Search

A small but significant percentage of the discoveries made by university researchers have commercial value, especially in fields such as the biomedical sciences, material science, and information technology. Early stage technologies emerging from university labs represent an important source of innovation for technology firms in the United States (US), especially those located in close proximity to elite universities in regions characterized by high levels of entrepreneurial dynamism. Based in part on the U.S. demonstration effect, policymakers in the developing world increasingly view universities as institutions capable of accelerating technology-based economic development. In this article we examine the efforts of elite universities in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil to transfer faculty inventions to the marketplace. On average these institutions have upgraded commercialization infrastructure since the mid-2000s and a select few are beginning to generate significant licensing revenue and viable spinoffs. We conclude with policy recommendations and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nano initiative in the US and elsewhere encourages and promotes various forms of multi-stakeholder activities, such as industrial collaborations. Forming part of the discourse of expectations around emerging technologies, collaboration is an important resource holding together different practices of knowledge production. In the conversations between policy and science, collaboration becomes a measurable entity and a measure in itself, figuring in the evaluations of the performance of individual faculty and research centres; however, the policy metaphor of ‘collaboration’ stands for a variety of different forms and shapes of interactions between university and industry. From a discourse analysis perspective, ‘folk theories’ of nano collaboration help to explore the dynamics of the university/industry boundary in the scientific organisational discourse as in a recent series of interactions with scientists, university officials and technology transfer officers in a number of US universities. What does the introduction of the new entity (nano) mean for scientists, and for university practices of technology transfer and commercialisation, in terms of trying to accommodate individual ‘nano’ cases into university regulations and procedures? How are these practices and experiences discussed in terms of collaboration? Assessments of value of collaboration ranged between polarised views, raising questions about occasions, audiences and communities of assessors invoked in the construction of acceptable accounts of nano collaboration. Metaphors and analogies were used to mobilise specific meanings in the discourses of the innovative potential of emerging fields. As such, assessments of the potential of terms pertinent to the emerging discourses, such as collaboration, would be better based on the assumption of shared meanings, not fixed and given, but actively achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]