University-Industry Relationships (UIRs) University-Industry Relationships (UIRs) in Ag Biotechnologyin Ag Biotechnology

Filling the Information GapsFilling the Information Gaps

Project OverviewProject Overview• USDA CSREES IFAFS; 2001/05• Many academic scientists have

relationships with ag biotech firms, yet we know little about the driving motivations and research impacts.

• Purpose -- assess research, licensing, and other UIR relationships in ag biotech, with special emphasis on the mix of ‘public’ and private goods provided.

www.agri-biotech.pdx.eduwww.agri-biotech.pdx.edu

TeamTeamClarkson University Clarkson University Cornell UniversityCornell University• Rick Welsh (PI) • Molly Jahn

Farm FoundationFarm Foundation Oregon State Oregon State University University

• Walt Armbruster (PI) • Steven Buccola (PI) • Terri Lomax (PI)

Portland State Univ. Portland State Univ. • Hui Yang • David Ervin (PI/PD)• Kristen Kim Univ. of California, DavisUniv. of California, Davis• Beth Minor • William Lacy (PI)

• Dina Biscotti Winrock InternationalWinrock International • Leland Glenna • Kate Clancy (PI) • Pamela Ronald

Danforth Plant Danforth Plant DuPontDuPont Science CenterScience Center • Quentin Kubicek • Roger Beachy

Environmental DefenseEnvironmental DefenseEDEN BioscienceEDEN Bioscience • Rebecca Goldburg• Zhongmin Wei

Pew InitiativePew InitiativeMichigan State Univ.Michigan State Univ. • Mike Rodemeyer • Larry Busch USDA BiotechnologyUSDA BiotechnologyUniv. of CaliforniaUniv. of California • Michael

Schechtman at Berkeleyat Berkeley• Carol Mimura

Advisory GroupAdvisory Group

Project ObjectivesProject Objectives

1. Develop information base on UIRs in ag biotechnology

• in-depth case studies

• national survey of bioscientists

2. Build & test models of factors affecting ag biotech UIRs and their effects

3. Analyze the extent to which UIRs foster public goods and policy options for any problems

4. Foster constructive dialogue among stakeholders on university, industry and government roles in ag biotech research

Project Objectives cont.Project Objectives cont.

Background: Forces Background: Forces Shaping UIRs in Ag BiotechShaping UIRs in Ag Biotech

• UIRs perceived to strengthen US competitiveness (1970s)

• Diamond-Chakrabarty (1980)

• Bayh-Dole act (1980)

• Stevenson-Wyndler Act -- cooperative research and development agreements or CRADA’s (1980, amended 1986)

Univ. R&D Funding TrendsUniv. R&D Funding Trends

Industry’s

share of total

university

R&D

funding

has

increased

from

2.6% in 1970

to

7.7% in 2000

Support for Academic R&D by Sector

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Total Federal Government Industry Other

Billions of Current Dollars

Source: NSF 2002

Major ActivitiesMajor Activities

1. Expert workshop (11/02)

2. University and industry case studies (4/02 - 9/04)

3. National survey of bioscientists (12/03 - 3/04)

4. Educational outreach (ongoing)

1. 1. Expert WorkshopExpert Workshop• Co-sponsored with Pew Initiative on

Food & Biotechnology

• 40 scientists, administrators, tech transfer officers, industry & nonprofit reps, and government officials

• Task: identify knowledge gaps and ‘salient researchable issues’ about UIRs in ag biotechnology

• Workshop report available at: www.agri-biotech.pdx.eduwww.agri-biotech.pdx.edu

A. Baseline InformationA. Baseline Information

• How many UIRs in ag biotechnology exist?

• What major types of research are part of UIRs?

• Which universities participate in which types of UIRs?

• What types of firms collaborate with universities in which types of UIRs?

B. Effects on Scientists’ B. Effects on Scientists’ Research AgendasResearch Agendas

• What factors influence scientists’ decisions on research agendas?

• Do tenure and reward systems affect incentives to participate in UIRs?

• Does an Office of Technology Transfer affect a scientist’s research agenda?

• Have scientists’ research plans, objectives, or publications been affected by industry funding?

C. Intellectual Property and C. Intellectual Property and Technology TransferTechnology Transfer

• How often are scientists denied access to research materials or findings?

• Are publication delays due to IP issues prevalent?

• What sorts of patents are being generated at universities?

• What factors drive patenting and licensing arrangements at universities?

2. 2. Case StudiesCase Studies

• In-depth (1.5 - 2 hr) interviews of scientists, administrators and tech transfer officers

• Cornell, North Carolina State, Oregon State, U.C. Davis, U. of Wisconsin, Stanford and Texas A&M

• Collaborating firms

• Open-ended questions, e.g., “How do you define the public good?”

• Structured questions, e.g., “Rate the importance of scientists’ criteria for choosing research problems.”

• Secondary data on IP policies, etc.

2. 2. Case Studies cont.Case Studies cont.

University Administrators’ Assessments of University Administrators’ Assessments of Scientists’ Criteria for Research ProblemsScientists’ Criteria for Research Problems

(7 pt scale; 7 = very important; 1 = not important)(7 pt scale; 7 = very important; 1 = not important)

Selected Criteria Mean

Enjoy doing this kind of research 6.45

Scientific curiosity 6.21

Publication probability in professional journals 6.08

Availability of public (state and federal) funding 5.98

Potential contribution to scientific theory 5.85

Public good 5.32

Availability of private (corporate) funding 4.32

Potential marketability of final product 3.79

Potential to patent & license the research findings 3.75

Industry consulting opportunities 3.17

Univ. Administrator Rankings of Univ. Administrator Rankings of Potential UIR Effects Potential UIR Effects

(% giving a ranking of 5, 6, or 7 on 7 pt scale(% giving a ranking of 5, 6, or 7 on 7 pt scale)

Blue = favorable effect; Gold = unfavorable effect

Selected Effect %

Accelerates product development 94.2

Enables wider network of scientists 92.2

Provides new research funds 92.1

Increases access to new research tools 92.1

Increases access to new knowledge 86.2

Provides new support for graduate student/postdoc 84.3

Increases potential for conflicts of interest 74.5

Elevates university's prestige 71.5

Increases access to industry's IP 69.2

De-emphasizes non-proprietary agendas 42.0

Reduces scientific communication among researchers 36.5

Preliminary FindingsPreliminary Findings• Administrators feel researchers are

driven more by scientific interests than potential commercial uses.

• The majority of administrators have favorable assessments of UIRs.

• A minority of administrators are concerned with potential negative effects of UIRs on public science.

• If administrators consider UIR effects to be mostly positive, a potential motivation exists to promote more market-oriented research.

3. 3. National SurveyNational Survey

• Web-based survey of a stratified random sample of approx. 1400 bioscientists

• University strata: (a) Land Grant (LG); (b) Public non-LG (NLG); (c) Private (P)

• Department chairs identified faculty members doing research relevant to our study

• Respondents indicated whether their biotechnology research had implications for agriculture, forestry, or aquaculture.

• Overall response rate is approximately 60%

• Survey closes March 12th and analysis conducted through 2004

3. 3. National Survey cont.National Survey cont.

Total % Response

Land Grant 576 54.69%

Non-Land Grant 260 45.00%

Private 231 27.71%

Total 1067 46.49%

Strata responses by 12/15/03Strata responses by 12/15/03

Preliminary Survey Findings Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)(n = 566)

Funding Source LG NLG Total

Federal Government 77.7%

NIH 19.3% 44.8% 27.9%

NSF 21.9% 29.2% 24.4%

USDA 53.5% 10.4% 38.9%

Others 20.1% 15.1% 18.4%

State Government 63.4% 15.6% 47.2%

Foundations/Non-Profits 27.8% 30.2% 28.6%

Firms 28.6% 9.4% 22.1%

Trade/Commodity Assoc. 28.3% 3.6% 20.0%

Others 6.4% 10.4% 7.8%

Preliminary Survey Findings Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)(n = 566)

Preliminary Survey Findings Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)(n = 566)

Preliminary Survey Findings Preliminary Survey Findings (n = 566)(n = 566)

Key research questions

• How is firm support related to the scientist’s research field/topic?

• How is industry support related to the ‘basicness’ of discoveries?

• How is industry support related to ‘excludability’ of discoveries?

• Do scientists’ views on research, e.g., public university roles, affect their research field/topic?

Thank YouThank You

www.agri-biotech.pdx.eduwww.agri-biotech.pdx.edu

This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2001-52100-11217. Any opinions, findings, conclusions,

or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.