Agricultural Biotechnology: Leader or Fellow-Traveler in University Commercialization?

1. Agricultural Biotechnology:Leader or Fellow-Traveler in University Commercialization? Jeremy Foltz and Bradford Barham University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. A consensus and some questions • Consensus: Agricultural biotechnology is the leading edge of agricultural college public/private interactions • Questions: • Is ag-biotech actually more commercialized than ag-oldtech? • Has ag-biotech led to more commercialization? • Has ag-biotech led to different levels of public and private good production? • Do ag-biotech professors behave or think differently than other agricultural science professors? • Is ag-biotech a revolution or a technique?

3. The Simultaneity Problem • Two formative events in 1980: • Bayh – Dole: creates tech transfer boom • Diamond v. Chakrabarty: creates patentability for ag-biotech research • Observed outcomes: • Great increases in university patenting • Great increases university ag-biotech research • Both “take-off” in the mid-1990’s, ag-biotech more than non-biotech agriculture

4. University agricultural patenting

5. A digression on types of university commercialization • Tech Transfer Office: with invention disclosures, patents, and licenses a university sells a product/prototype to industry • University-Industrial Relations Office: with industry funding and consulting a scientist sells research to be done to industry • They can happen together, separately, or sequentially in either direction.

6. Scientist survey data • Sampling frame • Approximately 12,000 professorial-rank individuals at the “1862” land-grant university (52 schools) • Limited to disciplines typically found in colleges of agriculture • Random sample of 2,000 individuals, 1,160 responses (58 % response rate) • Web survey conducted in February - April 2005 • Data presented here uses only agricultural science disciplines n = 751

7. Defining ag-biotech scientists • Scientists were defined as doing agricultural-biotechnology research if: • Their reported discipline and sub-disciplines were biotech (biochemistry), or • Their research involved biological processes at the molecular or cellular level or below (animal breeding and genetics). • We defined 24% of agricultural college scientists as doing ag-biotech research

8. Distribution within fields

9. Who are agricultural scientists?

10. What type of job?

11. Basic, applied, or development research?

12. What do they produce?

13. Goals for their research products

14. Where’s the funding from?

15. Research motivations

16. Views on public/private interactions

17. Industry consulting

18. Conclusions: key differences • Ag-biotech a leader in: • Doing basic research • Creation of intellectual property • Generating funding • Ag-biotech lag other ag scientists in: • Industry linkages: funding, consulting • Interactions with extension and outreach

19. Conclusions: key similarities • Ag-biotech scientists and other ag scientists are very similar in: • Motivations for their research • Opinions on public/private interactions • Public research production (articles, students, etc.) • Industry research collaborations • Products on the market and start-up companies founded

20. What have we learned? • Ag-biotech is the leading edge of federally funded basic research that leads to one type of commercialization • intellectual property rights • But it lags in the other types of commercialization • Industry funding, industry consulting, etc. • Overall on most issues ag-biotech as a filter is almost a random draw on the distribution of agricultural scientists.

21. Some implications • A focus on ag-biotech is too narrow: the discussion should be about agricultural research • Understand the differences between the TTO and UIR processes: should Public/Private interactions be • Pushing technologies? • Pulling in money to produce technologies? • Is one better or worse than the other?