1 / 27

University-Industry Relationships (UIRs) in Ag Biotechnology

University-Industry Relationships (UIRs) in Ag Biotechnology. Filling the Information Gaps. Project Overview. USDA CSREES IFAFS; 2001/05 Many academic scientists have relationships with ag biotech firms, yet we know little about the driving motivations and research impacts.

aliza
Download Presentation

University-Industry Relationships (UIRs) in Ag Biotechnology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University-Industry Relationships (UIRs) in Ag Biotechnology Filling the Information Gaps

  2. Project Overview • USDA CSREES IFAFS; 2001/05 • Many academic scientists have relationships with ag biotech firms, yet we know little about the driving motivations and research impacts. • Purpose -- assess research, licensing, and other UIR relationships in ag biotech, with special emphasis on the mix of ‘public’ and private goods provided. www.agri-biotech.pdx.edu

  3. Team Clarkson University Cornell University • Rick Welsh (PI)• Molly Jahn Farm Foundation Oregon State University • Walt Armbruster (PI) • Steven Buccola (PI) • Terri Lomax (PI) Portland State Univ. • Hui Yang • David Ervin (PI/PD) • Kristen KimUniv. of California, Davis • Beth Minor• William Lacy (PI) • Dina Biscotti Winrock International• Leland Glenna  • Kate Clancy (PI)• Pamela Ronald

  4. Advisory Group Danforth Plant DuPont Science Center • Quentin Kubicek • Roger Beachy Environmental Defense EDEN Bioscience • Rebecca Goldburg • Zhongmin Wei Pew Initiative Michigan State Univ. • Mike Rodemeyer  • Larry Busch USDA Biotechnology Univ. of California • Michael Schechtman at Berkeley • Carol Mimura

  5. Project Objectives • Develop information base on UIRs in ag biotechnology • in-depth case studies • national survey of bioscientists • Build & test models of factors affecting ag biotech UIRs and their effects

  6. Project Objectives cont. 3. Analyze the extent to which UIRs foster public goods and policy options for any problems 4. Foster constructive dialogue among stakeholders on university, industry and government roles in ag biotech research

  7. Background: Forces Shaping UIRs in Ag Biotech • UIRs perceived to strengthen US competitiveness (1970s) • Diamond-Chakrabarty (1980) • Bayh-Dole act (1980) • Stevenson-Wyndler Act -- cooperative research and development agreements or CRADA’s (1980, amended 1986)

  8. Univ. R&D Funding Trends Industry’s share of total university R&D funding has increased from 2.6% in 1970 to 7.7% in 2000 Source: NSF 2002

  9. Major Activities • Expert workshop (11/02) • University and industry case studies (4/02 - 9/04) • National survey of bioscientists (12/03 - 3/04) • Educational outreach (ongoing)

  10. 1. Expert Workshop • Co-sponsored with Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology • 40 scientists, administrators, tech transfer officers, industry & nonprofit reps, and government officials • Task: identify knowledge gaps and ‘salient researchable issues’ about UIRs in ag biotechnology • Workshop report available at: www.agri-biotech.pdx.edu

  11. A. Baseline Information • How many UIRs in ag biotechnology exist? • What major types of research are part of UIRs? • Which universities participate in which types of UIRs? • What types of firms collaborate with universities in which types of UIRs?

  12. B. Effects on Scientists’ Research Agendas • What factors influence scientists’ decisions on research agendas? • Do tenure and reward systems affect incentives to participate in UIRs? • Does an Office of Technology Transfer affect a scientist’s research agenda? • Have scientists’ research plans, objectives, or publications been affected by industry funding?

  13. C. Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer • How often are scientists denied access to research materials or findings? • Are publication delays due to IP issues prevalent? • What sorts of patents are being generated at universities? • What factors drive patenting and licensing arrangements at universities?

  14. 2. Case Studies • In-depth (1.5 - 2 hr) interviews of scientists, administrators and tech transfer officers • Cornell, North Carolina State, Oregon State, U.C. Davis, U. of Wisconsin, Stanford and Texas A&M • Collaborating firms

  15. 2. Case Studies cont. • Open-ended questions, e.g., “How do you define the public good?” • Structured questions, e.g., “Rate the importance of scientists’ criteria for choosing research problems.” • Secondary data on IP policies, etc.

  16. University Administrators’ Assessments of Scientists’ Criteria for Research Problems(7 pt scale; 7 = very important; 1 = not important)

  17. Univ. Administrator Rankings of Potential UIR Effects (% giving a ranking of 5, 6, or 7 on 7 pt scale)Blue = favorable effect; Gold = unfavorable effect

  18. Preliminary Findings • Administrators feel researchers are driven more by scientific interests than potential commercial uses. • The majority of administrators have favorable assessments of UIRs. • A minority of administrators are concerned with potential negative effects of UIRs on public science. • If administrators consider UIR effects to be mostly positive, a potential motivation exists to promote more market-oriented research.

  19. 3. National Survey • Web-based survey of a stratified random sample of approx. 1400 bioscientists • University strata: (a) Land Grant (LG); (b) Public non-LG (NLG); (c) Private (P) • Department chairs identified faculty members doing research relevant to our study

  20. 3. National Survey cont. • Respondents indicated whether their biotechnology research had implications for agriculture, forestry, or aquaculture. • Overall response rate is approximately 60% • Survey closes March 12th and analysis conducted through 2004

  21. Strata responses by 12/15/03

  22. Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)

  23. Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)

  24. Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)

  25. Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)

  26. Key research questions • How is firm support related to the scientist’s research field/topic? • How is industry support related to the ‘basicness’ of discoveries? • How is industry support related to ‘excludability’ of discoveries? • Do scientists’ views on research, e.g., public university roles, affect their research field/topic?

  27. Thank You www.agri-biotech.pdx.edu This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2001-52100-11217. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

More Related