return

A Regional System of R&D and Innovation A Selected Case Study in Poland

Joseph Szablowski

Innovation's of the Polish economy in the period of socialism was very low. Since 1990, under market reforms, an improvement of the firms' innovations has become their main aim. Competitive conditions force enterprises to innovate. In 1994, the government announced "Guidelines for Innovation Policy". More widely research and activities are undertaken concerning regional systems of innovation.

A case of the north eastern region of Poland is analyzed in the paper. This is to some extent a specific, "ecological" region called GREEN LUNGS of Poland.

In 1994, financial expenditures on innovations constituted 0.48 % of the total sales in the region. So, enterprises spend very little on R&D and innovation. On the other hand, one zloty spent on innovation brought yearly 7.70 zlotys of revenue in 1994. Almost half 49,2 % of new and modernized products were exported.

An important factor of the region's innovative development is its localization close to the state border with Bielorus and Lithuania which makes an interesting case study of specific conditions for the develpment of innovations.

In recent years an approach to innovation in Poland has changed. Innovatins create new patterns and techniques of production. At the same time huge changes take place in the field of technology, e.g. flexible manufacturing systems are implemented. Innovation processes can proceed efficiently only if organized well with the participation of the state, regions and economic entities.

A chance for fast development of the analyzed region is connected with an idea organize a regional system of innovations containing A Regional Innovation Centre and a network of centres supporting entrepreneurship and innovation.

Within the regional development it is reasonalbe to make use of the change in the geo-political situation, trans-border cooperation, experiences gained by better developed regions and experiences of and capital from foreign regions.


return

A model for the study of research and education in transdisciplinary contex

John Hultberg, Christer Rosenberg, and P-O Brogren

We have in an evaluation project at the University of Gothenburg, looked at the relationship between individual and collective production of knowledge within the Health sciences. The study has focused on the Medical faculty, the faculty of Odontology, College of Health and Caring Sciences, and the Nordic School of Public Health. We have also looked at the relations with industry.

A basic assumption in the project has been that the relationship between different knowledge areas can be described in other ways than for example as "natural sciences" and "social sciences", or as "two cultures". Instead of looking at received images of science, we have developed a scheme with which we study knowledge areas at a more basic level. One of the challenges of the university lies in the demands to develop co-operation and cross-fertilization between different knowledge areas. Modern research within the health sciences is based on co-operation among research groups both inside and outside the university, and also with other knowledge areas, what has been termed the "mode 2" research of transdisciplinary work by Gibbons et al.

This is interesting not only in the perspective of organizing university education and research but also from the perspective of industrial relations. Pharmaceutical and biotechnical research has been an important part of Swedish research. Much of the basic research has been done within the university. Developments and changes within the university structure must consider also external knowledge producers as more intimately connected with their knowledge production than found in the one-dimensional image of internal-external relations.

The transdisciplinarity of modern research craves for new ways to evaluate university research and education. Co-operation and financial support from external groups makes the university more into a semi-permeable structure. The question is whether traditional government steering through research council is possible.

In this paper we will also discuss the model used to study research and education within the health sciences at the University of Gothenburg. Research within the health sciences is mostly carried out by research groups of differing sizes, with different interests and perspectives and, not the least, different personalities within the groups. If the research done by the groups is to be described using a model with only one alternative for each category a large part of the activity will be clouded. Our model is therefore describing the research projects from several angles where the activity is estimated as different hits (either having the activity or not). To catch the complexity it is then possible to get several hits on each level. The model is at this stage only used to describe the activity and is not used for evaluating it. In contrast to the research area education is classified after the number of study weeks (measured in points in Sweden), actually the number of hours, or in the case of examinations as the number of examinations. The statistical work gives us figures and numbers where previously one had to rely on approximations. Science is meticulously described as a series of methods related to different areas, perspectives and interests. No scientific discipline is therefore regarded as better or worse than any other. It is rather the methodological likeness between disciplines within the health science sector that are enhanced. The method means that we are mapping interests, perspectives, areas and methods within the different projects.

In some preliminary findings the biological and atomistic research approach at the Medical faculty shows up as a counterpoint to the more behavioral approach at the School of Nursing. Further we see the correlation between the biological approach and form of examination; the more biological content the more written examinations. While on the other hand the more content of behavior and population the more seminar examinations. In other words the approach might steer the choice of pedagogic method. Thus, we find that the university in many parts is divided into separate knowledge cultures, making the university educational organization rigid and not open for changes.

The relations between academy and health care services are also discussed in the study. A special focus is on the relationship between the academy and health care industry (outside health care services). Transdisciplinarity indicates the need of close co-operation between academy and industry. However, there are obstacles for developing a environment, which can stimulate multilateral co-operation and creativity. Some of these obstacles has their root in the different cultural backgrounds indicated in the analysis and makes it difficult to find common aims and strategies. Thus we propose that more attention be given to transdisciplinary research groups and a revision of the curriculum giving more room to problemoriented and multi-professional education.

In our paper we will also present some figures and statistical data from the research. Since these probably will be corrupt in the e-mail we will present them at the conference.


return

The Future of the University and the University of the Future

Henry Etzkowitz, Andrew Webster, Christiane Gebhardt and Branca Terra

Out of a variety of research and teaching formats, in contrasting national traditions, the university is moving toward a new common form in the late 20th century. The entrepreneurial university is emerging in the U.S., Latin America, Europe and Asia as an economic and social actor as well as a research and teaching enterprise. The university has never been a singular entity in the past. The medieval universities of Paris and Bologna, one a corporation of students, the other of masters, exemplifed two contrasting models of governance for higher learning (Rashdall, 1936). Given this original divergence, why is the university arriving at a common format almost a millennia later?

Although some observers have predicted that the university is in the process of being superseded by other more specialized organizational formats such as consulting firms, this is unlikely given an even greater need in a knowledge-based society for an institution of reproduction. We suggest that university's original teaching function, from which newer misssions such as research and economic development have been derived, ensuresits persistence even as it is realized through new means such as distance learning via the Internet. Even as the "stone university" (Pallo, 1997) becomes the "virtual university" the notion of a community of students and teachers, combined with an administrative superstructure is increasingly universalized.

A variety of academic formats have been invented, whose elements are currently being recombined as polytechnics and regional colleges are transformed into universities. The models drawn upon for synthesis into the contemporary entrepreneurial university include the Humboldtian theses of the unity of teaching and scholarship closely tied to government support, Cardinal Newman's "ivory tower" vision of an independent community of scholars, the U.S. "land grant" model of education and research tied to regional needs, largely agricultural in the mid 19th century, and the European polytechnic model later transferred to the U.S., devoted to supporting particular industrial sectors. Exemplifying different models of closeness or distance from other institutional spheres, the university has existed in a state of creative tension with its own constituents and the larger society.

At least two major trends can be identified that affect the future role of the university: one is the shift to ever greater dependence of the economy on knowledge production and the second, the attempt to identify and guide future trends in knowledge production and their implications for society. There is a shift underway from the economics of the production function to the socio-economic processes of the contemporary innovation system - with universities part of a new knowledge infrastructure. This transformation has been analyzed by Lundvall in his work on the advent of the 'learning economy', and by Smith (1997) on the role of University R&D in the 'infrastructure' for production. A variety of new policy initiatives have also been taken by government - eg the Foresight Programme in Europe - the attempt to identify so-called "critical technologies" and to speed up their development through "roadmapping"in the U.S. These efforts have in common the attempt to develop secure methodologies to identify R&D priorities for the future. Academia is - more than industry - most susceptible to these programmes. The first trend potentially increases the centrality of the university as a social institution while the second arguably decreases the independence of academia, as inducements are offered and requirements put in place as a condition of funding to shape the university to meet expectations for particular kinds of knowledge production and reproduction.

In this information based economy, knowledge can be a public and private good at one and the same time, with degrees of publicness and degrees of privateness. Secrecy has been identified as part of the discovery strategy of investigators, even for research that is disseminated solely in classic academic fashion through journal publication. The patent system is an exemplar of organizing knowledge as public and private at one and the same time. Concepts and technologies are made accessible to others even as "rents" are accrued. Nevertheless, there are continuing tensions between mobilising knowledge as a public good (and maintaining the incentives to do this), and controlling its value as a private good (Foray, (1997) David and Foray (1995), Arrow (1962)). As the possibilities for commercializing academic knowledge spreads to a wider range of disciplines, from chemistry, engineering and the biosciences to the social sciences, humanities and the arts, the encapsulation of these issues in special academic sectors and schools breaks down as they emerge throughout the academic system.

These transformations of the universities have taken place in a series of steps, summarized as the first and second academic revolutions, the former introducing research and the latter, economic development, as academic missions:

1. development of academic research in the sciences, especially chemistry in 19th century Germany. The foundation of chemical firms, establishment of consulting relationships betwen professor and former students

2. transfer of research unversity model to U.S. and reinterpretation on a more egalitarian basis, departments instead of sole professor: evolution within the first revolution

3. late 19th century U.S. separation of university from other spheres creation of ideology of basic research, university a relatively weak insititution, need for boundary maintenance

4. 1940's: development of academic-government relations: academic scientists in wartime labs located in universities utilize basic research skills for technology development. eg. radar, atom bomb, proximity fuse; learn efficacy of cross-disciplinary higly funded research, combining practical results with theoretical elucidation

5. early post war era: new scientific fields opened up on the basis of technology development e.g. radioastronomy and continue ties with military, break with basic research ideology and linear model in practice if not in theory

6. 1970's, 80's: development of academic-industry relations, response to increased international competition, evolution of products within existing industries inadequate to insure economic growth. Academia brought into new, relatively independent, alignment with industry. Need to introduce new technologies into existing industries and create industries based on new technology. Precursors earlier in the century, but integration now basis of national policy for civilian technology development, a model previously confined to the military sector

7. spread of academic-industry relations to countries in Europe and Latin America with different cultural and academic traditions and industrial backgrounds. In some of these countries universities have been primarily teaching insitutions with little tradition of research. On the one hand, the pressure on the univesity to assume an economic role has encouraged the development of research, especially in fields relevant to future economic development. On the other, it has led to the exploration of ways to base relations with industry on the teaching function of the university, especially in regions where industry is primarily low or mid-tech.

8. Universities as part of new knowledge infrastructures which increase the central role of academia for the reporduction of knowledge-able workers and researchers but in such a way as to meet externally determined objectives and standards associated with training, research and innovation. In addition, new requirments emerge relating to the management of university knowledge as both public and private good. New institutional structures shape the direction and appropriability of knowledge, while new networks that cross government, industry and academia displace any new remnant on the linear model of RT&D.

With traditional disciplines cross-cut by new structures, the entrepreneurial university develops into a matrix organization, awat from traditional departmental and subject-based adminisatrative, teaching and research structures. As the university takes on multiple roles, it typically reorganizes its resources to focus on new problems, both intellectual and practical, with research and serivce units such as centers overlapping teaching faculties. Governing boards of these special units are typically made up of representatives from various institutional spheres. Matrix forms sometimes extend beyond the boundaries of the university to incorporate individuals and research groups from industry and government. There is a need to account for the emergenmce of new structures such as these within and between universities. Their emergence reflects the changing division of labour in innovation systems which encourages the emergence of new structures, such as university holding companies. It also encourages new patterns of mobility of both knowledge and researchers across this matrix within and outside of the university itself. These processes are not, of course, uniform across all discipline areas, suggesting that any current mapping of the socio-economic structure of research will find areas of research that can be classified as more 'open' or more 'restrictive' in terms of public access to the knowledge they produce. More restrictive research will be likely to be found in areas where there are relatively clsoed clusters of knowledge users and producers.

The paper provides a summative map of the changing institutional relations between academia, government and industry.

These organisational and institutional changes are part of changes in the wider innovation system (see Freeman and Perez, 1988). How far are these new structures transferable across different countries with distinct innovation systems, and different academic traditions? While the gloablisation of innovation encourages an increasing convergence around certain R&D procedures and practices, national systems of innovation and their distinct styles (such as the French State Civil Service Research System compared with the increasingly privatised system in the UK) mean that new university structures will be mediated by local cultures and interests. Thus the future location of universities within the innovation system is not likely to be uniform for all universities even as common goals emerge. This location will also reflect the division of labor in innovation systems at local, national and international levels. Neverthless, this restructuring of the innovation system appears to include an enlarged role for universities in several world regions. Who benefits from the new role of universities in the economy? This question can be asked in all countries but it is especially relevant for newly industrialising countries within which the knowledge infrastructure is more unevenly developed.

References:

Arrow, K. (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources to invention', in R. Nelson (ed) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton, NBER.

David, P. and Foray, D. (1995) 'Accessing and expanding the science and technology knowledge base', STI Review, vol 16.

Foray, D. (1997) 'Generation and distribution of technological knowledge', in C Edquist (ed) Systems of Innovation, London, Pinter.

Freeman, C. and Perez, C. (1988) Structural crises of adjusment: business cycles and investment behaviour', in G. Dosi et al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.

Hastings, R. (1936) The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Pallo, G. (1997) Personal communication.

Smith, K. (1997) 'Economic infrastructures and innovation systems', in C Edquist (ed) Systems of Innovation, London, Pinter.


return

University Science in the Former USSR Countries: Search for New Place in Science System

Valentin Onoprienko (Dobrov Centre for S&T Potential and Science History Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 60 Shevchenko blv, 232032, Kiev-32, Ukraine)

In the USSR science in Universities, which is considered in the world as being a form of organisation of the fondamental R&D, had transformed into one of the science system sectors as weil as academic, industrial and plant R&D. Such science division into sectors that had taken place in the times of Soviet Union, seems to be a phenomenon that has none of that similar in the world. Focus of the fondamental R&D had shifted into the academies of sciences with the Universities being capable of carrying out only mundane R&D. R&D in the Universities had a goal not to contribute into S&T development but to increase training effectiveness. 80-90% of the total R&D in the technical universities were contracts bid with enterprises. These predominantly were insignificant works with terms of no more than 1 year.

In 60-s there was seen the staff potentiil of the university R&D flourished and there emerged large R&D laboratories, links with industry begun tuning up and science logistics setting up. Institutionalisation of the university science as a separate sector in a science system took place. Simultaneously with fortifying university science the bottlenecks were revealed. The main form that science took, became the contracts with enterprises. This made universities to took for customers and research issues depended upon contracts with enterprises, which brought about researches short-term. Quality of equipment, its age and updating taking place in siow paces all these became the barriers for university science potential implementation.

In 1980-s there were measures undertaken of integrating university science into total science system and links with other science sectors began creating. However, from other side, crisis in economics destructed the main in universities contract form of research organisation. Consequently, the place of university science does not have the proper shape in the science system of the new states after USSR has collapsed. In contrast with ambitions available, there are no real grounds for its quick transformation into the leading form of fondamental researches like university science in the West. Judging on its technical arsenal and science potentiel, in these respects it is not able yet of competing with academies of sciences. However, direct access to market of science and technical products is closed by R&D industrial organisations. Therefore, it is urgent to define place of the university science in the of the science system transformation programmes in the former USSR countries.


return

The Futures of Individuals, Governments, Universities, Corporations in The Emerging Intelligence Revolution

Stevan Dedijer

"One of the greatest pains in human nature is the pain of a new idea"
Walter Bagehot, Physics and Politics

I intend to prove the conjecture that our is the time of the emergence of a new intelligence revolution. In other words, everyone, individuals, governments,-corporations ,universities , other social systems on our planet are being forced by the complex, rapidly evolving emergent global community to ask themselves : How intelligent am I, are we, how can we develop our intelligence, that is our capability to adapt to our rapidly changing, chaotically emerging, single global community? The generation of the new intelligence revolution is caused by the latest phase in the permanent capitalist revolution now ,for the first time, acting in all parts of our globe. It manifests itself,among other,,by our increasing integxated knowledge and innovations in the fields of biological,individual, machine, information technology and social intelligence.

After a brief discussion of what is a conjecture , how do you prove it or disprove it in matehemtics, natural science, intelligence process and social systems, a number of proofs of the emergence of the intelligence revolution affecting individuals, governments, corporations and universities, will be presented.

A brief review of the background fact that intelligence has much past but little written history follows.

The simultaneous emergence and integration of the various dimensions of the intelligence revolution are causing a Babbel like confusion of concepts, requiring the use of and Intelligence & Security approach by all the actors.

Secrecy, Security, Deception and Self-deceptions will continue to play a crucial role in an increasingly transparent, yet competitive and cooperative global envi-ronment based on law.

A list of intelligence & security pathologies derived from experience is given.

Finally, a list of conjectures of intelligence and security futuribles- possible futures- for individuals, governments, universities, corporations and other social systems is presented.


return

 

Industrial Policy In Europe and America

Magnus Gulbrandsen and Henry Etzkowitz

Why are specific micro-economic policies and programs to foster commercial innovation taken for granted in Continental Europe but looked askance in the U.S.? Industrial policy (IP) is a forbidden concept virtually across the entire American political spectrum. Government actions to assist industry are viewed as an illegitimate interference in the market and are depicted as an attempt to "pick winners" among companies and technologies, a selection process that government is held to be inherently ill suited to manage. It is widely believed that only market mechanisms should decide the fate of innovation. Nevertheless, despite the unwillingness to explicitly frame policy measures under this rubric, an industrial policy has been put in place at the federal level in the U.S. as a result of actions taken for other purposes or through measures to achieve the goal indirectly, even before recent direct interventions.

European national governments, on the other hand, accept a role in subsidizing and otherwise encouraging innovation in national firms as part of their normal responsibilities. Industrial policy is a taken for granted activity of most governments, irrespective of their location on the political spectrum. Even the United Kingdom, under Thatcher-Major, which might be expected to be an exception to this rule, was the sponsor of significant initiatives to tie science more closely to economic development. On the Continent, measures to assist and subsidize R&D in large corporations are taken into account by company R&D executives as part of their normal project planning. Indeed, it is expected that a significant part of their resources for commercial innovation will be provided by the national government. From provision of R&D funding through national foresight exercises to identify future technologies, government plays a leading role in industrial policy in Europe that U.S observers both deplore and wish to emulate.

Possible explanations for these contrasting attitudes toward industrial policy reside in the different political cultures and industrial histories of Europe and America. Such explanations are broader than differences in national innovation systems but narrower than conceptions of capitalism. In this paper we will analyze the fate of industrial policy in Europe and America, taking into account different views toward large and small firms, the relative presence or absence of regional political units and divergent conceptual frameworks for policy intervention such as "market failure and "additionality" on either side of the Atlantic. Despite these differences, there is a movement toward a common set of policies and programs, with the European Union filling gaps at the regional level in Europe and the federal government playing a new, more direct, role in civilian innovation in the U.S., despite strong ideological opposition.

Between Europe and America

The most obvious explanation for U.S./European differences is that the boundary between the state and industry is less distinct in Europe, in part because industry is often (at least partly) state owned and thus part of the state as opposed to being considered as a separate "private sector" as in the U.S. Industrial policy is public policy and industry has a public role, even when privately owned, to a greater extent than in the U.S. Even though the corporation is theoretically a creature of the state, laws governing corporations, exemplified most strongly by those in the state of Delaware, give control virtually entirely to owners and managers, despite recent regulatory modifications to achieve environmental, health and safety goals.

Another related hypothesis is that the different reactions to industrial policy reflect the divergent fates of socialist movements in the US and Europe. Thus, the so-called thesis of "American exceptionalism," the lack of a major U.S. socialist movement, has a carry over into industrial policy, with the relative absence of industrial policy explained by the failure of socialism, with its corollary principle of a de minimus guiding role for government in industry, to take hold. Industrial policy, as a governmental influence on industry, is a very modest form of socialism, if one at all. Naturally, views on this matter differ according to ones place in the political spectrum. Indeed, viewed from the left, industrial policy is seen as government support for capital (Bereano and Fedorenko, 1997). From the right, industrial policy is labeled as "socialistic" and dismissed on this ground. Both the left and the right agree that subsidies to industry are "corporate welfare" a decidedly derogatory term in U.S. political parlance.

Despite the widespread U.S. belief in the market as the arbiter of innovation, government subsidies have been key to the development of such industries as aircraft, oil and atomic energy (Etzkowitz, 1984). There is an accretion of programs to deal with particular industrial issues, assisting small firms, helping industries in trouble e.g. semiconductors in the face of Japanese competition in the late 1980's. There are also industrial policy implications of policies directed toward other problems e.g. national security and health. Military funding of computer science as an academic discipline and as an industrial enterprise for defense purposes created a civilian industry on a far greater scale than its defense counterpart. Industrial policy aims have also been achieved via indirect routes e.g. through encouraging university technology transfer. Thus an immanent industrial policy exists in the U.S. through the accumulation of precedents and programs.

In this paper we will examine several programs in the U.S., Norway and the European Union in order to demonstrate the contrasting approaches to industrial policy on both sides of the Atlantic. We will also look into the justifying concepts that go along such programs, for instance þmarket failureþ and "additionality".

Industrial Policy: American Style

Despite the stated lack of an "explicit" policy the U.S. has evolved several programs to assist civilian technology innovation including the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR).

The ATP has been the subject of charges of "corporate welfare" in consequence of grants to large corporations. The ATP also received a sharp budget rise in the early years of the Clinton administration, that called great attention to its existence and helped make it a focus of political controversy just at the point when a conservative Congress came into power in 1994. All the same, in the ensuing debate the support of the President helped insure the existence of the program even as its funding was reduced. Nevertheless, without the early push form the Clinton administration, the program's current budget of about 250 million instead of a projected 750 million is about the scale of a normal increase from modest beginnings of 10-20 million in appropriations in the late 1980s.

The SBIR, with its focus on small companies has been notably uncontroversial. Also, the SBIR originating in a single agency, the NSF, then spreading across the spectrum of federal agencies that sponsor research above a certain dollar amount required no additional appropriations, at least on the surface. SBIR was mandated by Congress as a kind of "tax" on the research budgets of agencies, initially 1/2 of a %, in the late 70s, gradually rising to a current projected level of 4%.

Despite notable exceptions, the U.S. federal government's role in commercialization of civilian technology is strictly limited to avoid ideological controversy. State governments, however, play a much more direct and well accepted role in assisting firms, given their broader economic responsibilities in the constitutional division of responsibilities.

Industrial Policy: European Style

Formed in 1951 to encourage peaceful cooperation and rationalize the production processes of heavy industry, The European Coal and Steel Community, has gradually metamorphosed into the EU þ a multifaceted entity with a mandate to deal with the consequences of decline of heavy industry in some regions on the one hand, and the relative absence of industry in other regions. A variety of programs have been initiated to carry out these goals, most focusing directly on firms themselves. The Framework programs have gradually shifted from a general focus on assisting economic development to a specific focus on filling gaps in the European innovation system. The STRIDE program, for example, begun to assist economic growth in developing regions, originally with a general interest in any enterprise (e.g. encouraging the growth of a "bed and breakfast" local tourist industry in Ireland), but has gradually moved to emphasize technology transfer. The upcoming Fifth Framework Program will have a special focus on university-industry relations and encouraging high-tech start-up firms..

The European gap is typically at the regional level, with notable exceptions such as Germany, where the Lander support significant R&D organizations often in cooperation with the federal government. However, in most of Europe regional cultural traditions are strong but political institutions are often weak or non-existent (Tornqvist, 1997). The European Union increasingly plays a significant role at the regional level, through various programs and initiatives, in encouraging innovation especially in smaller firms, where the role of national governments has been relatively weak.

Justifications for governmental intervention

Some kind of justification for public sector involvement in industrial development is required in most countries, but to differing degrees. Probably the single most important argument for government intervention is market failure. One of the famous and best cases of market failure is that of basic research, where government is expected to intervene, and does so all over the world. The market failure argument seems to be necessary especially in the U.S., and it is not often referred to in Europe. Some of the newer industrial policy measures in the U.S. like the SBIR/STTR programs do, however, not make much reference to market failure. Here, other arguments are used. It is for instance frequently said that the small firms that are the target group of the programs are disadvantaged, a term which in many cases refers more to þunfairnessþ in the federal support of R&D. It is said that public research funding has given a disproportionate share to large firms, compared to the number of small firms in the economy. The aim of for instance the SBIR/STTR programs has thus been to give small technologically oriented companies þa greater role in federally funded research and developmentþ. In Europe, creation of new jobs seems to be the most important warrant for industrial policy - dealing with unemployment is very much seen as a public task here. Public funds have also found the way into large firms in Europe. A case that demonstrates the point well is Norway. Here, a large share of money in the Research Councilþs þUser-controlled research programsþ found their way into some of Norwayþs largest and wealthiest companies. This was justified by using the concept of additionality þ it was shown that the funding had gone to R&D projects that otherwise would not have been carried out, and in some cases also had brought forth additional efforts on behalf of the companies. This justification is still highly debated, however, e. g. because it is unclear whether large firms are the best sources of new jobs.

Conclusion

Europe and America are converging on common policy agendas, each borrowing from the other. Europe is taking up the U.S. focus on small firms even as the U.S. becomes less hostile to the large ones, sharply reducing its anti-trust policies. A European focus on government industry policies is being supplemented by academic industry-relations even as the U.S. focus on university industry relations, an indirect industrial policy, is being supplemented by government-industry, relations, a direct industrial policy.

References

Bereano, Phil and Todd Fedorenko. 1997. þHigh Tech Candy Store: Corporate Welfare in Washington Stateþ

Etzkowitz, Henry. 1984. þSolar vs. Nuclear Energy: Autonomous or Dependent Technologyþ Social Problems, April

Tornqvist, Gunnar. 1997. þThe Territorial Field of Tension: Some basic concepts and ideasþ Unpublished manuscript. University of Lund, Sweden


return

Engineering Research at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil: Has Anything Changed in the Last 10 Years?

Lea Velho, Deborah Mello, and Solange Corder

For some time now industry-academic relations have been generally perceived to be a þgood thingþ, and the potential for expanding them is seen as almost unlimited. Evidence of this trend is provided in measures of the amount of money spent by industry on research activities carried out at the universities. Actually, figures for different industrialized countries reveal that an increasing proportion of research in universities has been funded by industry during the 1980þs. However, it is now widely recognised that this figure mask considerable variation across fields of knowledge, types of research institution__and countries.

Reasons for the increase in industry-university linkage are said to have both an element of þdemand pullþ on the side of industry and of þsupply-pushþ in the university research system. The latter implies that universities must secure funding from non-government sources if they are to maintain or expand their research activities.

It has been suggested that these developments amount to a þsecond academic revolutionþ with significant implications for academic practices and norms but also meaning a new social contract between academia and society. This requires that large scale government support for academic research will be sustained so long as the research plays a key role in the new economy. In view of this new contract, government itself has been an effective nurturer to the increase in interaction between industry and university by creating schemes, measures and programs to support the collaboration.

As it has historically been the case, science and technology policy frameworks desig____in the context of the advanced countries tend to be promptly adopted by the developing ones. So it is that promoting and estimulating university-industry collaboration is a top priority in the research agenda of all countries today. Brazil, of course, is no exception to this rule. National science and technology policy since the late 80þs, and even more in the 90þs has stressed university- industry collaboration and ear-marked government funds specifically for research initiatives involving partnership between both types of institutions.

In spite of the fact that existing research on the subject implies considerable diversity in university-industry linkage as far as fields of knowledge, region of the country, state of development of the technology are concerned, policy instruments and initiatives seem to desconsider such differences. In other words, the schemes developed to promote university-industry links in Brazil, either by government or by the universities themselves, take no account of the differing needs, demands, structures and operating ways of different industries, technologies or þend usersþ. For example, it is to be expected that the most efficient mechanisms to foster partnerships between agricultural producers and university researchers are not necessarily the same as the ones used to promote interaction between university and local industry. The same is probably true for national firms and transnational corporations.

The study reported in this paper was designed with three objectives in view. Firstly, it aimed to providing a more systematic understanding of the diversity in linkage than is afforded by other work by looking, comparatively, at the links established between agricultural engineering with the agricultural productive sector and the other specializations in engineering with the industrial productive sector. Secondly, the paper looks at the effects of the avaliable policy mechanisms in fostering such interaction and tries to evaluate which of them seem to be more appropriate for linking university research to the agricultural and to the industrial sector. Finally, it is meant to offer guidance to those charged with fostering constructive interaction between these two þpolesþ.

To meet the above objectives, research has been conducted at two schools of the University of Sþo Paulo (USP), Brazil -the Politechnic School, which combines teaching and research in all engineering fields, except in agriculture; and the Superior School of Agriculture þLuiz de Queirozþ, which does the same for agricultural engineering only. The University of Sþo Paulo is the most important and the highest quality university in the country and it is located in the most developed region, both in terms of agriculture and industrial production.

A number of quantitative information was collected for each case concerning sources of research funds; number, size and nature of projects funded by different sources; number of researchers and time devoted to research; research output and the like. In addtion, detailed interviews were conducted with a number of researchers in each school. A distinctive feature of our methodology is that quantitative data and information based on interviews were collected twice, that is: in 1986/87 and in 1996/97. We are thus able to evaluate what changed in these two schools, as far as linkages with the productive sector are concerned, in a ten years period. It is also possible to infer from the data and the interviews, and by looking at the policy mechanisms implemented in the period, which ones seem to have produced the expected results.


return

A Case of University, Industry, and Government Cooperation: An NSF-Funded Academy/Industry Dialogue on Safety in High-Hazard Production Systems

Constance Perin

The operation and regulation of high-hazard production systems (nuclear power, oil exploration and refining, aviation, rail transportation, chemical processing, among others) have been the subject of various social scientists' research, mostly since major accidents (Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Challenger, and Chernobyl). The organizational contexts of accidents and risk handling have also attracted the attention of organizational theorists and political scientists. Whatever is understood about managerial and organizational sources of error and accidents from the social and behavioral sciences is brought to industry largely by management consultants, some of whom may also be academics. The individual and small-group perspectives on "human error" developed by cognitive and social psychologists specializing in human factors and ergonomics have a long established niche in industry collaborations around the design of work and task environments. They have only recently taken an interest in any larger organizational contexts. Compared to the volume of research on risk estimation and perception, observational studies of the concepts and activities that comprise risk handling in their organizational settings have been limited. In all, few high-hazard industry experts in R&D as well as in production roles are acquainted with the concepts and frameworks of the social sciences' research literature on risk and safety.

One result is that valuable opportunities for interdisciplinary research collaboration are presently under realized. To address this question, I co-organized with John S. Carroll a two-day meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in October of 1994 attended by 12 researchers studying organizational and institutional aspects of safety in high-hazard industries. They were affiliated with 10 universities and with backgrounds in sociology, psychology, political science, economics, anthropology, management, engineering, and law. In addition to pursuing mutually interesting research questions, the group wanted to gain a better understanding of the ways that those in high-hazard industries understood the influence of organizational and managerial systems on risk handling.

The result in 1995 was a proposal for another workshop to the National Science Foundation, "Organizational Analysis in High-Hazard Production Systems: An Academy/Industry Dialogue." The workshop took place for 2.5 days in April 1997, with the goal of shaping a field of inquiry into questions of mutual interest, and simultaneously, of developing a case-study of the entire process of initiating and holding such an academy/industry dialogue. The workshop was intended to seed a supportive infrastructure for this potential community of scholars and practitioners.

This talk will recapitulate the processes involved in recruiting an industry partner (participants came from 12 member companies of the Center for Chemical Process Safety, a unit of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers) and 14 academic participants. The chemical process industry was chosen as an industry partner for its differences from aviation and nuclear power, which have been well-studied examples. Unlike these industries, chemical process plants are designed and operated in diverse ways. Chemists and engineers choose unique combinations of chemical processes and equipment, given the technology of the moment, cost, engineering "judgment," and situational constraints. Plants in different geographical locations operate in different markets, experience different physical and social environments, and employ different workforces. Safety management is championed by large companies, while numerous small and medium size enterprises appear to have questionable safety performance and lag industry norms on quantitative measures. Nevertheless, the most significant disaster of this industry, the Bhopal explosion that killed many thousands of people, occurred at a plant owned by a large and respected U.S. industry leader.

The talk will outline the three main themes around which discussion centered (drawn from academics' and some industry participants' 10-page pre-workshop concept papers) and the ways in which participants understood their different perspectives together with their observations and evaluations of the process. The research domains participants found significant will also be discussed. How the workshop schedule and structure was designed to maximize mutual benefit and discussion will also be described. The workshop's goal of catalyzing cross-disciplinary and academic-industry collaborations is gradually being realized. A report of the workshop to the National Science Foundation is available (Perin and Carroll 1997).


return

Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: Corporate Gifts Supporting Life Sciences Research

Eric G. Campbell, Karen Seashore Louis, and David Blumenthal

Context. Over the last decade there have been a number of studies of academic-industry research relationships. However, no studies to date have examined empirically academic scientistsþ experience with research-related gifts by companies.

Objective. To examine the frequency, importance and potential implications of research-related gifts from companies to academic life scientists.

Design. A mailed survey of 3394 life scientists at 50 universities that received the most research funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1993.

Setting. Research intensive universities.

Participants. University faculty who conduct research in the life sciences.

Main Outcome Measures. The percentage of faculty who received a research-related gift from a company in the last three years, the perceived importance of gifts to respondentsþ research and what, if anything, did the donor(s) expect in return for the gift.

Results. Forty-three percent of respondents received a research-related gift in the last three years. The most frequently received gifts were biomaterials (23%), discretionary funds (15%), research equipment and trips to meetings (11% each), support for students (9%) and other research-related gifts (3%). Of those who received a gift, 64 percent felt they were important to their research. More than half of recipients reported that donors expected acknowledgment in publications (63%), that the gift not be passed on to a third party (60%) and that it be used only for the agreed-upon purposes (59%). Approximately one-third of recipients felt the donor wanted pre-publication review of any articles or reports stemming from the use of the gift, thirty percent felt the company expected testing of their products, and 20 percent felt a donor expected ownership of all patentable results from the research in which a gift was used.

Conclusions. Research-related gifts are a common and important form of research support for academic life scientists. However, in exchange for gifts donors frequently place restrictions and expectations of returns associated with gifts that may be problematic for recipients as well as institutions.


return

WHO SHOULD SUPPORT RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES? THE PUBLIC'S OPINION ON THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY

Mary Woolley, President, Research!America, Alexandria, VA USA

Research!America, a nonprofit alliance of academia, industry, and voluntary health organizations in the United States, has been commissioning public opinion polls on research -- at both the national and statewide levels -- since 1992. These polls and others (including those commissioned or conducted by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and the National Science Board) have found strong public support but confusion about the roles played by the federal government, academia, and industry in both funding and conducting research. In the Roper poll, 84 percent say they agree that the United States should be the world leader in technological progress; 75 percent say spending money on pure scientific research is a good investment even if it is impossible to see what practical benefits it might have. The strong support is emphasized in a survey by the National Science Board that found that more than 70 percent of Americans say that the benefits of scientific research outweigh any present or potential drawbacks.

These and other polls and surveys have found that Americans support the role the federal government plays in science and technology. More than two-thirds of those polled by Research!America say even if it brings no immediate benefits, basic science research which advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the federal government. Research!America also found that three-quarters or more of respondents approve of the federal government providing public funds to universities to conduct scientific research. Nearly three-quarters of those polled by Roper indicate that the federal government has an important role to play in encouraging new developments in science and technology.

Despite the strong support, focus groups have found that many people are unclear as to what extent the federal government funds research and how the federal government works with or complements the efforts of academia and industry. For example, most of the research performed on university and college campuses is funded by the federal government, yet focus groups have found that members of the public are unaware of this. Members of the public also are confused as to the extent industry funds research. For example, when Research!America asks who pays for medical research, about 75 percent say the government and taxpayers. Only about ten percent say business and industry, yet industry pays for more than half of the medical research conducted today. Industry funds about 59 percent of the total national research and development activities.

There is public confusion as to who conducts research as well. For example, when Research!America asks at what type of institution or organization do you think most of the medical research in this country is conducted, universities are most often listed as the top response. Industry actually conducts most of the medical research conducted in the U.S. Industry performs 70 percent of total national research and development.

Communication is Key Research!America, in collaboration with federal agencies, academia, business, industry and voluntary health organizations has developed grass roots campaigns to clear up some of the misconceptions the public has regarding research. Poll results and recommendations for improved communication with the public will be detailed in this presentation.


return

The university-firm-government relationship: a study about the State University of Campinas (Unicamp)

Corder, Solange M.; Gomes, Erasmo J.; Mello, Debora L.; Brisolla, Sandra de N.

Studies currently developed about the university and society relationship have indicated the emergence of a Second Academic Revolution. This thesis has been developed since the end of the 1980s by Henry Etzkowitz and Andrew Webster . For them, quantitative and structural changes bring forth a new kind of academic institution, more directly oriented to have the role of an agency for economic development that leads to a reconfiguration of institutional boundaries. To facilitate contacts between universities and their surroundings new organizational structures are being established.

Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (1997) suggest the Triple Helix concept. Such concept allows us to understand relationships at three institutional spheres - university, firm and government - that are, increasingly, acting in conjunction, allowing the establishment of a spiral pattern of linkages emerging at various stages of the innovation process. This model is an intermediate proposal between free market economy and a centrally planned one, due to the fact that the development of science and technology should not be considered exclusively a State responsibility; it should be the sum of joint actions within and between institutional spheres (ETZKOWITZ and BRISOLLA, 1996).The present survey intends to appraise the intensity of these transformations in the Brazilian case, more specifically at a renowned university, Unicamp - established in the early 1960s to perform technological research to support the industrialization process of the country. Today, this university comprises of 19 colleges and institutes, 20 research centers and 14 services centers; it is also among the three most important universities in the country and it is a center of excellence in a number of knowledge fields. This paper presents the main results of the research. At first, information about projects developed in cooperation with the productive sector was gathered. Database from Funcamp - Unicamp Developing Foundation (Fundacao de Desenvolvimento da Unicamp) was used, for the years 1982-1995. This foundation is administratively in charge of most projects of the university. 725 projects were appraised - 46.5% from engineering, 27.4% from sciences, 21.7% from biological sciences and health and 4.4% university administration. About the contractor, 26.6% of the projects were accomplished with private sector companies, 22.4% with governmental companies, the others with governmental institutes of R&D, executive departments (federal, state and municipal), international institutes and national NGOs.

In the second part, 30% of the projects developed with the productive sector were appraised; leading to 57 interviews with professors-coordinators of the selected projects. This sample refers to 73.7% of colleges and institutes and 25.0% of research centers.

Among the results, the following stand out:

1. Relatively to other categories, private companies had the second highest frequency of accomplished projects; however, when their participation in the total amount of resources destined to funding projects was analyzed, they ranked fourth place. The participation of private companies in the total financed value was of approximately 6%. State owned companies funded about 22% of projects and, S&T funding agencies, participated in 52% of the total, ranking first place.

These results are similar to the patterns of National Science Foundation, for the USA., in which the average private sector participation in funding university research was of 6% to 7% between 1982-92 (NSF, 1993). The Brazilian profile is also similar to the Latin American one. According to the study of Vessuri (1994), the main partner of Latin American universities has been large state-owned companies, which represent the most technologically advanced sector and better human resource endowment. According to the same author, cooperation with multinational companies is restrict because most technologies are imported and only the adaptation for the regional market is developed locally.

2. Analyzing the interviews, it was noticed that most of the projects developed in cooperation with the productive sector - about 68% - were of research and/or development. The analysis of length of projects from Funcamp database shows the average length was of approximately 23 months. These results differ from other studies that report services activities to be more expressive (VELHO, 1995).

3. A large majority of the interviewed, about 90%, stated that the projects were successful. This information was provided by the firm in 70% of the cases, which indicates a good flow of communication between university and firm.

4. Another result to be emphasized is that the interaction had predominant positive effects, according to the interviewed. The most frequent ones were the possibilities to obtain new knowledge and share it with students, the increase in funding resources and the possibility to update research subjects.

5. Referring to tendencies, 77% of the interviewed stated that the cooperation with firms may increase, specially with private ones. This information also reflects the increasing privatization process of state-owned companies.

6. In 65% of cases, companies established the contacts. Academic excellence may be an important factor to explain the strong interest of companies in developing projects with this university. Some authors, Castro (1993) and Perre (1995), agree and confirm this point of view in their studies. The academic merit of researchers allows entrepreneur/client to locate them as well as to provide respectability and trustworthiness.

7. Informality was predominant in establishing contacts. In more than 50% of cases, contacts occurred through informal personal ways. The performance of institutional liaisons mechanisms has been very fragile. Dierdonck et al (1990:560) states that "there is no clear definition of the role of offices [of contracts] in the research strategy of university, and there is no consensus about which tasks it may perform". Other studies stand out the role of undergraduate and graduate students in stimulating interaction (Stefanuto, 1995 e Quirino, 1995).

Finally, the data gathered indicates a favorable condition for establishing cooperation links. Notwithstanding the existence of a series of positive factors pointed out by this study, it is important to consider the particularities of political, social and economical aspects prevailing in countries like Brazil. This way, the model of the Triple Helix is a tool that should be considered by policy makers, as it contemplates the active presence of the government: in establishing indirect industrial policies, in developing strengthening programs for each helix axis and in creating programs to stimulate the linkages between the university and its surroundings.

REFERENCES

CASTRO, M. H.M. - Estudo dos Centros de Excelencia: Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Cadernos de Gestao Tecnologica, 4. Sao Paulo: NPGCT/USP, 1993. 49 pp.

DIERDONCK ET AL. University-industry relationship: How does the Belgian academic community feel about it? Research Policy, 1990

ETZKOWITZ, H., BRISOLLA, S. Turf wars: the decline and fall of protectionist technology and industrial policies in Latin America - the case of Brazil. Paper apresentado no Mexico, setembro de 1996.

ETZKOWITZ , H., PETERS, L.S. Profiting from knowledge: organizational innovations and the revolution of academics norms, 1991.

ETZKOWITZ, H. Academic-industry relations: a sociological paradigm for economic development. In: Leydersdorff, L. e Van den Besslaar, P. Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: new directions in technology studies. London: Pinter Publishers, 1994. pp. 139-151.

LEYDESDORFF, L.; ETZKOWITZ, H. The future location of research: a triple helix of university-industry-government relations II. Theme paper for the New York conference, 1997.

PERRE, Gilberto Las relaciones de un grupo de fisicos y de engenieros de Sao Carlos con el setor productivo. In: VESSURI, Hebe (org.) La academia va al mercado - relaciones de cientificos con clientes externos. Caracas: Fondo Editorial Fintec, 1995. pp. 263-291

NSF. Science and engineering indicators. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1993.

QUIRINO, Tarcizio R. - O programa de soja na Universidade Federal de Vicosa. Cadernos de Gestao Tecnologica, 7. Sao Paulo: CYTED: NPGCT/USP, dezembro/1993.

STEFANUTO, Giancarlo N. Los limites del exito de la investigacion academica en el ambiente industrial. In: VESSURI, Hebe (org.) La academia va al mercado - relaciones de cientificos con clientes externos. Caracas: Fondo Editorial Fintec, 1995. pp. 137-162

VELHO, S. Relacoes universidade-empresa: desvendando mitos. Brasilia, junho 1995 (copia tipografica). VESSURI, H.M.C. La ciencia academica em America Latina en el siglo XX. Revista de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia (REDES), V. 1, N. 2, , Buenos Aires, Diciembre 1994, p. 41-76.

WEBSTER, A. J. International evaluation of academic-industry relations: contexts and analysis. Science and Public Policy, V. 21, N. 2, p. 72-78, april 1994.

WEBSTER, A.J & ETZKOWITZ, H. Academic-industry relations: the second academic revolution? London: Science Policy Support Group, 1991. 31p. (SPSG concept paper n. 12).


return

Empowering Technology: The Role of the State for Generating Biotech Innovation in Germany and the U.S.

Susanne Giesecke

The debate on competitiveness has shed new light on the role the state concerning the furthering of high tech innovation. It seems that since the major economic recession of the 1980s governments of industrialized countries have assumed a more interventionist role in order to strengthen the home base of their industries, especially those of high technologies. However, those industries that have become to be most competitive in the international economic arena have experienced a much longer intervention of the state than over the last 18 years. A case in point is the biotechnology industry in the United States and in Germany. Both countries, ranging among the top of international biotech innovation (on the pharmaceutical sector), have charted different paths to further innovative activity. This paper gives an account of the range and limits of state intervention and the differences of biotech innovative development in both countries.

The main focus is on the triad relation of government, industry and academic research in both countries. Whereas Germany has pursued a model of direct intervention to support biotech innovation in industry and academic research institutes, the US pluralist approach of empowering the context of innovation has been by far more successful. Major findings of my analysis show that the incentives given to various factors of the US system of biotech innovation were more appropriate to bring academic research results from the biotech laboratory onto the market. With several measures the US government indirectly strengthened the ties between university research and industry. Even though the German government intended the same goals, several structural constraints account for the limits of state intervention. More over, some factors determining biotech innovation simply are not within a governmentþs reach. In my paper I will explain the nature of academic-industry relations initiated and supported by state measures in the United States and in Germany in more detail.


return

The Changing Structure of University-Industry-Govermnent R&D Relationships: Evidence from the Experience of Engineering Research Centers

Irwin Feller, J. David Roessner, and Catherine Ailes

In this paper we present findings from a series of national studies of the performance of university and industry participants in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program. These findings bear upon hypothesized, triple helix-like changes in the characteristics of university-industry-government R&D relationships.

In terms of number of industry and university participants, level of funding, and longevity, ERCs represent one of the major public sector innovations of the mid-1980s in fostering improved cooperation between universities and industry. Examination of ERC experiences provides a rich testbed on the extent, character, and sustainability of changes in flows of knowledge, organizational roles, and interorganizational patterns as highlighted in the triple helix model of emerging university, industry, and (federal and state) government relationships. For example, among the ERC program's key objectives is the conduct of crosscutting engineering research by interdisciplinary, often newly created, assemblages of faculty, students, and facilities.

A related premise is that industry demand exists for this type of engineering research. This (new) demand reflects both (U.S.) industry's recognition of its need to improve core production processes to be competitive in global markets, arid the restructuring of corporate R&D operations to emphasize divisionally-based, line-of-business research at the expense of central R&D laboratories directed at longer term, generic R&D. Evidence of this demand is to be manifested in industry cost-sharing, a requirement contained in NSF's program solicitation.

Mail and telephone survey data (augmented by a select number of site visits) have been collected from 335 of the 581 companies participating in the 18 ERCs in operation in 1994. The data provide both quantitative and qualitative information on firms' expected and realized benefits as derived from their ERC participation. More germane to the postulates of the triple helix model, the interviews point to the complex decision processes and internal corporate events that shape firms' need for R&D partnerships with universities, and the extent and manner in which knowledge generated by universities is absorbed within the firm.

Consistent with other studies and prevailing statements that firms are systematically shunting off basic R&D activities to other external performers, the study points to the firms' need to acquire access to ideas, research-based knowledge, and university expertise as their primary reason for participating in ERCs. The central, if at times muted, role of the (federal) government sponsor in inducing firms to support ERCs also is evident. Firms frequently cite the cost~ffectiveness of being able to leverage multi-million dollar, externaHy-performed R&D prograrns with their far more modest participation fees as one of the ERCs' most attractive features. Firms also describe the relationship between their participation in ERCs and their own in-house R&D programs as complements rather than substitutes for one another. Findings arising from ERC projects (and the associated interaction of industrial representatives with faculty and students from the ERCs) help shape and modify internal R&D agendas. But fmdings also point to distinctively intra-firm influences (e.g., changes in business strategy and mergers) on the extent to which knowledge generated by new R&D partnerships is used by the firm, and thus on limits to the modification of organizational roles and interactions.

Interdisciplinarity is another defining characteristic of both ERCs and the triple helix model. However, despite frequent statements about the inevitable, emerging ascendancy of new Mode II forms of interdisciplinary knowledge, the standing of interdisciplinary programs on major U.S. research universities remains problematic; they have been described as "orphans" of the fiscal bureaucracy in a recent Government-University- Industry Research Roundtable report.

Examination of ERC experiences, compared with earlier studies (e.g., Friedman and Friedman), provides evidence of change in the form of interdisciplinarity, its spread from research to instructional activities, and its possible spread from ERCs to other sectors of the affected colleges. The pending "graduation" of a number of ERCs as they reach the maximum number of years of support also provides early test cases of the extent to which interdisciplinarity has become institutionally and organizationally viable or remains dependent on the program requirements (and funds) of external sponsors.


return

The Future of Triple Helix(es): Mobile, or Vanishing Boundaries?

Erkki Kaukonen & Mika Nieminen

The science and technology system as a whole may be understood as a complex, multi- dimensional matrix. The matrix is at the same time:

- multi-institutional as it consists of various institutional actors and contexts with their distinct R&D profiles and normatives (academic, governmental, industrial as main types),
- multi-level as it involves different kinds of R&D -activities at different levels - local, regional, national, international, macro-regional, global - each having their specific agendas and organizational modes of research,
- multi-substance as it covers the whole cognitive spectre of scientific diciplines and research fields, from hard to soft and from basic to applied R&D.

In the longer historical perspective, an increasing differentiation and diversification of R&D and its institutional settings has taken place and the pace of changes still seems to be accelerating. The transition process has lead to a functional differentiation or þerosionþ of the traditional academic system of science, on the one hand, and to the enlargement of the profile of governmental and industry based R&D, on the other. This has meant a clear shift of emphasis from the disciplinary context of knowledge production to an application oriented and commercial context of R&D, or from the public þrepublic of scienceþ to a less public, but more competitive system of þscientific entrepreneurshipþ. Today, the research matrix is in a state of transformation in all the above dimensions which again have complex inter-linkages.

If we look at the structural changes in R&D from a more holistic, systemic perspective, it is obvious that the transitory processes have increased and strengthened the interconnections between various institutional elements of science and technology and, at the same time, created new cognitive linkages. The whole research system is becoming internally more integrated and dynamic as the concept of Triple Helix anticipates. As the linkages between different institutional players in R&D tend to grow closer and more intensive, this also affects the traditionally distinct roles and tasks of the institutions involved. The process of inter-institutional integration is not linear or without controversies though. Rather it may be depicted as a tendency, or a spiral kind of development influenced by such mediating factors as governmental S&T policies and intra- institutional strategies.

This development is also reflected in the policy concept of þnational innovation systemsþ even though its validity is widely debated. To be sure, innovation policies are still mainly formulated at the level of nation states. The scientific and technological base of innovation systems, however, is inevitably becoming more international, involving aspects from regional to global knowledge economy. Therefore, parallel to national innovation systems, one may also speak about þregionalþ and even þglobal systems of innovationsþ, at least in specific fields of knowledge production. Regional may refer to both national micro-regions and international macro-regions like the Baltic region or the EU as a whole. An interesting question arising here is whether and on what grounds one could already speak about a þEuropean system of innovationþ or a þEuropean Triple Helixþ.

The þglocalþ trajectory of science and technology constitutes an increasingly important dimension in the restructuration of R&D systems. The internationality of R&D is an essential problem at least in three respects. First, new forms of international research activity and co- operation, including the new virtual communities, are being developed on various regional and global bases. These range from official (e.g. the EUþs RTD programs) to unofficial and even spontaneous (Internet). Second, especially small countries are facing the issue of adjusting their national science and technology systems and policies to the þimperativesþ of international developments. And third, it is evident that different fields of science are also different in their international þecologyþ.

The innate diversity of scientific disciplines and research fields is evident here (of course, scientific disciplines differ in many other respects as well). If a particular scientific field has a common or universal substance, it naturally necessitates active cooperation in the whole international community. The situation is crucially different in social sciences and in many applied research fields, in which national and international elements are inextricably combined in some way or an other. For instance in sociology it is still necessary to study the national societies in the first place, with their specific socio-economic, political and cultural characteristics. At the same time one has to take into account the increasing effects of international dependencies (e.g. the European integration) on national development. In general we may state that the degree of national specificity vs. internationality (or universality) objectively varies among scientific fields. Therefore, while understanding the increasing importance of international connections and collaboration in science and technology, it is essential to see internationality as a means for achieving certain scientific objectives, not as an objective in itself.

The research interests of different fields as well as their utilization potentials are thus modified in a specific context of relevant relationships. Each scientific field has a unique location on the R&D map with a specific cognitive and social environment in which the researchers create relevant networks for communication and cooperation. The new modes and means of scientific communication will greatly enhance networking possibilities and challenge the existing institutional, cognitive and national boundaries in science.

Small countries like Finland face a permanent problem in trying to strike a balance between their national R&D interests and priorities, on the one hand, and international developments in science and technology, on the other. On the level of science policy decision making, there is a further strategic dilemma of choosing between a strong priority policy (i.e. selective concentration of resources on key areas) and a policy of more equal opportunities. Should science policy be highly selective and concentrate resources on reaching the international forefront at some specialized areas or should it support the development of a broader national R&D competence in the first place? Obviously there are no easy or clear-cut answers to these questions.

The systemic changes in the R&D environment are reflected in science policies which again mediate these changes by selectively supporting certain lines of development. In the paper the evolvement of this relationship will be exemplified by a case study on the Finnish research system and its changing connections to science policy agendas. On the basis of our analysis we suggest that the concept of Triple Helix should not be limited to inter-institutional aspects only. It should also involve the different levels of R&D activities and be sensitive to the disciplinary diversity. In the multi-dimensional matrix of R&D the Triple Helix developments may vary at the levels of local/regional, national and international R&D activities. This depends on the governmental policies as well as on the strategical position of different diciplines in the science matrix. As certain research domains are defined as strategically important, the regional, national and international S&T policy interests may intertwine with each other, resulting in multi-level university-government-industry networks while other domains may still function more traditionally and separately.

The insitutional developments also vary on national bases. We estimate, for instance, that in Finland the less developed links in the R&D matrix are in the areas of interdiciplinary (academic) and intersectorial (governmental) co-operation, mainly due to institutional constraints, while the government-industry and intercompany connections as well as the international contacts seem to be relatively more developed and dynamic. Moreover the þglocalþ trajectory of science and technology is of special importance here. For example, the European RTD programs and priorities add new elements into the R&D matrix and their impact varies in different research fields and levels of the matrix. The effects of international science and technology policies need to be analyzed against this backround.

The development is by no means unproblematic. The Triple Helix development may also contain potentially contradictory tendencies. For instance, if the national innovation policy is exclusively focused on the technolocigal development at the international forefront, the societal problems arising from the technological systems or the wider civilian society may loose their visibility. Interestingly, in Japan, where the þhard science and technologyþ sphere has developed very rapidly and successfully, specific attention in science and technology policies has been recently paid to "soft science and technologyþ which includes the human aspects and the human interface of hard science and technology. This broader perspective may re-emphasize the importance of academic science, as it constitutes the most open sector of research and still is the main reproducer of soft scientific knowledge and manpower.

An ideal Triple Helix would imply a broad and balanced concept for research policy, which would acknowledge the different functions and the relative independence of the main institutional partners. Institutional integration would be based on complementarity and functional division of labour rather than eliminating the existing institutional differences. For inctance universities have to maintain multiple research and educational functions if they want to serve the whole society. To be able to do this, the universities should be able to act more as partners than as subcontractors. This kind of broader policy concept would rather develop and activate the interfaces between different actors than try to squeeze their activities into one single model. A balanced Triple helix would also allow for a considerable degree of pluralism and diversity in the R&D system and leave room for curiosity oriented basic research activities as well.


return

Academy Science - Government Relations: Case of Ukraine

Lidiya Kavunenko, Center for Scientific and Technological Potential and Science History Studies, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 60 Shevchenko blvd., 252032 Kiev-32, Ukraine

Economic crisis, shrinkage or opportunities to provide necessary financial stipport to science from Eovernmental sources became powertul factors, which tend to ruin national S&T potential. In Ukraine, as in other C1S, fundamental researches were done mostly in their academies of sciences. An academy or sciences if taken from the functional perspective (coordination of researches in natural, engineering, social sciences and humanities, co- operative links with higher education system, coordination of researches at the national level, setting up of co-operative links between science and industrial sector) can be described as unique linking chain within national S&T system and, hence, now it has no alternatlon. Therefore, various versions or Ukrainian S&T system reform include the issue on the academy's reformation, but not on its disbandment.

Now we are witnessing fall down of status of science drastic shrinkage of financial support for fundamental research and higher eduoation, these being factors leading to decline or traditional social impact, which the National Academy of Sciences had for decades. Reforms within S&T system are going to be done on the basis of conceptual framework for the Academy's development, adopted by the Summit Meeting or its members on January 1991, and its new statut (1992). Actual step toward democratization of the Academy was taken by assigning of additional rights to academy institutions. As a result of the measure the institutes concerned gained extended autonomy. Yet, under the conditions or stagnation, hyperinflation. "strategy of survival" it's difficult to observe all these rights at the institutes' level.

The problems related to science budgeting as well as to budgeting sources are the main in the science system reforming process, these are factor which influence both qualitative and quantitative aspects of reforms (their direction and pace). Endeavours to launch science system reforming process, to alter procedues and principes at budgeting in the S&T sphere had been tried in times of the USSR. In late 8O-s there were proposals to apply single principles and methods of cost calculation (pricing) for all stages of innovative cycle.

However, lack of competition and worsening of economic performance at the national level caused the decline of demand in markets of S&T products. Long- term investments proved to be ineffective. Conversion led to the decrease of funds meant for support of R&D, mostly of phisics, mathematics and engineering profiles. Although the progress of inarket reforms in the society has proved much more vividly the need of S&T system reforming, yet, Socio-economic crisis cut of so drastically the number of possible alternative development policies for S&T sector.

During 90-s the share of expenditures on science in the national Total Gross Products decreased 5 times from 3,1% in 1990 to as low as 0,6% in 1996.

During 1990-96 the most essential changes in budgeting of the Institutes concerned are associated with lesser amounts of funds coming from onterprises on contract lines. While before the occurence of crisis condition the Academy had received most of its funds from contract sources (about 55%), in the middle of 90-s this share decreased in 10 times. Crisis in the economy led to curtailment of R&D contracted from outside, which made it dittioult to carry out not only applied researches, but fundamental as well.

Although the Institutes of the Academy of sciences of Ukraine have common features, which are indicative of the transformation process there in, their present conditions, opportunities to adapt to dynamic economic conditions differ. This is the consequence of differences in S&T fields, in which they work, as well as of different forms and methods of S&T policy, pursued within the institutes and outside them. Of great importanoe are democratic ways adapted by the personnel in the institutes, opportunities to initiate selection of subject topic at the institutes' level participation in competitions of S&T projects, search for users of S&T products, partners for joint projects, promotion of contacts with colleagues from abroad, adaption of specific measures aimed at improvement of R&D arrangements.


return

Fusion in Flux: Nuclear Fusion Research as a Case Study in Changing Boundaries

William J. Kinsella

In a time of rapidly changing conditions for the practice of science, the international effort to develop controlled nuclear fusion provides a case study of the interactions between a particular research field and its turbulent socioeconomic environment. The internal and external boundaries of this field- disciplinary, institutional, geographic, and organizational-are in rapid flux at present, and the evolution of these boundaries will have a profound effect upon the future practice of fusion research. This paper will examine the changing context for research in fission science and technology development, and the redefinition of the field that is now taking place in response to these changes.

Data for this study were collected as part of a four year project on organizational communication at the Princeton University Plasrna Physics Laboratory, a principal site for fusion research since the field's origin more than fifty years ago. Operated by a major research university for the federal government and funded by the United States Department of Energy, the lab exemplifies the complex university-government relationships characteristic of contemporary "big science."

The facility is also embedded in a larger institutional matrix as part of the Department of Energy's National Laboratory system, which is experiencing a significant restructuring at present. The laboratory's dual missions of producing fundamental scientific knowledge and developing a practical energy technology provide a rich example of the negotiated boundaries between science and technology, which are now being redrawn as part of a major policy shift on the part of the funding agency.

A further dimension of interest is the laboratory's role in larger national and international fusion research efforts. At the national level, the lab's core mission has been deeply affected by programmatic changes that are driven by economic and political considerations. At the international level the lab participates in a global consortium with the goal of developing the "next generation" fusion research reactor, which provides a large scale example of efforts at globalizing scientific research. Both the national and the international programs are experiencing serious organizational, economic, and political challenges, with immediate implications for the practice of fusion research.


return

Public Research institutions and Science Policies

Robert Dalpe and Marie-Pierre Ippersiel

This paper deals with policies developed in Canada since the mid-80's in order to orient public research institutions (PRI) towards more direct industrial relevance. Ten university and government organizations created during that period, or which greatly benefited, from the recent policies are analysed. These institutions are involved in materials and communications research.

Policies implemented since the mid-80's are derived from the new theory of innovation and also integrate renewed interaction between the public and private sectors which characterizes public policies. Industrial competitiveness is the priority and private sector management techniques are privileged. In PRI, industrial representatives are more involved in decision making and their level of satisfaction is taken into account in the evaluation process.

The study of PRI should also contribute to a better understanding of the new ties established between public and private sectors. The expected outcomes of this reorientation are more interaction with the private sector and greater industrial relevance. It is important to stress that this change is supposed to be implemented through greater control of the scientific institutions by external actors, coming mainly from the private sector. This however did raise concerns on the part of some member of the scientific community who feared the important negative impact of such outside interventions. Their fears centered around the traditional lower support of the private sector for pure research and its tendency to favor "privatization" of research results.

These research PRI therefore had to be analysed in their context. An historical perspective was required in order to follow their development. Even if some PRI were created only recently, they were associated with older institutions. In the case of university research, the later remained active concurrently.It was equally interesting to analyse their interactions not only with the private sector, but also with other public institutions.

Although most of these PRI are new, they emerged from previous institutions and succeeded in getting funds because of their previous activities as important research groups. Obviously initiatives of the 70's greatly benefited from the recent programs. The same applied for university-industry, those which had previously established university-industry relations were more successful.

This group of course offers great diversity. Four are research institutions where the whole range of scientific activities are performed. The others represent research networks. As in other sectors, the 80's and 90's are characterized by the multiplication of institutions, and our cases are typical of that dynamic. These new institutions offer greater flexibility. More recent initiatives are established as not-for-profit bodies, and they have more autonomy. The two federal laboratories created research consortiums at the beginning of the 90's. The most successful, as a not-for-profit body, developed its own projects and hired its own staff, a procedure which would not have been easily possible within the Institute.

In terms of university-industry interactions, the result was a positive reaction on the part of Canadian industry, even more so than expected. For researchers in sciences and engineering, finding an industrial partner willing to invest a limited amount of money was relatively easy. In materials research, researchers in metals had industrial counterparts, although industry R&D spending is very low. Those in semiconductors were equally successful, despite the absence of a Canadian industry in semiconductors, because they were supported by related industries. However, some sectors did have difficulties, such as researchers working on pulp and paper. It should be added that industrial innovation was a priority. R&D tax credit programs for industry were generous and industrial grants for the support of research consortiums were abundant. Industrial partners were only assuming part of their spending.

Even if the private sector has increased its involvement, governments, directly or indirectly, are still the main fund providers of these research institutions.


return

Where is Research Located in Canada? A Statistical Approach

Frances Anderson

The traditional approach to understanding the location of R&D is incarnated in the Frascati manual (OECD 1980) and its statistical realization in the annual OECD publication on Basic Science and Technology Statistics. Implicitly, the Frascati manual defines the location of the R&D in terms of expenditures by R&D performers. Performers are classified in the following broac sectors: business enterprise, higher education, government and private non-profit. The location of business enterprise R&D is further broken down by industry (50 industrial categories in 1996) and the location of higher education is broken down by field of science (natural sciences, engineering, medical sciences, agricultural sciences, social sciences and humanities). Data for the other sectors is available in two categories: 1. natural sciences and engineering, and 2. social sciences and humanities. This currently available data can thus provide statistical indicators of where R&D is located by type of performer, industry and field of study.

Given that the above-mentioned types of statistics are currently available, why they are not considered to be adequate to describet the "location of R&D"? The sense of inadequacy arises, in large part from the "national innovation systems approach" (OECD 1997). This approach stresses that the flows of technology and information among people and institutions are key to the innovative process. Thus, R&D occurs, to a large extent, in the interactions between different R&D actors and within networks or clusters that can involve multi-actors from different sectors.

The statistical challenge for locating R&D resides in the statistical description of the linkages between and within sectors. New statistics are being developed which attempt to measure the linkages between people and organizations and have been characterized in a recent OECD document as the measurement of: 1. interactions among enterprises, 2. interactions among enterprises, universities and pulbic research institutes, 3. technology diffusion, and 4. personnel mobility. This new orientations is also leading to an array of different approaches to analyzing the national innovation systems, using linkage statistics. These approaches include analysis of firm-level innovations, cluster analysis (i. the interaction between particular types of firms and sectors), as well as the analysis of innovation systems at different levels: municipal, sub-regional, national, pan-regional and international.

Although the boundaries between public and private, science and technology, university and industry are in flux. the linkages between R&D actors are not arbitrary. Rigorous statistical analysis reveals certain patterns in the linkages and can contribute to the understanding of the functioning of university-industry-government relations and networks. For example, researchers in certain disciplines have a propensity to link or partnership with certain types of industries or certain industries consistently hire new graduates from certain disciplines. Such regularity in the patterns of linkages make it possible to statistically describe channels of knowledge flow which are sustained and ongoing, and to identify, as wel areas of change and turbulence.

The presentation will focus on currently available statistical indicators of the location of research in Canada as well as the new "linkage" and "flow" indicators that are being developed by the Science and Technology Redesign Project at Statistics Canada. Rhe indicators that have been developed rely on different statistical sources including: R&D payments, government R&D contracts, bibliometric data and uptake of new S&T graduates by the job market. This work will develop a statistical baseline for the location of research in Canada and will provide the basis of the observation of trends over the coming years. The paper will also present a taxonomy of knowledge activities in the knowledge system which has been developed by the project in order to provide guidance in the systematic collection of statistics on S&T, of which linkage data are a critical component.

OECD (1980). The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development. "Frascati Manual".
OECD (1997). Working Group on Innovaiton and Technology Policy. National Innovation Systems: Background Report.


return

Human Resource Development: A new role for Advanced Research Institutions

S. Visalakshi

The new developments in S&T and international politics leading to globalization and opening up of economies have led to international competitiveness. The concerns of improving productive performance led to emphasis on technological advantage as a means to substantive gains in these. The increased use of S&T personnel is required for devising, developing and introducing new technologies which can fire the engine of growth. An adequate supply of qualified personnel is a precondition to development based on a strongly knowledge-intensive economic growth. According to a report by OECD a short fall is envisaged between the supply and demand for R&D personnel or qualified knowledge-workers in the exact and natural sciences in the OECD countries.

While there is a concern in the world over about mismatch of the R&D and S&T personnel supply and demand in the years to come, due to a variety of reasons like aging, rapid development of certain technologies which result in obsolescence of the knowledge of researchers, decline in college age population, in India, we face another mismatch i.e. in addition to that in the numbers, a mismatch in the skills and knowledge between the supply and demand. While the numbers is a concern of institutions which generate human resource in the country, the advanced R&D organizations can part take the responsibility in abating the crisis and help relieve the concern regarding mismatch in skills of educated S&T manpower.

In this paper an attempt is being to made to outline the reasons for the occurrence of mismatch in skills in supply and demand of human resource in S&T in India and suggests a model which invokes new roles and mode of operation among the major actors in the business of manpower development in the country. The basic feature of the new effort is cooperation and complementing each other to achieve a common benefit. Development of manpower in Biotechnology is taken as a case and efforts and strategies taken by different countries and India is given to illustrate the strength in argument for the suggested model. It further delineates, in this context, the possible role of national R&D institutions and mechanisms for achieving this.


return

Is S&T Policy Research Transdisciplinary?

Peter Van den Besselaar

The contemporary S&T system is changing in the institutional as well as in the cognitive dimension.

- With respect to the organization of the production of knowledge, we witness the emergence of many new linkages between research institutions, firms and governmental institutions (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff 1997).

- On the cognitive side, transdisciplinary (mode 2) research is emerging complementary to traditional monodisciplinary (mode 1) research. Where the latter is guided by internally formulated problems and methods, the former is characterized by application-orientation, multiple authorships, changing patterns of cooperation between researchers, and a growing role of none-academic institutions (Gibbons et. al. 1994).

Although emphasis generally is on technology, and on related natural sciences, (Gibbons et. al. 1994; Leydesdorff & Gaulthier 1996; Van den Besselaar & Leydesdorff 1993) in modern knowledge-intensive economies the role of social sciences and humanities is growing too. An example is social research into the usability and organizational context of applications of information technology, which is increasingly becoming part of the core-business of computer science.

Within the context of the study of the Triple Helix, it is reflexively interesting to ask the question whether the study of research policies and R&D-management (RPM) itself is evolving into a 'mode 2' constellation.

In this paper we will try to answer this question by analyzing the structure of RPM as a research field, in the cognitive and in the institutional dimension. Can we delineate RPM as 'transdisciplinary'? What are the related monodisciplinary fields? What is the intensity of information flows between RPM and the various relevant (mono-)disciplines? Which institutions do play a role in the research? Is the production of knowledge in RPM application-oriented.

An analysis of changing patterns of journal-journal citations will be used to delineate RPM as a research field, as well as the monodisciplinary environment of RPM (Van den Besselaar & Leydesdorff 1996). This enables us to specify the relevant information flows, and the research institutions that are working within the field (Van den Besselaar 1996). The analysis may result into hypotheses about the role of the transition of 'mode 1' to 'mode 2' research in the social sciences and the humanities.

References:

Michael Gibbons et.al (1994), The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.

Henry Etzkowitz & Loet Leydesdorff (1997), Universities and the global knowledge economy: a tripple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Cassell Academic.

Loet Leydesdorff & Elaine Gaulthier (1996), The evaluation of priority areas by means of scientometric methods. Research Policy 25.

Peter Van den Besselaar (1996), The dynamics of science studies, a reconstruction. Paper for the joint EAST/4S conference 'Signatures of Knowledge Societies'. Bielefeld 9-12 October 1996.

Peter Van den Besselaar & Loet Leydesdorff (1993), Research performance in AI and Robotics, an international comparison. AI-Communications 6, 2. pp 83-91.

Peter Van den Besselaar & Loet Leydesdorff (1996), Mapping change in scientific specialties; a scientometric case study of the development of artificial intelligence. Journal of the American Society of Information Science 47, pp 415-436.


return

Relations between Space Agencies, Governmental Funding Policies, and the Industrial Segment - the Brazilian Experience

Alexandre Costa Coelho

This paper is, in fact, a synopsis of a part of a complete study concerning the Brazilian space experience based on the relations between the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), federal governmental policies and the industrial sector. Its main focus is to trace the relations between these three structural vertices and pursuing the patterns, which constitute their binders.

The complete study has been conducted under the supervision of the Institute of Economics (State University of Campinas) - financed by FAPESP, São Paulo's research financing agency. The findings in this study were derived from a survey of information sources and fit within the broader context of a field-based empirical study of the Brazilian experience in satellite production. It is partly based on a senior experts meeting, interviews and questionnaire organized under the research project group, between 1995 and March 1997.

The complete research study comprises basically four chapters. The first and second chapters focus on the American and European experience in the triple vertices relation between space agencies (NASA and ESA), governmental space and industrial policies and the development of the industrial sector, respectively. The third and fourth chapters concern, inter alia, the Brazilian space activities and give special emphasis to the relations between the Brazilian space agency (INPE), governmental policies and the development of industrial capabilities in the space scenario. In this respect, the paper to be presented is, therefore, a synopsis of the third and fourth chapters of the complete study.

The paper also aims to describe the construction of the Brazilian space framework in terms of its main space programs and to analyze the industrial policies applied to and put forth by the Brazilian Complete Space Mission (MECB) and the China-Brazil Earth Resource Satellite Program (CBERS).

Given the importance of establishing a correct analysis of this subject matter we have identified the cornerstone objectives and premises of this paper, which have been to: (i) characterize the institutional modus operandi of INPE, identify its main space programs and strategic aspects; (ii) analyze the government's funding policies and its directives towards space policy and industrial development; (iii) examine the development of the relations between INPE and the industrial sector, outlining the most important phases of this "learning cooperation" as to the technological, innovative and learning aspects; (iv) examine the role of the university as a contributor and a co-responsible partner for technological and scientific development, and for synergetic attributes shared with INPE and the Brazilian space industry.


return

The Role of Universities During the Technology Acquisition and Utilization Process

Birol Alp, Neslihan Alp, and Yildirim Omurtag

Technology has been recognized as a major driving force behind industrial progress and structural change, enabling countries to increase their competitiveness and hence their share of international trade. Today, international trade is, more than ever, a major source of economic progress for the growing exposure of domestic enterprises to the rigors of global competition, which promotes efficiency. In the present era of deregulation, privatization, and increasing global market competition, most industrialists in developing countries have come to the realization that better and more advanced technologies are needed for the survival of both public and private sector enterprises. However, in the absence of an established theory supported by a proper information base for formulating pragmatic technology policies and strategies, developing countries face enormous difficulties in the area of technology innovation.

The primary goal of this study is to show the role of universities during the technology acquisition and utilization process in a developed country (the U.S.) and in a developing country (Turkey). Through a survey instrument and by using the þTechnology Acquisition and Utilization Model (TAUM)þ, the difficulties of new technology implementation process are analyzed to assist technology policy makers. This study using the TAUM proposed explores the reasons, results, and impacts of new technologies in manufacturing organizations in a developed and a developing country. The TAUM has three zones: Need zone, acquisition zone, and utilization zone.

Figure 1. Technology Acquisition and Utilization Model (TAUM)

The purposes of this model is to increase the ability of identification, evaluation, and selection of the appropriate new technology to be adopted a firm, to select better strategies for technology improvement in a given firm, and to enhance the effectiveness of technology acquisition and utilization by overcoming many barriers to new technology. On the other hand, the survey, which was conducted in more than 100 manufacturing organizations, identifies and analyzes the key components of the variables, such as reasons, impacts, and limitations, influencing the technology innovation process in manufacturing organizations.

The results showed that additional training of the workforce is essential to achieve improvements in acquiring and successfully implementing new technology in both the developed and the developing countries. The need for this may be even greater in Turkey than the U.S. given the fact that state educational institutions charged with engineering and technology education do not now consider outreach among their stated missions which include only teaching and research. Attempts to provide focused training programs are beginning to emerge and significant growth in this area should be forthcoming. This represents an opportunity for Turkish universities to expand their efforts in the outreach area to help the industry.


return

Innovation Efforts Policy in the Turbulent Times, Areas and Systems:
The Case of Eastern Europe and not only

Lech Zacher
Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management, Warsaw, Poland.
Fax.: +48-2-621 7443.

Apart from "material processes" of innovation there is also its "ideological" dimension. Both are reflected in "Triple Helix". In the leading Western economies (Japan included) there is the significant level of clarity, stability and prospects. However, there are subjects of all changes labelled as e.g. third wave, postcapitalism, postmarket system, postmodern era, ect. (see, e.g., works of Toffler, Drucker, Thurow, Lyotard, Rip). These changes create the new environment (material and intellectual) for innovation activity, policy, diffusion, applications. New paradigms are searched for (see M. Gibbons et al.).

Other countries as LDCs and postcommunist (Eastern and Central Europe, mix cases like P.R. of China) are due to globalization and opening up their economies in the same international and global environment (marked by competition, integration processes, cooperation, aid, etc.). But they have their own specific internal environment (system) with specific driving forces, factors, mechanism and conditions. Being less advanced in many dimensions (education, technological culture, institutions, policy creation and implementation processes, postmodern mentality, etc.) they are often confused. This confusion can be found in thinking on innovation, in innovation policy and its implementation. How not to be a periphery being pressed by internal goals like privatization, demonopolization, deregulation, diminishing inflation, etc., and all global market impositions and challenges. How to combine then such striking concepts like postcommunism and postmodernism, pro-market reforms and postmarket system, (social) "construction" of capitalism (whatever it means), evident underdevelopment or maldevelopment and the idea of information or knowledge economy, societies in transition and information or high tech societies and so on. Above terms are not only a case of jargon or slogans. They have their reflections in real economies and societies, mostly in those which are in transition (like e.g. Eastern and Central Europe). More examples and more analysis will be provided.


return

The Triple Helix in Washington State:
A Case Study

Tod Federenko and Phil Bereano

While the phenomenon of public subsidization of high-tech industry has received growing attention over the past several years, few research efforts have focused on this issue at the state and local levels. In 1991, researchers in Washington State began investigating the magnitude and effectiveness of local subsidies to high-tech and biotech industries. Our ongoing research has been accompanied by a parallel effort to turn this work into public policy action by educating concerned citizens, policy makers and elected officials. This paper reports on research exploring one form of state subsidy to the high tech industry.

Supporters of state and local subsidies and development incentives for high tech industry claim that these programs are necessary to create a positive atmosphere for future economic growth. This, they argue results in the attraction of new firms to the state, the retention and expansion of existing industry and ultimately, the creation of high paying jobs. Such logic however has led to intense competition between states for high tech investment leading to often irrational giveaways with no guaranteed returns.

Despite a constitutional prohibition on corporate welfare in all forms in Washington State, such subsidy programs have flourished recently. These programs include annual tax breaks, direct locational assistance, "regulatory relief," and public support of private R & D through the stateÆs Universities. The later will be used as a case study to illustrate our research and activism.

In this yearÆs State legislature, two bills were introduced which proposed the creation a University of Washington Advanced Research Initiative (ATRI). The bills requested $9 million in seed moneys for a program aimed at enhancing technology transfer of scientific properties (developed at public institutions with public moneys) to private industry. ATRI is group of proposals:

+ Faculty research clusters made up of three or four faculty members currently conducting research in aerospace, agriculture, animal science, biomedical devices, biotechnology, environmental science, forest products, international trade, materials science, micro- electronics, pharmaceuticals, plant science, software, telecommunications and veterinary medicine. + Match money to meet federal requirements for university grant applicants to provide seed money

+ Construction of a technology park in the proximity of the Seattle campus of the UW. The park would include a multi-tenant high-tech building to house spin-off companies and an entrepreneurship center that would offer legal and accounting support services to the new companies.

+ Entrepreneurship Center created from collaborative efforts between Business and Engineering schools.

Because these subsidies flow through the universities, they are less obvious forms of corporate welfare.

This paper reports on the authors efforts to combine public interest research with policy and legislative action. In the case cited above, the authors of this paper worked with key state legislators, testified at State Senate and House Committee Hearings and drafted language to amend the bill to include provisions for public oversight and accountability. In addition the authors published an Op Ed in the StateÆs largest circulation newspaper. Ultimately, in part by the efforts described above, the bill was defeated.

Ultimately, the authors maintain that all state subsidies must be accountable to Washington taxpayers. Such an accountability effort must include:

1. Complete and Honest Disclosure of .

2. Efforts to achieve broader social goals through subsidy programs

3. Careful analysis revealing hidden costs

4. Performance standards and guarantees

5. Community involvement


return

UNAM: A Mexican University and its Evolving Relations in National Politics

Heriberta Castanos-Lomnitz

The meaning of autonomy in connection with the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) has been variously misunderstood as a pretense of independence from national policies which never actually existed (Lorey, 1993), or as a freebooter’s license to use public funds without accountability to the taxpayer (OECD, 1994). The history and praxis of autonomy shows, on the contrary, that UNAM has used autonomy in a highly effective manner (1) as a charter of extraterritoriality, which enabled the practice of free speech to survive on campus without interference by authoritarian governments, (2) as a mechanism for decoupling the university from the 6-year cycle of Mexican politics.

UNAM is unique among Mexican public institutions in having enjoyed a measure of administrative continuity over the past 60 years. In this period, a very large variety of political movements, from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, found a sanctuary on the UNAM campus. Politics has always been an essential consideration ever since the University of Mexico was chartered by Spain in 1547. We discuss different projects of the university since autonomy was granted in 1929, including the role of ideological influences such as Vasconcelos, Lombardo Toledano, Gómez Morín, Alfonso and Antonio Caso, and the 1968 student movement which is compared with the Tiananmen movement. The rise of a scientific community on the UNAM campus and the introduction of peer review by the National System of Researchers (1984) represent significant advances made possible by autonomy. An autonomous UNAM represents the best hope for the peaceful transformation of Mexico into a stable modern parliamentary democracy.


return

Winning by Co-opeting in Knowledge-driven, Complex Environments: Leveraging Knowledge, Learning, and Innovation in Forming Strategic Government-University-Industry (GUI) Partnerships

Elias G. Carayannis and Jeffrey Alexander

There is increasing consensus among academic scholars, policy makers, and industry practitioners alike that the present and future secret of business survival and prosperity lies in strategic partnering and co-opeting successfully rather than outright competition.

This is particularly so in knowledge-intensive, highly complex, and dynamic environments such as all high technology industries (semiconductors, aerospace, software, telecommunications, etc.).

We propose a dynamic, learning-driven framework which uses the game theoretic perspective, drawing principally from the notion of "coopetition" (coined by Ray Noorda, former CEO of Novell, and developed by Brandenburger and Nalebuff [1996]), to examine how a firm should position itself in relation to the range of players with whom the firm interacts (in terms of market relationships and other dimensions).

Select case studies focusing on strategic government-university-industry (GUI) partnerships from technology-driven environments provide empirical validation of our concepts.


return

The Importance of Interactive Approaches to the Innovation Process: Experiences from The Netherlands and Bangladesh

Joske F.G. Bunders and Jacqueline E.W. Broerse

The Triple Helix model replaces the well-known and strongly criticized linear model for innovation. Analysis of the complexity of interactions between different actors, lacking in the linear model, receives due attention in this new model. The focus on university-industry-government relations, however, bears the risk of ignoring the important contribution of other relevant stakeholders to the learning processes which often occur in complex technology development trajectories. Learning processes among many different stakeholders are particularly required when embedding of a new innovation needs to take place in a complex local context. Such learning processes can be achieved through implementation of an interactive approach. Principles of such an approach are: the entire innovation process is end-user driven, feedback mechanisms are created, mutual learning is facilitated, coalition building is enhanced, and intermediaries guide the process.

The idea that interactive approaches to complex innovation processes are important is now increasingly acknowledged both in the developed and developing world. It is, however, one thing to acknowledge the power and validity of interactive approaches to the innovation process, yet another to apply such approaches sensitively and consistently. Implementation may be dogged by considerable difficulties if certain requirements are not, or insufficiently, addressed.

A first prerequisite is adherence to the basic principles of the approach. However, this has strong implications for the research methods applied throughout the innovation process. At the same time it requires that the people involved in executing the approach ('human resources') are capable and willing to apply these research methods. Furthermore, it is important that the practitioners feel supported and rewarded within their broader institutional setting. Together, principles, research methods, human resources, and institutional setting can be regarded as the framework for implementing interactive approaches to innovation. These elements mutually reinforce one another. Specifications and improvements which can be made in one element strongly depend on the other elements of the framework. This suggests a process in which methodological improvement, institutional change and increased human resources succeed one another; every improvement in one element allows for and requires a new improvement in another element -not one element can be ignored. Consequently, a spiral process of learning and action develops leading to higher levels of sophistication in all elements of the framework.

In this paper we will discuss the elements of the framework for implementation of interactive approaches -the principles and the dynamic change of research methods, human resources and institutional setting- based on practical experiences in the Nethelrands and Bangladesh, highlighting the possible implications for the Triple-Helix model.


return

National Priorities for Industrial Research in Italy

Claudio Roveda

Since the eighties, the method and objectives of technological forecast studies have been radically reviewed. Moreover a new concept of forecasting has been adopted: it no longer has the inferential aim of identifying the sole future of technology as carefully as possible, but seeks instead to overcome uncertainty and to build sets of relevant variables and their interrelations.

Aware of the need to explore the Italian industrial research system and analyse emerging priority technologies in Italy, the CeS&T Institute (Centre for S&T Policies) set up by Fondazione Rosselli undertook a study on the National Industrial Research Priorities. This paper presents the aims and results of this study.

Its basic aim has been to identify, within the world of emerging technologies (i.e. those technologies which are going through one of the early phases in their life-cycle), those specific families of technology which, on the basis of indications from research circles, primarily those involved in industrial research, and the perceptions of such circles, appear important to the development of the system of production in Italy or can be defined as "critical".

In defining the methodology of such a research project, the Fondazione Rosselli made considerable use of the experiments carried out by other industrialised countries in this field, adapting and adding to them to take into account the special characteristics of the Italian institutional framework and of the aims pursued in the study itself.

It was decided to adopt the following guidelines:

A methodological plan was formulated in the following stages:

Stage i): selection and classification of the emerging technologies

Stage ii) Definition of the "criticality/priority" criteria

Stage iii) Application of the "criticality/priority" criteria to the selected emerging technologies

Both the continuous changing of the universe of present or emerging technologies and the continuous evolution of individual and social needs which stimulate the introduction and diffusion of adequate technological solutions ultimately demand: periodic identification of emerging technologies; assessment of their respondence to the development needs of the Italian industrial system; and assessment of their feasibility for the national technical-scientific system. That is way the CeS&T Institute of Fondazione Rosselli has set as a primary aim of her activities in the field of S&T the task to draw up a periodic Report on the national priorities of industrial research.


return

Research Equipment in United Kingdom Universities: is industry going to help?

Maria Nedeva, Luke Georghiou and Peter Halfpenny

Existing and new links between universities, industrial enterprises and government agencies can be discussed in a variety of social and political contexts. This paper discusses the Triple Helix in a context defined by the set of issues relating to the increased academic demands for research instrumentation and finding ways and mechanisms for meeting these demands.

The paper consists of two related parts. One of these, drawing on information collected during an empirical study of research equipment in United Kingdom universities, presents findings about the stock, value, state and condition of research equipment in UK universities; discusses the most commonly used sources for funding of research instruments and facilities in academic laboratories and the relative share of industrial sponsorship; and makes explicit the views of UK industry on the significance of academic equipment in the context of graduate and post-graduate training and research collaboration with universities. In the second part of this paper, newly established and emerging government policies and initiatives for funding research equipment and facilities in universities in the UK which aim to stimulate industrial sponsorship are critically examined. The policy aspect of the 'equipment issue' is discussed against the background of the Dearing Report recommendations.


return

Government-sponsored research and multinational corporations in Eastern Europe. The case of the Hungarian industrial research networks

Pal Tamas (Institute for Social Conflict Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

The paper presents a 1997 survey based on face-to-face interviews with 1000 enterprises in national and multinational environments.

Despite the internationalization of financial markets and the increasing importance of international trade in key manufacturing and service sectors in the last twenty years, the world economy remains an inter-national system. This open international economy is characterized by competition between predominantly national companies, trading from their bases in distinctive national business and regulatory systems. The after-1989 participation of multinational companies in the late industrialization of the Post-Socialist Eastern Europe is an interesting test case for the investigations of the real depth of globalization processes in general.

Industrialization is described as a historical succession of periods of pervasive adoption of clusters of technological and organizational innovations. The resource and environmental intensiveness of different industrial paths is influenced by a mixture of different national and company styles and the emerging industrial landscape should be conceptualized as a mosaic of those technology clusters. Are the multinationals in Eastern Europe now in this process carriers of until now unknown management techniques and transfer agents of distinctively new values in the region and/or are they the actual buyers on a final sale of accumulated results of an former isolated or autochton technological culture?

The paper presents evidences for demonstrating the importance of cultural factors, both local and transfered. The empirical basis is an 1995 empirical study of 5400 Hungarian emterprises [representative survey of the whole national economy based on personal interviews in top management of the firms -according to our knowledge the largest sample of any firm-based investigation of academic orientation conducted in the post-1989 Eastern Europe]. The most important conclusions of the study can be summarized as follows:

[a] the most innovative and succesful enterprises are not the national [purely Hungarian-owned] or the fully multinational ones, but the firms with a mixed property structure. They are able to utilize both the international technology sources and the culture of the local business networks. Additionally, and that is very important success factor, the later ones have efficient ties to the state as well.

[b] the cohesion and the integratedness of the national innovation system were generally negatively influenced [suffered] by the emergence of foreign owners [erosion of the university-industry contacts, often dismantling of local R&D units]. In that general frame those few multis [+ engineering-labour intensive small or medium-size firms] which develop more local R&D-oriented strategies are in minority.

[c] the foreign firm's crisis-handling strategies are very close to the local ones. Their time horizon, technological innovativeness as elements of the structural change in most cases imitate the the local business culture and distintively different from the same firm's technological policies in the core countries.


return

Research Systems in National Contexts: Shaping Factors

Jean-Eric Aubert

Important differences in structures, funding, performance of research systems can be explained by key factors that pertain to socio-cultural backgrounds, organisational heritages and techno-industrial specialisations. Based on recent OECD work, the paper will present a comparative overview of such differenciating elements and their influences on countries■ ethos affecting the functioning and management of research systems in the industrialised world. At the same time converging trends are noticeable as a result of the globalisation process, common problems such as reduced government budgets, and diffusion of ■best practices■. Policy issues deriving from the analysis will be outlined.


return