital: 4 000 millionSEK in start of 2002(About 438 million €)

STI(UK)

Encouraging technological changes,which will sustain the UK’s growthwhile reducing its environmentalimpact

2000In total £ 20 millionallocated over 5 years(About 28 million €)

14

4.1 Swedish foundation for strategic environmental research

The Swedish foundation for strategic environmental research (MISTRA) distributesabout SEK 250 million annually and funds research programs over a time period of 6to 8 years (Mistra 2003). The aim of the foundation is to support research of strategicimportance for a good living environment. The foundation shall promote thedevelopment of robust research environments of the highest international class thatwill have a positive impact on Sweden's future competitiveness. The research shallplay a significant role in solving major environmental problems and contribute to thedevelopment of a sustainable society. The potential for achieving industrialapplications shall be realised as far as possible.

A MISTRA programme proposal will be (ex-ante) evaluated by Swedish andinternational experts according to four criteria:- The proposed environmental problem must be relevant;- The proposed research programme must be of high scientific quality;- There must be a plan detailing how the research results will be put to practical use;- The management team must be able to provide written proof of its proficiency.

The foundation MISTRA represents a new way of organising research building onconsortiums of university and industry. It is clearly steered by requirements forpractical implementation and applications than council-financed research. Thefunding is considered to be complementary to the research funded by governmentresearch councils and authorities. Decisions about funding of proposals are made bythe board of MISTRA. After the MISTRA board has made its decision, a programmecommittee is appointed. A decision also means that funds have been reserved for thatphase, normally of three to four years. The MISTRA programs also apply ad-interimevaluation. As the initial phase approaches its conclusion, the programme is evaluatedboth from a scientific quality point of view and in terms of its scope for practicalimplementation. If both evaluations are positive, the programme can expect fundingfor a second phase. At this stage, practical implementation should be even more infocus. The ex-post evaluations of funded programs include criteria relating to bothscientific excellence and ‘applicability’ of research since a MISTRA program isconsidered to be successful when research of high international level is put topractical use.

There are also requirements on that the programmes must be concluded in asystematic manner. This includes a comprehensive account of research results, theirpracticality and benefits to be gained from the research. In addition to this, thereshould also be a summary addressing human capital aspects (how the level ofproficiency has been advanced and where the researchers have gone) and a plan forhow the research can be sustained after the program has ended.

4.2 Sustainable technologies initiative in the UK

The sustainable technology initiative (STI) is aimed primarily at encouragingtechnological changes, which will sustain the UK’s growth while reducing itsenvironmental impact (STI 2003). The sponsors of the program are: BBSRC(Biotechnology and biological sciences research council), DEFRA (Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs), DTI (Department of Trade and Industry),

15

EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) and ESRC (Economic& Social Research Council). DTI is the biggest source of funds for STI and theprogram was developed building on earlier experiences in funding initiatives incleaner technologies and waste minimisation. The program funds research for about £20 million between 2000 and 2005.

Funding of STI-research is made by four channels: LINK projects (university andindustry), DTI grants (only industry), networks (not industry), and by fellowships toacademia. In September 2003, there were 31 projects within STI and 12 of them arecollaborative LINK projects with both university and industrial partners. The projectsin LINK are rather big and account for about 60% of the total expected costs. Theprojects receive up to 50% governmental funding and the remaining share is to beprovided by the industrial partners. In the invitation for proposals, research proposalsthat are drawn up in response to commercial pressures and which open up new marketopportunities are encouraged.

The aim of the Sustainable technologies initiative (STI) is to get UK business, inconjunction with the science base, to develop and adopt new technologies which aremore sustainable and which will contribute to sustainable development andcompetitiveness. The government’s vision of sustainable development includes theobjectives: maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth andemployment, social progress which recognises the needs of everyone, effectiveprotection of the environment, and prudent use of natural resources.

There are five priority themes outlined for STI. These are building on the three pillarsof sustainable development (economic growth, protection of the environment, andsocial equity) and cover:

- Step changes (4-fold to 10-fold improvements) in the efficient use of resources- Reducing hazardous material content or output of products and processes- New products, processes and service concepts, which optimise the useable life of products- Non-food uses of crops aiming to promote the use of agricultural crop products in industry- Enhanced social inclusion via new products and processes

The research proposals including academic partners are assessed (ex-ante) using theprocedures of the research councils (BBSRC, EPSRC and ESRC) while proposalswithout academic partners may be approached by DTI. The criteria applied by DTI onthe ex-ante assessment of projects are to fit with the technical scope of theprogramme, relevance to aims, innovative nature and technical quality, potential fordissemination and commercialisation, management quality, multi-disciplinarilyresearch, SME involvement, quality and value for money in research, andadditionality that provides justification for government support.

16

5. Comparative case study analysis

This part of the paper draws on results from the questionnaire-based interviews withrepresentatives from the four research funding organisations. The questionnaire4

addressed how the organisations assess goal fulfilment of the research they fund andwhat criteria that are applied in ex-ante, ad-interim and ex-post research assessment5.Background material, such as annual reports, research project descriptions and policyguidelines, provide further information about reporting procedures for outputs andresults from research. The literature addressing the rationale for public funding andsocial contract for science draws attention to several difficulties and limitations ofassessment of the contribution of science to innovation. These relate to inherentcharacteristics of innovation processes, accounting for uncertainty and diversity, butalso accounting for the vide range of different types of outputs that research generates.The research funding organisations emphasise the importance of application ofresearch and hence it is of interest to learn more about the procedures of researchassessment, given the arguments provided in the literature.

The paper draws attention to assessment of output of research and characteristics ofresearch assessment criteria and the section below discusses the related questions:How is output of research addressed in the case studies with regards to humanresources and intellectual property rights? How are university-industry links takeninto consideration in the research assessment criteria?

Knowledge embodied in skilled graduates that ultimately benefit industry isconsidered to be a major contribution of science to industrial innovation (Gibbons andJohnston 1974). The Swedish case study in biomedical science shows that humanresources is central in policy for university-industry interaction. Industry interaction isstressed in the assessment procedures of the graduate schools’ research activities. Theschools and research networks in biomedical science that are funded by the strategicfoundations were established to enhance the recruitment of qualified employees to thepharmaceutical industry (SSF 2000). The Wellcome trust also emphasises theimportance of research funding of human resources (training and career developmentof researchers) in addition to and physical resources. The case studies inenvironmental research show that knowledge is also embodied in best practices orroutines. The importance of best practices elaborated in collaboration betweenuniversity and industry and other user groups is emphasised. One example ofinvolvement of industrial and sector organisations in the development of bestpractices and process innovations can be found in the MISTRA-project Eco-cyclicpulp mill. This project aims to reduce resource consumption and emissions andemphasises the importance of user-groups in the development of new knowledge withindustrial applications.

4 Appendix 1 (questionnaire) and Appendix 2 (interviews and background material).5 Questions 5 and 6 in questionnaire.

17

The focus on commercialisation and intellectual property rights (IPR) in the casestudies suggests that knowledge production is manifested in intellectual property inaddition to publications. The case studies in both scientific areas show that output ofresearch projects is accounted for both in scientific publications and in patents. Allfour case studies address university-industry links and IPR in the policy documentsfor guidelines of research funding. The foundations require (in grant conditions,guidelines for funding etc) that the receiver of funding (or consortium of receivers)should ensure that IPR arrangements are addressed satisfactory. In the UK case studyin biomedical research funding, the technology transfer division handles IPRarrangements as opposed to the Swedish case. Figure 5 outlines characteristicfeatures of the formal university-industry links and IPR arrangements.

Formal university-industry links IPR arrangementsSSF(Biomedical-Sweden)

Funds biomedical graduate schools (6)and research networks with U-I links

IPR is managed by university

The Wellcome trust(Biomedical - UK)

University-industry consortiums (2)Technology transfer division at the trust

IPR-agreement betweenWellcome trust’s technologytransfer division and university

MISTRA(Environment-Sweden)

Programs with formal U-I links (8 of 27)50% of MISTRA-projects are incommercial focus programmes

IPR managed by universitysome administrative supportfrom research foundation

STI(Environment - UK)

All STI-projects have industrial partnerscontributing to research funding

IPR developed by industrialpartners unless other agreement

Figure 5. Formal relations between university and industry (U-I links) and IPR arrangementsin funding biomedical science and strategic environmental research.

Not all projects funded by the Sustainable technologies (STI) are targetingcommercial application and patents, but all STI-projects have industrial funding inaddition to the research funding received from the government. For the LINK-projects, DTI provides guidelines on the requirements of arrangements for IPR. Theguidelines state that, the results of the project will usually be vested in the industrialparticipants. The guidelines also provide recommendations on compensation toresearchers in the projects regulating that the business partners should recompense theresearch base partners on a basis, which represents a fair and reasonable return to theircontribution in relation to the contribution of other partners. The guidelines also coverregulation of licensing issues between partners in the project and external to theproject. Commercial application is explicitly stated in the policy of MISTRA and oneof the three program areas is focusing on commercial applications. This programmesupports research aiming at commercial exploitation and patenting6 but also fundsresearch in earlier development phases prior to commercial application.

6 A review of annual reports from 11 programmes (out of 13 in commercial focus theme) resulted in 7patents granted (and 10 patent applications) distributed in four of the programmes.

18

The question, about how university-industry links are taken into consideration in theresearch assessment, is discussed based on the information about research assessmentcriteria (ex-ante, ad-interim, and ex-post) for biomedical science (figure 6a) andstrategic environmental research (Figure 6b).

Figure 6a and 6b. Assessment criteria applied for case studies in biomedical science (SSF -Swedish foundation for strategic research and the Wellcome trust) and in strategicenvironmental research (MISTRA - Swedish foundation for strategic environmental researchand STI - Sustainable technologies initiative).

BiomedicalScience(Fig. 6a)

Ex-anteAssessment Criteria

Ad-interimAssessment criteria

Ex-postAssessment criteria

SSF Relevance to the objectivesof the call, the potentialimpact, the scientific andtechnical excellence, and thequality of the proposers(commitment and industryconnections)

Mid-term assessment ofresearch funded basedon review of researcheducation, researchactivities, interactionwith industry, programmanagement

Results and impactof the project, goalfulfilment, scientificand/or technicalexcellence thatadvances state-of-the-art, and howwell members orproject teamfulfilled obligations

The WellcomeTrust Peer review Only few projects have

mid-term assessmentPeer review

StrategicEnvironmentalResearch(Fig 6b)

Ex-anteAssessment criteria

Ad-interimAssessment criteria

Ex-postAssessment criteria

MISTRA1. Relevance ofenvironmental problem2. Scientific quality3. Putting results topractical use4. Proof of proficiency formanagement team

Scientific quality andpotential for practicalapplication assessed after3 years for future funds:1. Review of programprerequisites and visions2. Review present results3. Future plans

When research ofhigh internationallevel is put topractical use

STI Peer review criteria:Fit technical scope ofprogramme, Relevance toaims, Innovative nature andtechnical quality, Potentialfor dissemination andcommercial exploitation,Management quality, Multi-disciplinarily work, SMEinvolvement, Researchquality and value formoney, and Additionality.

Not applied in STI To be decided

19

In both the Swedish foundations, the role of practical application of research isstressed. In the case of research funding of Life sciences in Sweden university-industry interaction is stressed in both ex-ante assessments and ad-interimevaluations. Many programmes will be completed within a few years. Whileacknowledging the individual character of each programme in Sweden and the UK, aharmonised collection of data could facilitate ex-post evaluations of groups ofprojects building on quantitative methods (such as patent and bibliometrics) inaddition to peer review evaluations.

6. The OSP-typology revisited

This section of the paper discusses the case studies in the context of the typology onview on university industry relations developed by Owen-Smith and Powell (OSP-typology) introduced in section 2.3 of the paper. The typology was developed basedon interviews with researchers. Here it is applied to the organizational level ofresearch funding organisations to illustrate the character of their policies and attitudestowards university-industry links and commercialisation of research. The applicationto an organizational level implies some limitations of the typology, sinceorganisations can adopt different (parallel) approaches to relations to industry as wellas to commercialisation of university-based research. Taking this into consideration,the typology serves as an illustrative model to characterise the policies on university-industry links and commercialisation of research.

The OSP-typology addresses views on university-industry interaction also with regardto engagement in commercialization. The four foundations all have university-industry collaboration and all engage in commercialisation activities, and hencerepresent the Reluctant entrepreneur (B), Engaged traditionalist (D) or the New-school (C), rather than the Old-school (A). According to the typology, the Engagedtraditionalist share the view with Old-school that academia is a special worldgoverned by well understood rules designed to advance and validate research. TheWellcome trust shares characteristics with the Engaged traditionalist in that theresearch assessment takes place by peer review based exclusively on scientificexcellence. This distinguishes the trust from the other three case studies (typified asNew-school) where criteria of industrial application and potential forcommercialization are also included in (ex-ante) research assessment. The trustengages in commercialization of research by the technology transfer division and theresearch consortium initiatives involve both academic and industrial partners. It alsoemphasise the importance of responsible patenting that does not hamper newadvances in science. The Swedish foundation for strategic research (SSF) on the otherhand, is located in the New-school domain since the importance of promotingcompetitiveness is included in the objectives and (ex-ante) assessment criteria of thefoundation. This is also the case for the Swedish foundation for strategicenvironmental research (MISTRA) that applies the (ex-post) criteria that successfulresearch is research of high international level that is put to practical use.

20

Figure 7. The four research funding organisations and their position in the typology for viewson university-industry interaction. The Engaged traditionalist (D): The Wellcome trust.The New school (C): STI – the Sustainable technologies initiative, MISTRA – the Swedishfoundation for strategic environmental research, and SSF – the Swedish foundation forstrategic research.

Within STI (the Sustainable technologies initiative) the industrial partners usuallyappropriate the IPR. Hence, the STI is positioned further to the left in the typology,compared to MISTRA, sharing the view with the Engaged traditionalist thatuniversity and industry are distinct with regards to reward structures. The interviewwith MISTRA has indicated a greater heterogeneity with four types of formallyagreed IPR-arrangements between academia and industry that participate in theresearch consortium: industry-focused (meaning that the companies applies forpatents and compensate the researchers), researcher-focused (meaning that theresearchers in the project forms a company where the IPR are located and then theresearcher-owned company make licensing agreements with industrial partners),hybrid-solution (meaning that there are consensual agreements so companies canacquire product patents while the researchers own basic and process patents through acompany), and time-limited (consensual agreement between companies andresearchers so the companies have first rights and there is a clause that the rights goesback to the researchers if knowledge is not commercialised within a certain time byindustrial partners). Other programs funding strategic science (not included in the casestudies here) raise the issue of confidentiality agreements.

The replies from interviews7 indicate that the foundations consider commercialactivities, patents and licences to be of somewhat greater importance for industry,than for academia in the research consortiums funded. However this is to beinterpreted with care due to the limited number of interviews and the aggregated levelof enquiry. Publications were considered to be of higher importance for academia forall cases. The study also shows that IPR-agreements, delay in publication due topatenting, information sharing within research consortium etc, are addressed in the

7 This question (number 14 in questionnaire) was adapted from a study on participation in collaborativeresearch in EU-programmes: Luukkonen and Niskanen (1998).

Policies to limit/eliminate conflictsof interest on IPR-arrangements Academy

& Industryoverlap

No threat of commercialization

WellcomeTrust

STI MISTRA

SSF

Threat of commercialization

Academy& Industryare distinct

C

B

D

A

21

procedures of the foundations. This indicates that the foundations recognise differentreward structures that influences incentives for dissemination and appropriation ofknowledge addressed in the literature on social and private returns of research(Dasgupta and David 1994; David 1998b). One example of awareness of this is theWellcome trust that considers it to important to adopt a responsible policy to avoidopportunistic patenting that would hamper advances of knowledge and new researchapproaches in line with the aims of the trust.

7. Concluding remarks and further research

This paper draws attention to assessment of output of research and expected benefitsarising from interaction between university and industry. The issues of researchassessment and university-industry links are both central to studies of innovation. Thefocus of this paper is to address what characterise research assessment criteria used byfunding agents that target research with industrial application and close links to socio-economic goals. The case studies shows that the foundations and trusts are attributingvalue to university-industry interaction in research. Promotion of such links isfocusing on the aspects of human resources, best practices and intellectual property intargeting socio-economic objectives and innovation. University-industry interaction isaddressed in the objectives and research assessment criteria applied by fundingagents. Policies of the trusts and foundations thereby acts to reinforce multiplecoupling8 in the creation of research environments characterised by interaction andexchange of people and ideas between university and industry.

Both Sweden and the UK have set strategic objectives about advances in science andtechnology to strengthen the innovation system. Policies implemented to promotestrong and efficient innovation systems needs to, not only develop capabilities inrelevant scientific fields, but also make use of synergies between different scientificdisciplines and technology areas. The funding of strategic science relates to achieving(national) strategic objectives. Hence, funding of strategic science benefits fromtaking into consideration that advances of science and technology in one area canprovide opportunities for application in other scientific fields. The first area of furtherresearch is therefore suggesting a careful analysis of synergies and links betweendifferent science and technology areas. This examination would preferably build ondata on publications, patents and citations in combination with a case study approachat project level. Interesting areas of further work related to the current paper are tostudy possible synergies between biotechnology and environmental science9 andbetween environmental science and nanotechnology in development of technologiesfor soil remediation, fuel cells and solar energy.

The second area of further research is concerned with commercialisation of researchand the role of IPR-arrangements at a project level. The funding agents studied in thecurrent paper, aims to contribute to wider social benefits by advances of knowledgeand dissemination of results to promote health benefits and environmentally attunedtechnologies. At the same time, the funding agents are targeting commercialisation ofresearch and appropriation of intellectual property. The views on commercialisation 8 Referring to ‘zero or multiple coupling’ where scientific sources are used either frequently or not atall in the innovation process. Gibbons and Johnston (1974).9 Examples in plant biotechnology in search for new and renewable raw materials replacing petroleumoil based materials.

22

of research and university and industry relations have been discussed at the level offunding agents in the typology adapted from Owen-Smith and Powell (2001). Aproject-based approach would address reward structures for researchers involved inuniversity-industry collaboration under different IPR-arrangements. This would givefurther understanding on how policies of the funding agent affect decisions andpriorities of patenting and publications. Both commercialisation andinternationalisation of research are considered be of policy relevance in discussing theresults of this study and further research. The aspect of internationalisation of researchfunding is addressing national and international research policy and the incentivemechanisms at national level that interact with EU research funding andadministrative rules (David, Foray et al. 1999). While the current study addressesresearch assessment procedures in two European countries, it is beyond the scope toprovide a comprehensive analysis of the interaction between national and Europeanpolicy. Increased knowledge about this is of relevance in the dawn of a policy for theEuropean Research Area (EC 2000) stressing collaboration for Europeancompetitiveness and innovation and increasingly building on principles ofaccountability and socio-economic relevance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research for this paper was partly undertaken during a Marie Curie Fellowship atSPRU and financial support from the European Commission is gratefullyacknowledged. A special thanks goes to Keith Pavitt, Aldo Geuna, Jacky Senker andStaffan Jacobsson for interesting discussions and for encouraging me to write thepaper. I would also like to express my appreciation to the research fundingorganisations for sharing their experiences and generously providing information forthe case studies. The revision of the paper benefited from literature suggestions fromPaul David in connection to the European summer school for industrial dynamics(ESSID 2003) and improvement suggestions from Ulf Sandström at the SwedishInstitute for Studies of Education and Research (SISTER) and the Swedish ResearchCouncil (Vetenskapsrådet). Comments and feedback from colleagues at the KTH-Centre of excellence for science and innovation studies (CESIS) are alsoacknowledged.

REFERENCES

Benner, M. and U. Sandström (2000). Intertia and change in the Scandinavian public-sectorresearch systems: the case of biotechnology. Science and Public Policy 27(2):443-454.

BIO (2003). Biotechnology definition, http://www.bio.org/er/technology_collection.asp (16September 2003), Biotechnology industry organisation: US.

Bush, V. (1945). Science - the endless frontier. Washington D.C.: United States, GovernmentPrinting Office.

Callon, M. (1994). Is Science a Public Good? Science, Technology & Human Values 19(4):395-424.

Caloghirou, Y., N. S. Vonortas and S. Ioannides (2002). Science and technology policiestowards research joint ventures. Science and Public Policy 29(2): 82-94.

Calvert, J. and P. Patell (2002). University-industry research collaborations in the UK.Brighton, SPRU - Science and technology policy research.

23

Crow, M. M. and C. Tucker (2001). The American research university as America's de factotechnology policy. Science and Public Policy 28(1): 2-10.

Dasgupta, P. and P. A. David (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23:487-521.

David, P. A. (1998a). From keeping 'nature's secrets' to the institutionalization of 'open science'.American Economic Review May 1998.

David, P. A. (1998b). The political economy of public science. Oxford, UK, All Soul College.David, P. A., D. Foray and E. Steinmueller (1999). The research network and the new

economics of science: from metaphors to organizational behaviours.Organisation of Economic Innovation in Europe. A. Gambardella and F.Malerba, Cambridge University Press: 303-342.

EC (1999). Inventory of public biotechnology R&D programmes in Europe, report EUR18886/1&3 EN. Brussels, European Commission.

EC (2000). Towards a European research area. Brussels, European Commission.Elzinga, A. and A. Jamison (1994). Changing policy agendas in science and tecnology.

Handbook of science and technology studies. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J.Petersen, C. and T. Pinch. California, London, New Delhi, Sage Publications.

Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance - Lessons from Japan.London and New York, Pinter Publishers.

Geuna, A. (1999). The Economics of Knowledge Production. Cheltenham, UK andNorthampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar.

Geuna, A. (2001). The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: AreThere Negative Unintended Consequences? Journal of Economic IssuesXXXV(3): 607-632.

Geuna, A. and L. Nesta (2003). University patenting and its effects on academic research,SPRU electronic working paper 99. Brighton, SPRU - Science and technologypolicy research.

Gibbons, M. and R. Johnston (1974). The roles of science in technological innovation.Research Policy(3): 219-310.

Grimaldi, R. and N. von Tunzelman (2002). Assessing collaborative pre-competitive R&Dprojects: the case of the UK LINK scheme. R&D Management 32(2): 165-173.

Gristock, J. and J. Senker (1999). Public Science and Wealth Creation on Britain, BritishCouncil: 31.

HMSO (1993). Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology,CMND. 2250. London, HMSO.

Irvine, J. and B. Martin (1984). What Direction for Basic Scientific Research? Science andTechnology Policy in the 1990s and Beyond. M. Gibbons, P. Gummett and B.M. Udgaonkar. Harlow, Longman: 67-98.

ITPS (2003). Strategies and partnerships for biotech regions. Stockholm, Swedish Institute forGrowth Policy Studies.

Jacobsson, S. (2002). Universities and industrial transformation: an interpretative and selectiveliterature study with special emphasis on Sweden. Science and Public Policy29(5): 345-365.

Luukkonen, T. and P. Niskanen (1998). Learning through collaboration - Finnish participationin EU framework programmes. Helsinki: Finland, VTT - Technical researchcentre of Finland.

Mansfield, E. and J.-Y. Lee (1996). The modern university: contributor to industrial innovationand recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy 25: 1047-1058.

Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. ResearchPolicy 29: 409-434.

Mistra (2003). Mistra in brief, Mistra - the Swedish foundation for strategic environmentalresearch, http://www.mistra.org/eng/ (20 September 2003).

Molas-Gallart, J., A. Salter, P. Patell, A. Scott and X. Duran (2002). Measuring third streamactivities: a report to the Russel group of universities. Brighton, SPRU,University of Sussex.

24

Mowery, D. and N. Rosenberg (1979). The influence of market demand upon innovation: acritical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy 8: 102-153.

Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of PoliticalEconomy 67: 297-306.

Näringsdepartementet (2001). FoU och samverkan i innovationssystemet - Prop. 2001/02:2,Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications: Sweden.

OECD (1994). Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and ExperimentalDevelopment - Frascati Manual 1993. Paris, OECD.

Okubo, Y. and C. Sjöberg (2000). The changing pattern of scientific research collaboration inSweden. Research Policy 29: 81-98.

Owen-Smith, J. and W. W. Powell (2001). Careers and contradictions: faculty responses to thetransformation of knowledge and its uses in life sciences. Research in thesociology of work 10.

Patell, P. and K. Pavitt (1995). Patterns of technological activity: Their measurement andinterpretation. Handbook of the economics of innovation and technologicalchange. P. Stoneman. Oxford, Blackwell: 14-51.

Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy 20: 109-119.

Pavitt, K. (1998). The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy 27: 793-805.Pavitt, K. (2000). 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), paper wasprepared for the celebration of Richard Nelson's 70th birthday, held in NYCfrom 13 to 15 October, 2000.

Petersen, J. and M. Sharp (1998). Technology policy in the European Union. London,Macmillan.

Rangnekar, D. (2002). Disease-Related Patient Groups and the Funding of BiomedicalResearch: A new force influencing the research agenda in ethical drugs?Conference: Rethinking Science Policy: Analytical Frameworks for Evidence-Based Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Riksdagen (1997). 1996/97:UbU1 Anslag till utbildning och forskning, Chapter 7: Högskolanstredje uppgift. Stockholm, The Swedish parliament.

Rosenberg, N. and R. Nelson (1993). American universities and advance in industry. ResearchPolicy 23: 323-348.

RTD (2002). What is a university 'worth'? RTD info 34(July): 12-15.Sandström, U. and M. Hällsten (2003). Företagens finansiering av universitetsforskning,

Working paper 2003:25. Stockholm, SISTER - Swedish institute for studies ofeducation and research.

SCB (2001). Forskning och utveckling inom universitets- och högskolesektorn 1999 - Researchand Development in the Higher Education Sector in Sweden 1999, UF 13 SM0001. Stockholm, Statistics Sweden.

Scherer, F. M. (1999). Investing in technological innovation. New Perspectives on EconomicGrowth and Technical Innovation. Washington DC, The Brookings Institution:53-88.

Scott, A. (2001). The power of ideas: effective research for environmental decision making,SPRU electronic working paper 63. Brighton, UK, SPRU.

Scott, A., G. Steyn, A. Geuna, S. Brusoni and E. Steinmueller (2001). The Economic Returns toBasic Research and the Benefits of University-Industry Relationships: Aliterature review and update of findings, Report for the Office of Science andTechnology. Brighton, SPRU.

Senker, J. (1990). Evaluating the funding of strategic science: Some lessons from Britishexperience. Research Policy 20: 29-43.

Senker, J. (1995). Rationale for partnerships: building national innovation systems. STI Review23: 23-37.

Senker, J. (1998). Changing Structure, Organisation and Nature of PSR Systems: UnitedKingdom. Brighton, SPRU.

25

Senker, J. and P. Senker (1997). Implications of industrial relationships for universities: a casestudy of the UK Teaching Company Scheme. Science and Public Policy 24(3):173-182.

Skoie, H. (1998). The Scandinavian countries and their systems of public research. Oslo, NIFU- Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education.

SOU (1998). Sustainable sweden - a success story, SOU 1998:118. Stockholm, Ministry ofIndustry, Employment and Communications.

SRJ (2002). The bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation, http://www.rj.se/en-default.asp (20September 2002).

SSF (2000). Local biomedical graduate schools - an evaluation, the Swedish foundation forstrategic research (SSF) and National agency for higher education.

SSF (2002). Strategic Research Foundation, http://www.stratresearch.se (20 September 2002).SSF (2003). SSF Activity Report 2002. Stockholm, Sweden, The Swedish foundation for

strategic science.STI (2003). Sustainable technologies initiative - sixth invitation for proposals.TFR (1997). Peers on peers - allocation policy and review procedures at the Swedish research

council for engineering sciences. Stockholm, Swedish Research Council forEngineering Sciences (TFR): 138.

Tijssen, R. J. W., R. K. Buter and T. N. van Leeuwen (2000). Technological relevance ofScience: an assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers.Scientometrics 47(2): 389-412.

Wellcome (2003). About the trust, The Wellcome trust,http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awt.html (30 April 2003).

Vinnova (2002a). Impact of problem-initiated R&D support from VINNOVA's predecessors,VINNOVA Innovation i Fokus VF 20002:1. Stockholm: Sweden, Vinnova - TheSwedish Agency for Innovation Systems.

Vinnova (2002b). Behovsmotiverad forskning och effektiva innovationssystem för hållbartillväxt. Stockholm: Sweden, Vinnova - The Swedish Agency for InnovationSystems.

26

Appendix 1: Questionnaire to foundations and trusts funding research in the area ofbiomedical and strategic environmental research in Sweden and the UK

1. What year was the foundation / trust established?

2. What is the annual budget for research funding and capital assets (SEK or £and EURO) of the foundation / trust?

3. How big share (%) of the research in the research area (biomedical research orstrategic environmental research) is funded by the foundation / trust?

4. What is the aim of the research funded?

5. How do you assess goal fulfilment of the research funded? (National orinternational peer review, cost/benefit analysis, econometric methods,bibliometrics etc)

6. What criteria are applied for research assessments ex-ante, ad-interim and ex-post?

7. What is the share (%) of the research projects funded by the foundation / trustthat have both academic and industrial partners?

8. What is the policy of the foundation / trust with regards to dissemination ofresults?

9. What is the policy of the foundation / trust with regards to intellectual propertyrights (IPR)?

10. How is the ownership of the intellectual property agreed among partners in aresearch consortium with university and industry partners?

11. What is the number of patents / licensing agreements from research funded bythe foundation / trust?

12. Does the protection of intellectual property act as an incentive for newinnovations in the research area of life science / biomedical or strategicenvironmental research?

13. Is there a conflict of interest between the dissemination of knowledge fromresearch funded by the foundation / trust and the appropriation of knowledgeby intellectual property rights?

27

14. How important are the following objectives for the participants fromAcademia respective Industry that participate in research projects funded bythe foundation / trust?

Please mark the importance for participation on a scale from 1-5, where 1= notimportant, 2= of little importance, 3= of some importance, 4= fairly important,and 5= very important. A=Academia and I =Industry

A____, I_____ New scientific knowledgeA____, I_____ New or substantially improved research methods or equipmentA____, I_____ New or substantially improved productsA____, I_____ New or substantially improved production processesA____, I_____ Monitoring technology development in the fieldA____, I_____ Research fundingA____, I_____ Transfer of knowledge or technologyA____, I_____ Training of personnelA____, I_____ PublicationsA____, I_____ European collaborationA____, I_____ National collaborationA____, I_____ Collaboration with research institutesA____, I_____ Collaboration with universitiesA____, I_____ Collaboration with firmsA____, I_____ Licentiate and doctoral degreesA____, I_____ Commercial exploitationA____, I_____ SoftwareA____, I_____ StandardsA____, I_____ Sharing risks and costsA____, I_____ PrototypesA____, I_____ Joint use of equipmentA____, I_____ PatentsA____, I_____ LicencesA____, I_____ Collaboration with customers and subcontractorsA____, I_____ Monitoring competitors

Thank you for your contribution!

Katarina Larsen

KTH – The Royal Institute of TechnologyDepartment of InfrastructureDiv. Urban studies100 44 Stockholm, SwedenTelephone: +46-(0)8-790 92 41Mobil: +46-(0)70-449 05 36E-mail: larsen@infra.kth.se

28

Appendix 2: Interviews and background material for case studies

The Swedish foundation for strategic research (SSF)Interview: Olof Lindgren and Inger Florin, SSF - Life ScienceSSF activity report 2002Activity reports (2002) from biomedical research funded in life sciences (11 projects)Activity reports (2002) from 6 biomedical graduate schoolsAnnual report 2001Review of local biomedical graduate schools (2000)Review of SSF graduate schools (2000)Guidelines for the final report 2002 (2002-10-07)Policy och arbetsformer (1999-12-21)

The Wellcome Trust in the UKInterview: Ted Bianco, Technology Transfer Division of the Wellcome trustAnnual report 2002The Wellcome trust grant conditions (September 2003 and October 2002)Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) consortium (http://snp.cshl.org)Structural genomics consortium – information material from the Wellcome trustTechnology transfer – report from the Wellcome trustWhat is technology transfer? www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/biottwha.html (5 August 2003)

The Swedish foundation for strategic environmental research (MISTRA)Interview: Britt Marie Bertilsson, Programmes director at MISTRAMistra annual report 2002: Mistra is a source of knowledgeAd-interim ‘applicability assessment’ reports (8 programs)Mid-term evaluation of eight SSF programs (April 1999)2001/2002 activity reports from MISTRA commercial focus programmes (8 programs)Strategy document: MISTRA 2004 (2002-08-19)Så var det tänkt - hur blev det? Göran A Persson, VD MISTRA 94-99, 13 January 2000Granskningsrapport Mistra (2000), By: The Royal Swedish Academy of EngineeringSciences, The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry and The Royal SwedishAcademy of Sciences.

Sustainable Technologies Initiative (STI) in the UKInterview: Nick Morley, STI co-ordinatorInterview: Frans Berkhout, Director ESRC Sustainable Technologies ProgrammeGuidance notes on collaboration agreements (from DTI)STI/2 Guidance notes: completion of form STI/2STI guidance notes for submitting outline collaborative research proposals (6th call)Evaluation plan for WMR3 (Waste minimization through recycling, re-use and recovery inindustry) LINK programmeESRC Sustainable technologies programme (sustainabletechnologies.ac.uk)