The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and...
-
Upload
brian-t-edwards -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and...
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
1/100
500
Management of Technology 2006
DRAFT
13 The Entrepreneurial Environment for Science-Based University Start-Ups
in the United States: Comparisons to and Lessons for Japan
with Annotated Bibliography on Innovation Policy and Entrepreneurialism
with Notes and Commentary by Brian T. Edwards
DePaul University
Kathryn Ibata-Arens, Ph.D
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
2/100
501
Management of Technology 2006
IBATA-ARENS
Working Paper: METI MOT / NAIST Survey ProjectDo not cite or quote without express written permission of author
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
3/100
502
Management of Technology 2006
summary
This working paper provides an overview of the national innovation system in
the United States as it relates to providing an environment conducive to R&D type
(science) university-based new business creation. Major factors underlying the United
States capacity for innovative new science and technology based new business
creation include: the nature of the market, scientific seeds, commercialization,
venture capital, policy, patent system, and socio-political climate. Comparisons to
similarities and differences with the entrepreneurial environment for new business in
Japan are highlighted. The paper concludes with comments on current policy
initiatives in Japan and the lessons that can be drawn from the policy history in the
U.S. Supplementary materials include a brief summary (and sample survey) of a 2006
survey to R&D type university start-ups in the U.S., based on a similar survey to
Japanese start-ups in 2005 by METI and an annotated bibliography reviewing the
literature in the United States on innovation policy and university-based
entrepreneurial activity in the United States.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
4/100
503
Management of Technology 2006
1 Introduction
One way of thinking about the potential and ability of countries, regions and
firms for innovation and new business formation is in terms of push (e.g. national
intellectual property, tax policy) pull (market), drag (hindering progress) and
jump (targeted strategies to speed up the trajectory of growth) factors. Table: Life
Science National Innovation Systems in the US and Japan: National Level Push, Pull,
Drag and Jump Factors outlines the components of the national innovation systems in
the United States and Japan for entrepreneurship and new business formation.
Life Science National Innovation Systems in the US and Japan:
National Level Push, Pull, Drag and Jump Factors
FACTORS US JAPAN
Market Pull Pull
Scientific Seeds Push Drag
Commercialization Push Drag
Venture Capital Push Drag
Policy: Push Push
Patent System Push Drag
Socio-Political: Culture Entrepreneurialism and
Jump
Religious Lobby and
Anti-Stem Cell Drag
Anti-Entrepreneurial Drag
Religious Bias-Free Policy
Climate
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
5/100
504
Management of Technology 2006
Among university start-ups, a primary source of new business creation in life
science, the U.S. leads, with over 400 new university start-ups in 2004 alone.
University start-ups have a very high success rate in the United States. To date, over
two-thirds of all university start-ups remain in business. In Japan, the total number of
university start-ups rose from 1132 in 2003 to 1364 in 2004 (232 new) and 1503 in
2004 (239 new).2
2 Daigakuhatsuvencha, p. 5.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
6/100
505
Management of Technology 2006
2 Market
The market acts as a pull factor in both economies, the baby boomer
generation in the US and the aging population in Japan have increased demand for
healthcare products and services, biopharmaceuticals and medical devices. Likewise,
the size of the biotech market in terms of sales and employment has been growing at a
rapid pace in both countries.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
7/100
506
Management of Technology 2006
3 Scientific Seeds
At its core, life science is a scientific enterprise, highly dependent on high
quality research generating patentable science and technology. This research and
development is found primarily in quality graduate level research programs and their
related institutes at research-oriented universities. Private research labs, often
funded by large corporate giants (such as pharmaceutical and chemical firms) as well
as top tier government research labs provide other sources of scientific seeds. The
number of patents and scientific papers generated by universities are indicators of this
scientific potential. For example, Graph: University (Life Science) Scientific
Publications shows the rankings of top scientific article generating universities.
Harvard University and Tokyo University top the list, followed by UCLA, Michigan
and Toronto Universities. The United States dominates 12 of the top 20 spots, with
schools including Stanford University, University of California Berkeley and Johns
Hopkins University. Japan is also represented in the top 20, with Kyoto University
(7th), Osaka University (15th), and Tohoku University (16th).
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
8/100
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
9/100
508
Management of Technology 2006
and University of Michigan (132) occupy the top 3 slots in the United States. In Japan,
Osaka University (22) tops the list, followed by Keio University (13) and Tohoku
University (11).
Large firms, especially pharmaceutical and chemical firms also play a role in
generating scientific seeds in the U.S. For example, Monsanto, developer of a wide
variety of bio-agricultural products (its Roundup brand of herbicide holds a virtual
monopoly), has spawned a number of start-ups. While in electronics, Japanese firms
generate as many patents as American firms, in emerging sectors such as bio, they lag
behind. Many of these start-ups are led by former executives and research staff.
American firms generate many more patents than Japanese firms (leading Japanese
critics to observe that the Japanese pharmaceutical industry has a not-invented-here
syndrome).
Scientific Seeds: Top US Universities by Patents
Start-Ups
Rank in 2004
Number of
Patents in
2004 U.S. University (Rank)
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
10/100
509
Management of Technology 2006
1 424 University of California 5
2 135 California Institute of Technology 14 (4)
3 132
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology 20 (1)
4 101 University of Texas 5
5 94 Johns Hopkins University 5
6 75 Stanford University 9 (8)
7 67 University of Michigan 13 (5)
8 64 University of Wisconsin 2
9 58 University of Illinois 16 (2)
10 52 Columbia University n/a
Source: Compiled from United States Patent and Trademark Office (2004 data) and
the Chronicle of Higher Educations Tech Transfer Scorecard.
Scientific Seeds and Commercialization:
Top Japan Universities by Patents and Start-Ups
2004
/
1 22 71 10.37
2 13 50 7.39
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
11/100
510
Management of Technology 2006
3 11 48 7.3
3 11
5 10 92 10.49
6 8 8.7
7 7
8 6 7.14
8 6 8.49
8 6 39 6.93
11 5 44 7.85
20 3 75
20 3 59 10.21
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
12/100
511
Management of Technology 2006
4 Commercialization
TLOs - Having the capacity to generate scientific seeds and subsequently
obtain patents does not automatically translate into new firm start-ups, however.
Universities, for example, a major source of new technology, must have the will and
wherewithal to commercialize science and technology, either through encouraging
faculty new firm start-ups, or via licensing the technology to existing firms. This
function is usually managed by the technology licensing office and/or related
technology licensing organization (TLO). In the United States the quality of TLOs in
terms of commercialization rates (their ability to get university patents licensed,
developed and marketed) varies widely. There are approximately 232 university TLOs
in the United States (AUTM 2004 data).
No national TLO model exists, though several top universities have model
TLOs. The epitome of best practice in this regard is the WARF (Wisconsin Alumni
Research Foundation) model of University of Wisconsin, Madison.3 Established and
managed by alumni, WARF was instrumental in licensing the technology to produce
3 Science and Technology in Congress, September 2001.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
13/100
512
Management of Technology 2006
Vitamin D in the 1930s, which in addition to revolutionizing the treatment of rickets
(which caused spinal deformities) in children, netted millions in revenue, much of
which has been donated to the University of Wisconsin system. It should be noted
that WARF was established after university administrators refused to fund the patent
application for the vitamin D technology. The WARF model goes one better than a
standard TLO, through funding frontier research that might have commercial
potential in addition to operating autonomously from the university. More recently,
the isolation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998 by Dr. James A. Thompson at
University of Wisconsin, Madison was also funded in part by WARF.
Other top universities falter at commercialization due in part to university
administered TLOs and licensing offices prioritizing maximizing (short-term)
university revenue and/or protecting the university from potential liabilities.4
4 Andrew A. Toole, Understanding Entrepreneurship in the US BiotechnologyIndustry: Characteristics, Facilitating Factors, and Policy Changes in David M. Hart,ed. The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy: Governance, Start-ups, and Growth inthe U.S. Knowledge Economy, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Lach, Saul andMark Schankerman. The Impact of Royalty Sharing Incentives on TechnologyLicensing in Universities. (January 4, 2006); Myers, Robert A. Challenges forJapanese universities technology licensing offices: what technology transfer in theUnited States can tell us. Center on Japanese Economy and Business Working PaperSeries, Columbia University, based on presentation given to the Institute of
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
14/100
513
Management of Technology 2006
University licensing offices are often controlled by legal staff, and prolonged licensing
deal negotiations often sap the life out of potential private sector deals. In sum,
UW-Madison has a TLO that works, while many other top universities have TLOs
that dont.
Japan began to acknowledge the role of TLOs in the late 1990s, and by the
early 2000s had established a number of TLOs, though success so far has been spotty.
After government reform to encourage universities to get into the technology
licensing business, for example in reducing patent fees to government approved
TLOs, in the late 1990s, the number of TLOs shot up from less than 5 in 1998 to 35
in 2003. 5
University Start-ups - Another way that universities contribute to the growth
of new business in emerging sectors, including life science is by encouraging university
start-ups. University start-ups are defined here as a new business established using
Intellectual Property in Tokyo, Japan (March 10, 2005).5 Jon Sandelin, Japans Industry-Academic-Government Collaboration andTechnology Transfer Practices: A Comparison with United States Practices, Journal ofIndustry-Academia-Government Collaboration, No. 3; Yuko Harayama, JapaneseTechnology Policy on Technology Transfer: Development of Technology LicensingOrganizations and Incubators Tech Monitor, Mar-Apr 2004.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
15/100
514
Management of Technology 2006
science or technology developed at a university.6 A university faculty may also take
an equity stake in the new business, and even be a founder of the new company. In the
US of the total number of start-ups at leading start-up universities such as MIT
and Stanford University a growing proportion of all new start-ups in recent years have
been bio. Likewise, in Japan, about 1/3 of all new university start-ups are in bio, with
the number increasing each year. At universities such as Osaka, Tokyo and Kyoto,
more than half of all new start-ups are bio7
Commercialization: Top Ten U.S. Universities by Start-Ups
(2004)
Rank U.S. University Start-Ups
1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 20
2 University of Illinois 16
3 Georgia Institute of Technology 15
4 California Institute of Technology 14
6 More than three thousand university start-ups were in existence by 2004, accordingto the AUTM Survey. AUTM Survey 2004; Djokovic, Djordje and Vangelis Soultaris.Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for furtherresearch. Cass Business School (June 2004); Di Gregorio, Dante and ScottShane. "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?" ResearchPolicy(2004).
7 METI HS 18 Daigaku bencha ni kan suru kiso chosa hokoku sho pp. 10, 18
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
16/100
515
Management of Technology 2006
5 University of Michigan 13
6 Duke University 10
7 University of Pittsburgh 10
8 Stanford University 9
9 University of Colorado 9
10 University of Florida 8
Source: AUTM U.S. Licensing Survey, FY 2004 Survey Summary, The Association of
University Technology Managers, 2005.
Incubators - Another way that university science and technology is
commercialized is through nurturing new university related businesses within
university-sponsored incubators. Like TLOs, there is wide variation in the quality of
incubator facilities. In the US, incubators are of three kinds: university, private sector
and government. According to the National Business Incubator Association there are
1114 business incubators in the US. Of the 1400 in all of North America (U.S.,
Canada, Mexico), 25% are university sponsored. 8 It is estimated that between 75% to
90% of incubators in North America are non-profit with an economic development
8 National Business Incubator Association,http://www.nbia.org/resource_center/bus_inc_facts/index.php.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
17/100
516
Management of Technology 2006
focus. Most American incubators provide a variety of services above and beyond
merely offering firms low cost rental space, including introductions to the local VC
community, service providers such as patent attorneys and accountants (sometimes
on a pro-bono basis), and marketing assistance. Most incubators have a full-time
manager whose job it is to support tenant firms and help them grow and eventually
graduate out of the incubator and continue on their own. Leading incubators also
coordinate community building social events as well, adding to the potential for a
creative, innovative milieu within incubators, comprised of member firms and the
service and other networks to which the incubator is connected.9 Studies have found
that these quality value-added services have a positive impact on tenant firm
performance. According to the NBIA, of all start-ups, those that benefit from being in
incubators are most likely to survive (87% of incubator tenants are said to have
survived). The Small Business Administration (SBA) in the United States was
instrumental in encouraging the establishment of incubators in the U.S., which in 1980
9 Wiggins, Joel and David V. Gibson. "Overview of US incubators and the case of theAustin Technology Incubator". Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management(2003) 3, 56-66.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
18/100
517
Management of Technology 2006
had only 12 incubators nationwide. Studies have also shown that incubators also
contribute to the growth of university research parks.10
In Japan, the number of incubators is smaller, with the bulk of them being
government-sponsored, mostly by city and prefecturial governments. By 2002 the
Japan Association for New Business Incubation Organizations (JANBO) estimated
that there were 325 incubation facilities in Japan. The vast majority of them were
established after 1999, after a variety of incentives (e.g. subsidies) were put in place
by METI and MEXT to encourage incubator formation. According to a survey by
JANBO in 2002 of 113 incubators, nearly 80% of incubators were non-profit. In both
types of incubators, more than a third of tenant firms were software start-ups.11 One
of the major weaknesses in Japanese incubators is the lack of managerial expertise and
other support services provided to tenant firms. In fact, many incubators do not have
full-time managers, or managers at all. According to JANBO, less than 10% of
incubators surveyed offered tenants support services. Support in this case was
10 Link, Albert N. and John T. Scott. "US University Research Parks." J Prod Anal(2006) 25: 43-55.11 Inkyubeshon shisetsu no jittai chosa 2002 nigatsu.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
19/100
518
Management of Technology 2006
usually limited to providing firms with information. The few incubators that have
managers at all tend to be (albeit well-intentioned) career government bureaucrats. In
a 2005 survey by METI to 371 university related start-up firms, few respondents
found incubators to be helpful in any service other than providing the firm space.12
In the US, over 74% of new ventures are formed near the universities where
the technology originates. In recent years, new ventures have become
more-and-more science based. For example, in VC-intensive industries in the United
States, biotechnology has become the leading source of growth in employment, and
second only to software in sales growth. As the American software industry continues
to move offshore, it is expected that the bio industry will become the primary engine
of growth in the future (See Tables: Sales Growth in VC Intensive Industries,
Employment Growth in VC Intensive Industries) In Japan, bio start-ups outpace other
types, comprising nearly 38% of all university start-ups (total 1,112 in 2005),
compared to a total of 29.9% in software.13
12 METI 2005 Daigaku hatsu bencha chosa, Heisei 17, roku gatsu, Keizaisangyosho.13 METI Daigaku hatsu bencha ni kan suru kiso chosa hokoku sho Heisei 17 nen 6
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
20/100
519
Management of Technology 2006
Sales Growth VC Intensive Industries 2001 2003
(Top 5)
VC sales growth Total sales growth
Computer software 31% -2%
Biotech 28% 22%
Healthcare services 26% 25%
Retailing/media 20% 9%
Computer hardware and
services
12% 5%
Source: Venture Impact 2004, Global Insight Survey, NVCA.
Employment Growth VC Intensive Industries 2001 2003
(Top 5)
VC employment growth Total employment
growth
Biotech 23% 5%
Computer software 17% -8%
Retailing/media 12% -1%
gatsu, zu 2-3: saikin setsuritsu sareta daigakuhatsu vencha no jigyo bunya, p. 9
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
21/100
520
Management of Technology 2006
Healthcare services 10% 9%
Computer hardware and
services
-1% -14%
Source: Venture Impact 2004, Global Insight Survey, NVCA.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
22/100
521
Management of Technology 2006
5 Venture Capital
One of the biggest hurdles for a new business start-up is amassing the capital
to grow and build the business. For science-based start-ups, the initial capital
requirements are often much higher than in other sectors such as software, due to the
need for laboratory and testing equipment, and often wet-lab space.
The term venture capital or VC describes funds invested in new, unproven
businesses. An unproven business is a new enterprise that has an unproven track
record in sales revenue and profit (in fact, it could merely exist as an idea in the mind
of the founder). Broadly, VC is a type of private equity investment in which an
equity stake in a firm is taken in exchange for cash investment. In Europe, VC is often
referred to as private equity.
Most importantly, venture capital involves hands-on venture management on
the part of the venture capitalist. The venture capitalist not only provides money, but
also relevant know-how and expertise (primarily management, but could also be
technical). Venture capitalists also provide new entrepreneurs access to their
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
23/100
522
Management of Technology 2006
personal networks, which has benefits for new firms including introducing new board of
advisor members and qualified service providers. For this reason, individual venture
capitalists and venture firms tend to invest mainly in firms in their immediate locales
(i.e. they tend to be region-specific). Surveys by the NVCA confirm that VC firms
tend to invest primarily in their immediate locales, and invest in other places as part
of a syndicate of investors, where another firm takes the lead investment position
(and therefore the greatest risk).
There are generally six stages in VC investment, from the first idea (scientific,
technological seeds, initial business model concept) to exit (when investors cash out):
pre-seed, seed (or start-up), early, expansion, later and exit.
Before a firm becomes a firm, it exists in the minds of the potential
entrepreneur (e.g. through the discovery, invention of scientific or technological
seeds or the development of a new business model). Particularly in high-tech
industries, new entrepreneurs seek financial support to flesh out the idea into a
product prototype design, or to demonstrate that their new product idea has market
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
24/100
523
Management of Technology 2006
appeal. This pre-seed stage is often described as the one in which the concept for the
new business is validated as a good one, called the proof-of-concept.
Once a new entrepreneur has decided (in the best case scenario, after
consulting with qualified experts in the area and evaluating the potential market
impact and competition in that product space) to go ahead and start a business he
or she starts to put together the people and material resources (infrastructure) of the
new firm. This seed or start-up process usually takes up to 18 months (shorter for
software, longer for bio). In the next, early stage after formation, the firm might be
producing prototypes or beta versions of its product, and introducing its product to
market. The firm is usually 1 3 years along since inception. By the expansion stage,
the firm has begun generating sales revenue, though not necessarily profit and also
receiving critical market feedback, helping it to improve its product and expand sales.
By later stages, the firm has been around (on average) for at least 3 years and has
earned a steady stream of revenue. It may even be profitable. Once a venture firm has
entered the later stage of its development, its investors often seek an exit cashing
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
25/100
524
Management of Technology 2006
out on their investment. This happens through initial public offering (IPO), an
acquisition of the firm by another firm, re-sale of firm stock to a third party, or
buy-back of equity by the firms principals. In most cases, the exit stage (particularly
if the firm is going public) requires a cash infusion, for example for the services of
lawyers and auditors.
Venture capital has played a major role in the United States in supporting new
business creation and growth. In life science, VC has fueled rapid growth in some of
the nations stellar start-ups including Genentech. However, a common misperception
of the role of VC in the US attributes the greatest credit to venture capital firms, also
referred to as classic VC. This is a misnomer really, since the bulk of venture
capital for new firm start-ups is actually of the angel variety. That is, most seed to
early stage venture funding comes from high net-worth individuals, often successful
entrepreneurs themselves. Further, after the collapse of the tech bubble in 2000,
classic VC in the US became risk averse. That is, while in biotech the amount of funds
per investment has risen dramatically, the number of deals has dropped considerably.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
26/100
525
Management of Technology 2006
For example, in 2006, the majority of classic or institutional VC went to
expansion or later stage firms. At the peak of the VC boom (1999-2000) in the United
States, nearly $95 billion dollars was invested in over 6000 investments (or deals).
After the tech collapse of the dot.coms in the U.S., investments were down to $22
billion by 2002 and the number of investments also experienced a precipitous decline
to just over 2300 deals. 2006 has shown some recovery, but the United States has
yet to return to the 2000 peak levels.14
This description of the activities of venture capital firms only paints a very
small part of the picture of the process of getting a new business from
concept-to-market-to-profit. In reality, so-called classic VC, that provided by VC
firms, represents a tiny proportion of the funds that it takes to get a firm up and
running. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2005 Executive GEM
Report), classic VC represents only an average of 13.4% of classic and informal VC
put together in 25 GEM countries. In other words, the bulk of start-up capital for new
14 2006 Venture Capital Industry Report, Dow Jones Venture Source.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
27/100
526
Management of Technology 2006
firms comes from informal sources, including the traditional 4 Fs: Founders,
Friends, Family and Fools (or foolhardy strangers).
Angels vs classic VC - It is estimated (since angel finance is often informal,
i.e. non-contractual, in nature) that the 250,000 angels in the U.S. invest in 90% of
new firms at their earliest stages of conception. The amounts are not huge $2 million
or less per investment but the number of firms impacted by angel investors is
significant upwards of 30,000 50,000 per year.
In contrast, the 1417 active (measured by Dow Jones as the number of firms with at
least one investment between 2000 and 2006, See 2006 VC Industry Report), the
bulk of which (942, or 66%) invested in 4 or fewer firms. In 2005, there were a total of
only 2239 deals or investments. Further, the angel market is estimated at twice the
size of the classic VC market, $100 billion (angel) versus less than $50 billion
(classic).15 Table: Angels vs. Classic VC provides an overview:
Table: Angels v. Classic VC
15 William F. Payne, Angels Shine Brightly for Start-up Entrepreneurs, KauffmanThoughtbook 2004, Kauffman Foundation; Andrew Young, Angel Finance: the OtherVenture Capital January 2002, Paper University of Chicago Graduate School ofBusiness.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
28/100
527
Management of Technology 2006
# of Firms
invested per
year
Amount per dealStage Market size
Angels
250,000
(SBA)
30 50 K $2 million or
less
90% of
seed/start-ups
$100 bil.
($30 bil.
annually)
Venture Capital
1417*
3K Up to 100s of
millions
Expansion/
later
$48.3 bill
($ 22 bil.
annually)
Compiled from NVCA, SBA and Kauffman Foundation data.
Some alarming differences can be seen when comparing the state of VC in the
U.S. to other industrial centers, particularly Japan. Cumulative VC in the United
States, that is venture capital investment that has yet to exit, remains the worlds top,
closely followed by cumulative investments in Europe. Far behind are cumulative VC
investments in Japan. See Graphs: Cumulative VC Investment in Europe, Japan and
the United States and Trends in VC Investment in Europe, Japan and the United
States.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
29/100
528
Management of Technology 2006
Cumulative VC Investment in Europe, Japan and the United States
Source: 17 Venture
Enterprise Center, http://www.vec.or.jp/vc/survey-17j.pdf
VC
2,692 2,729 2,7472,789
1,719
82 102 100 97 88
2,387
1,485
2,170
1,932
1,307
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
30/100
529
Management of Technology 2006
Trends in VC Investment in Europe, Japan and the United States
Japan remains at the lowest rankings of all the 27 OECD countries plus the European
Union, behind Hungary and above only the Slovak Republic.16
16 See Figure 1, Venture Capital Investment by stages as a share of GDP, 1999-2002,Science Technology Industry, Venture Capital: Trends and Policy Recommendations,undated report, OECD.
VC
438
231 238
384
653
23 28 17 16 15 20
1,132
225202
486404
513
338
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
17 2005NVCA Money Tree 1$=1072005EVCA Final ActivityFigures 2005 (1=139
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
31/100
530
Management of Technology 2006
6 Policy
National level policies supporting new business creation in emerging sectors
have played an important role in facilitating growth in new industries. Apart from
signaling national-level support for new businesses in frontier sectors, specific
measures have provided incentives and impetus for new business formation. In the
United States, for example, the role of SBIRs and STTRs in the earliest stages of
growth in high technology and science-based new firm start-ups has been critical in
supporting new businesses.17 Other key policies have included Bayh-Dole (1980), the
Small Business Innovation Development Act (1982) (SBIRs), Orphan Drug Act (1983),
the Small Business Tech Transfer Act (1992) (STTRs), and the FDA Critical Path
Initiative (2004).
Bayh-Dole (1980) The intent of Bayh-Dole was to establish patent policy
that would encourage patent holders to collaborate with the private sector.
Specifically, the intellectual property rights of inventions resulting from Federal
17 The Advanced Technology Program (ATP), created in 1990, has also had a positiveimpact on technology commercialization. Fogarty, Michael S., Amit K. Sinha and AdamB. Jaffe. ATP and the Innovation System. A Methodology for Identifying EnablingR&D Spillover Networks. National Institute of Standards and Technology (October2006) GCR 06-895.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
32/100
531
Management of Technology 2006
funding would remain with the inventor under certain conditions. The conditions
included prioritizing small business in the granting of licensing rights to commercialize
technology. The institutions targeted by Bayh-Dole were primarily federally-funded
research institutes, and secondarily universities.
Since Bayh-Dole was enacted, university patents and start-ups have both
increased significantly.18 Universities have also increased their licensing revenue,
over the long term. For example, Stanford Universitys $400 million in royalty income
between 1991 and 2000 (compared to $4 million for the period 1981 - 1990) can be
traced to disclosures made back in the 1970s.19
18 Lita Nelson, The Rise of Intellectual Property Protection in the American
University, Science, March 6, 1998, Vol. 279, Issue 5356; Sampat, Bhaven N. PrivateParts: Patents and Academic Knowledge in the Twentieth Century Working Paper.19 Sandelin, undated. Some have cast doubt regarding the true impact of Bayh-Dole,for example by arguing that while the number of patents increased after Bayh-Dole,the quality of patents declined. Sampat et. al. re-examine this thesis using longer-termpatent data in Bhaven N. Sampat, David C. Mowery and Arvids A. Ziedonis, Changesin university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-exmination, InternationalJournal of IndustrialOrganization, 21 (2003) 1371-1390, Elsvier. See also David C.Mowery, Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat and Arvids A. Ziedonis, The growth ofpatenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of theBayh-Dole act of 1980, Research Policy30 2001 99-119; David C. Mowery and BhavenN. Sampat, Universities in national innovation systems chapter draft;
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
33/100
532
Management of Technology 2006
University Licensing Activity
-
2,000.00
4,000.00
6,000.00
8,000.00
10,000.00
12,000.00
14,000.00
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Time Series
Invention disclosures received
New U.S. patent applications
U.S. patents granted
Startup companies formed
Revenue-generating licenses
New licenses executed
Source: Figure 1: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource
Statistics 2006, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/append/c5/at05-69.xls.
SBIRs (1982) The Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) was
established in 1982 in order to stimulate public-private sector innovation by requiring
eleven major federal departments and agencies to allocate a small percentage of their
budgets to award to American-owned small business.20 The largest SBIR granting
20 Scott J. Wallsten, The effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on PrivateR&D: the Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, The RANDJournal of Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Spring 2000), pp. 82-100; Joshua S. Gans andScott Stern, When Does Funding Research by Smaller Firms Bear Fruite?: Evidencefrom the SBIR Program Economic Innovation and New Technology, 2003, Vol. 12(4),pp. 361-384;Audretsch, David B., Albert N. Link and John T. Scott. Public/PrivateTechnology Partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-Support Research. Research Policy
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
34/100
533
Management of Technology 2006
agencies include the Department of Defense (DoD), the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS, within which the
National Institutes of Health, NIH, resides). Awards are granted in two phases:
start-up (up to USD 100,000) and phase two (up to USD 750,000). In 2005, for
example, the Department of Defense provided over USD 1 billion to small businesses
through SBIR grants.21
Phase one corresponds to the VC proof-of-concept, whereby funds are
granted for about 6 months to test the merit or feasibility of the technology. Phase
two awards support further R&D and testing, at this stage aiming for
commercialization. Curiously, long-term studies of SBIR recipients have found that
firms receiving only phase one support have been more successful in
(January 2001); Toole, Andrew A. and Dirk Czarnitzki. Biomedical AcademicEntrepreneurship Through the SBIR Program. (June 2005); Toole, Andrew andCalum Turvey. The relationship between public and private investment in early-stagebiotechnology firms: Is there a certification effect? Prepared for presentation at theInternational Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy (July 6-102005); Cooper, Ronald S. Purpose and Performance of the Small Business InnovationResearch (SBIR) Program. Small Business Economics(2003) 20: 137-151; Siegel,Donald S, Charles Wessner, Martin Binks & Andy Lockett. Policies PromotingInnovation in Small Firms: Evidence from the US and UK Small Business Economics(2003) 20: 121-127.21 http://www.dodsbir.net/annualreport/annrpt.html
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
35/100
534
Management of Technology 2006
commercialization than those seeking and obtaining phase two awards. One might
interpret this as the government supporting firms in later stages that do not otherwise
have market viability.
STTRs (1992) The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program is
similar to the SBIR program in that the goal has been to promote the
commercialization of technology that has been developed with federal funds.22 The
main differences are twofold. First, unlike the SBIR, scientists and faculty
employed-full time at a university and/or research institution are allowed to apply.
Secondly, the phase two awards under STTR are currently capped at a lower amount:
USD 500,000. Also, the number of granting agencies are fewer (only five):
Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DoE), Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS), National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and
the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF tracks public investment in the
national scientific infrastructure, including the SBIRs. See Graph below:
22 Jonathon Baron, The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program:converting research into economic strength, Economic Development Review, 11 No. 4(Fall 1993).
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
36/100
535
Management of Technology 2006
Orphan Drug Act (1983) The Orphan Drug Act when first enacted, put the
onus on firms to demonstrate how prohibitive the R&D costs of developing drugs that
could only be marketed to those with rare diseases would be.23 Start-up firms,
however, lack the resources to prepare such time-intensive paperwork and not
surprisingly, few firms applied for orphan drug status. It was not until the Act was
revised to allow firms orphan drug status if they could demonstrate that they were
developing a drug for ailments that affected less than 200,000 Americans. While
23 Rohde, David Duffield. The Orphan Drug Act: An Engine of Innovation? At WhatCost? Food and Drug Law Journal55 (2000) 125-148.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
37/100
536
Management of Technology 2006
orphan drug status does not grant developing firms a patent, it does allow them a
seven year monopoly on the sales of the product. Since its enactment in 1983, a
number of drugs have been developed to treat ailments such as tuberculosis. Further,
a report by the Department of Health and Human Services noted that orphan drug
approval has been helpful in stimulating the development of the biotechnology
industry, for example, in attracting venture financing to biotech companies developing
orphan drugs.24
FDA Critical Path Initiative (2004) In response to the slowdown in the early
2000s of new submissions to the FDA for drugs, therapies and medical device
approvals, the FDA published a white paper in 2004 outlining a national strategy to
speed-up and improve the quality of evaluations of new technologies in the approval
pipeline. To date, there is a high failure rate among new potential products while at
the same time the cost of developing new prescription drugs in particular has risen
dramatically to more than USD 800 million by 2000. Further, more potential new
24 The Orphan Drug Act: Implementation and Impact, Department of Health andHuman Services, Office of Inspector General, May 2001, OEI-09-00-00380.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
38/100
537
Management of Technology 2006
products fail in the 2000s than failed in the 1980s, despite major advances in basic
science such as in genomics. The Initiative includes measures to improve the
evaluation process in terms of the ability to better gage the likelihood of success in a
potential new product. Specifically, measures are underway to better utilize
bioinformatics, biomarkers and disease models in evaluating new technologies.
25
Comparison: Review of Recent Policy Initiatives in Japan
Japan has emulated several of the aforementioned policies in recent years
through its own Bayh-Dole-esque university reform. For example, national
universities after 2000 are expected to fund a significant portion of their own budgets
with the intent of having universities act more independently of government, and
ideally more innovative. The result has been to encourage more private sector
initiatives to capitalize on university technology, including supporting the
development of technology licensing and university start-ups. In Japan, the most
significant national policy initiative to-date - apart from a reform of SME policy in
25 Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products:Innovation or Stagnation?White Paper, Department of Health and Human Services,U.S. Food and Drug Administration, March 2004.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
39/100
538
Management of Technology 2006
general - has been the Innovation Cluster Initiative.26
As I have written in my 2005 Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Japan, METI
(Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry) launched its Cluster Initiative and
Cluster Plan in 2000 and 2001 respectively. The Plan intends to promote
innovation and new business creation, particularly in high technology industries.
Related policies by MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, Sports and
Technology) are aimed at encouraging more science and technology-based university
start-ups via two main measures: establishing TLOs and expanding graduate MBA
programs. Within the Cluster Initiative is an emphasis on promoting the biotech
industry, particularly in the Kinki and Hokkaido regions. By fiscal year 2002, the
national life science budget had grown to 440 billion yen. Other initiatives include the
establishment of and SBIR program, modeled on the SBIR program in the U.S., as well
as measures targeting thejinzai(personnel skills) problem such as the NEDO Fellow
program that places young scientists and other professionals in small businesses,
26 See Ibata-Arens, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Politics, Organizations andHigh Technology Firms, Cambridge University Press, 2005, chapter 4 Japans Questfor Entrepreneurialism.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
40/100
539
Management of Technology 2006
whose salaries are paid for a time by the Japanese government.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
41/100
540
Management of Technology 2006
7 Patent System
Though reforms began in late 1990s, essentially the Japanese patent system
was designed to diffuse foreign technologies into large Japanese corporations. Until
the 2000s, the Japanese patent system was geared toward technology diffusion as
opposed to the protection of intellectual property. This is evidenced in the policy of
laying open the details of all patent applications after filing a patent yet-to-be
granted. This has generally resulted in large firms, with the financial and legal
resources, to routinely engage in patent flooding of small firms patents-in-progress.
In Japans first-to-file model, a shuuhenstrategy is used, whereby the larger firm
obtains patents on all potential permutations/expansions on the core technology of
the original patent. This is in marked contrast to the patent system in the US, which
is based on a first-to-invent philosophy. In the latter model, the intellectual
property of the inventor has precedence over any later attempts to exploit the
invention.27
27 Ibata-Arens The Business of Survival Special Issue on Dysfunctional Japan At Home
and in the World,Asian Perspective, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
42/100
541
Management of Technology 2006
8 Socio-Political Culture
Debates over the use of stem cells, fueled by religious concerns over the use
of embryonic stem cells in particular have put a drag on growth in life science capacity
in the United States.28 For example, responding to pressures by Christian lobby
groups, the Bush administration imposed national restrictions on federal funding for
stem cell research in 2001, limiting federal funds to existing cell lines, meaning those
cells that had already been isolated. Further, emboldened by these national signals,
local Christian groups have targeted particular states as test cases, aiming for a
constitutional amendment forbidding stem cell research. One of these test states is
Missouri, home to the emerging St. Louis life science cluster.
After a 30 million dollar PR campaign, the stem cell initiative (protecting
researchers rights to use stem cells) was narrowly passed via state-wide referendum
in November 2006. 29 million dollars of the 30 was funded by the Stowers, two cancer
survivors who established the Stowers Institute in Kansas City, Missouri. It has been
28 Stem cells are of two types: adult and embryonic. The debate over stem cell researchis over the use of embryonic though in public discourse the two have often beenconflated.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
43/100
542
Management of Technology 2006
estimated that several hundred million dollars in research dollars has been lost to
other states, notably to researchers at Massachusetts Harvard University - funds
that could have been invested in the local economy of Kansas City. Worse,
neighboring states have tried to capitalize on the troubles of Missouri. In 2005, the
governor of Illinois sent a personalized letter to the top 100 or so scientists in
Missouri, inviting them to come on over. Rod Blagojevich backed this offer with a
state-sponsored initiative of $10 million dollars to support stem cell research.
California, already the nations leading high tech state, announced a USD 10 billion
stem cell initiative, to be invested over the next ten years. Competition has come
from farther afield as well.
A 2007 Business Weekarticle chronicled the rising incidence of Americans
traveling to China to obtain stem-cell based treatments for spinal cord injuries.
Clinical developments in China are progressing at a rapid pace, and Chinese
biotechnology companies are reportedly forging ties with forward thinking others
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
44/100
543
Management of Technology 2006
around the world.29 What we have in the US in the early 2000s is a mixed message
from the national government, signaling on the one-hand support for fast tracking of
new drug discoveries, but on the other, indicating that new developments in stem cell
therapies should be governed in part by ethical considerations. Japans religious-bias
free scientific environment might prove a boon in this regard.
29 Stem-Cell Refugees: Yanks are flocking to China for therapy, Business Week,February 12, 2007.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
45/100
544
Management of Technology 2006
Supplementary Materials
1)
US Venture Survey: Brief Summary and Project Overview
2) Annotated Bibliography on Literature on Innovation Policy and
University-Based Entrepreneurialism in the United States by Brian
Edwards
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
46/100
545
Management of Technology 2006
(1) US Venture Survey: Brief Summary
In November 2006, a mailing was sent to 1000 start-up venture businesses across the
United States. The mailing included a cover letter requesting participation in the
survey and promising complete anonymity and confidentiality to the respondents, as
well as a complimentary copy of the Comparative Survey Report outlining the results
in the previous surveys in the UK and Japan (2005). Whenever possible, the letter
was personalized, meaning it was addressed to the personal name of the
president/CEO. The mailing included a project overview (attached), a 25 question
four page survey and a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope, requesting a reply
by November 30, 2006. By the end of December, we received 117 responses
(response rate 11.7%) representing all regions of the U.S., including Hawaii.
We are currently in the process of interpreting the survey results. However, several
preliminary comparisons are worth noting:
1) U.S. new business start-ups are aiming, in terms of exit, for merger andacquisition to a much higher degree than seeking IPO. This tracks with the
reality of exits for start-ups. That is, globally, about 80% of all exits are
non-IPO. Japanese start-ups, on the other hand, seem to be aiming for IPO
to a much higher degree than American start-ups, for whatever reason.
2) A greater number of respondents to the US survey (57.1%), than the eitherthe UK (39.6%) or Japan (37.1%) were life science type start-ups (bio, medical
or healthcare), which might be reflective of the shift in the U.S. out of its
earlier high growth in software start-ups, into the emerging global life science
sector.
3) US start-ups have a strong R&D basis, either through developing in-housepatented technologies or via license arrangements with universities.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
47/100
546
Management of Technology 2006
4) To obtain customers, US start-ups make better use, and to a higher degree ofa variety of networks/resources (introductions from previous employers
colleagues, Internet, trade shows, direct sales, R&D collaborators, incubators,
university professors, shareholders, etc.).
5) Confirming common perceptions of the biggest challenges for new start-ups,like their contemporaries in the UK and Japan, US start-ups struggle to raise
start-up finance.
6) In all three countries, company founders make use of their personal networksfor many business-related goals. This indicates the importance of social
capital in new business start-ups.
7) UK firms appear to be more reliant on government agencies and consultingservices than their counterparts in the US and Japan, while Japanese
start-ups are more reliant on government subsidies.
8) VC firms in the US provide a variety of extra services to start-ups, beyondmonetary investments. These services include assistance with business plans,
personnel recruitment and financial management.
9) Angel investors in the US play similar roles, and are even more hands-on thanVCs in this regard. Stimulating an angel investment community in Japan might
therefore have a positive impact on new business formation and start-up
success.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
48/100
547
Management of Technology 2006
VENTURE BUSINESS in the US, UK and JAPAN
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Scope of Survey
Our survey research project compares the entrepreneurial environments in the US,UK and Japan, analyzing how to help their firms grow and prosper entrepreneurs
make use of various support resources including university technologies and venture
capital. Findings will be used to compare and make recommendations regarding best
practices in local, regional and national level entrepreneurship strategy and policy.
The Survey has already been implemented in the United Kingdom and Japan (2005).
Results from the current survey will be compared to best practices in the UK and
Japan.
Participants
The Survey is being sent to a total of 1000 U.S. companies, which the organizers have
selected from state, university and local incubator/business development sources.
These companies are mainly in high-growth fields, developing new technologies, or
providing high-value services. Most are less than 10 years old.
Research Team
Kathryn Ibata-Arens, PhD Northwestern University, is assistant professor in the
department of political science at DePaul University in Chicago. Her research
interests are in innovation and technology policy, particularly in the United States and
Japan. Ibata-Arens current research examines emerging life science (biotechnology
and medical device) regions in Japan and the United States. In 2005 and 2006, she
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
49/100
548
Management of Technology 2006
was a CGP/Abe Research Fellow, Faculty of Commerce, Doshisha University, Kyoto.
Her work has appeared in publications including the Asian Wall Street Journaland
Review of International Political Economy. Ibata-Arens book, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in Japan: Politics, Organizations and High Technology Firms,
Cambridge University Press (2005) examines firm and region level strategies of
innovation and includes comparisons to regions in the American Midwest.
Ibata-Arens lead research assistant for this project, Brian Edwards, is a political
science major with a concentration in political economy and international business.
His interests are in high tech global market research, especially China, and becoming
an entrepreneur.
Tetsuya Kirihata, MS in economics, Kyoto University, is associate professor in the
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology at Nara Institute of Science
and Technology. His research interests are in venture capital, high-tech ventures and
commercialization of science and technology in Japan. Kirihatas current research
examines the support needs of new technology based firms and the post-investment
activities of venture capital firms in Japan. His work has appeared in leading Japanese
business journals including Venture Business Japan. In his book How to Win in the
Nanotechnology Revolution (Japanese) Kodansha (2005), Kirihata analyzes trends
and new business strategy in the global nanotech industry. Kirihatas lead research
assistant for this project, Hiro Yamagata, is a graduate student in Business, Doshisha
University, Kyoto. His interests are in international logistics and business translation
(English-Japanese). He plans to become a university professor.
DePaul University
Founded in 1898 and located in the heart of Chicago, DePaul University has grown to
become Americas largest Catholic university. DePaul has a number of award winning
programs in business and technology. Its part-time MBA Program ranks in the top 10
nationally.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
50/100
549
Management of Technology 2006
Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)
NAIST is a graduate science and technology university, and is one of only two in
Japan focusing exclusively on technology. The University has three schools:
Information Science, Biological Sciences and Materials Science. NAIST is located in a
research triangle known as Keihanna (Kansai Science City) which links the cities of
Nara, Kyoto and Osaka. The Keihanna area is one of the most technology-rich areas
of Japan, with a strong venture business tradition. It has a population of around 16
million people and a GDP equivalent in size to that of Canada.
Research Support
The survey research project is supported by DePaul Universitys University
Research Council (URC) and Political Science Department, NAISTs Research
Center for Advanced Science and Technology and with grant monies from Japans
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Management of Technology
Program (MOT). METIs MOT Program seeks to stimulate new business ventures in
Japan, particularly those emerging out of the science and technology of Japanese
universities (http://www4.smartcampus.ne.jp/index.php?7).
Copies of Survey Report
For a complimentary copy of the Survey Report: Venture Business in the UK, US and
Japan (to be released in February 2007) send a request to Ibata-Arens via email,
telephone or fax.
Contact Information
Kathryn C. Ibata-Arens, Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science, DePaul University
990 W. Fullerton Ave., Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60614, Phone: 773-325-4716
(direct)
http://condor.depaul.edu/~kibataar/intro.htm [email protected]
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
51/100
550
Management of Technology 2006
Tetsuya Kirihata, Associate Professor
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology
Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)
Takayama, 8916-5, Ikoma, NARA, JAPAN, 630-0192
Phone: 81-743-72-5600 Fax: 81-743-72-5609
http://ipw.naist.jp/cast/ [email protected]
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
52/100
551
Management of Technology 2006
(2) Annotated Bibliography on Innovation Policy and Entrepreneurialism with Notes
and Commentary
Annotated Bibliography on Innovation Policy and Entrepreneurialism with Notes and Commentary
Brian T. Edwards
National Policy
The federal government has enacted several policies in the last
quarter-century with the expressed intention of providing incentives and
resources to US business to undertake research on projects that the
constraints of the market would have otherwise made impractical. Beginning
with the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, and culminating with the Advanced
Technology Program of 1990, several policy measures were adopted to
streamline the process through which universities could patent and
subsequently license intellectual property created by their research
professors. This paper is provides a brief review of the prevailing literature
on the subjects of national innovation policy, academic entrepreneurialism,
business incubation and research parks, and technology licensing in US
universities.
SBIR Policy(http://www.zyn.com/sbir/sbres/sba-pd/)
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
53/100
552
Management of Technology 2006
The Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) program is the
largest government partnership program with industry, and it is thought by
many researchers, economists, and of course politicians, to be the most
successful innovation policy enacted anywhere in the world. Enacted in
1982 with the passage of the Small Business Innovation Development Act
(SBIR), the SBIR program was intended to fill the gap left by disincentives,
which prevented private industry from sufficiently funding the development of
an innovative small business environment. Initially, the Act mandated that
each federal agency with a budget in excess of $1 billion reserve a fixed
percentage for small business.
In 2000, the Congress passed the Small Business Innovation Research
Program Reauthorization Act (Public Law 106-554), which amended the
original provisions for the second time since they were first signed into law.
Among the more significant specifications put forth in the amendments were a
requirement that the SBA create a database of all SBIR award research which
would be publicly searchable and clarify data rights for achievements during all
three phases of the program, mandates that candidate firms completing Phase
II submit a detailed commercialization plan before graduating to Phase III or in
the case of non-viability an assessment of reasons for failure must be
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
54/100
553
Management of Technology 2006
completed. Additionally, the Reauthorization Act established the Federal
and State Technology Partnership Program (FAST) to strengthen the
competitiveness of small businesses throughout the country.
Awards are administered in three phases. Phase I is the startup phase,
which is a six month period of heavy research on technology feasibility and
potential, with awards not in the excess of $100,000. Phase II is a two year
investment of $750,000. During this time the technology is evaluated
through R&D and the commercial potential of the venture is assessed.
Phase III is non-funded and is entirely focused on determining the commercial
viability of the technology developed. Firms that have succeeded in passing
the first two Phases are left to the mercy of the market, but participation
alone in the SBIR program is generally viewed by researchers as a
commercially beneficial characteristic from the point of view of venture
capitalists.
Audretsch, David B., Albert N. Link and John T. Scott. Public/Private
Technology Partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-Support Research. Research
Policy (January 2001)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jtscott/Papers/01-01.pdf.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
55/100
554
Management of Technology 2006
Keywords: Department of Defense; Basic Research; SBIR
This essay evaluates public support of private-sector research and
development through the Defense Department SBIR program. It uses as it
basic premise the argument put forward by Baron (1998) that, "the rational
for SBIR is the same as the general argument for government R&D- positive
externalities, social benefits exceeding private ones." The paper does not
debate the appropriateness of the SBIR program generally, taken that as an
established given, but instead focuses on evaluating its effectiveness.
The methodology employed includes three elements; (1) a broad-based
statistical analysis of SBIR recipients; (2) a case-based investigation of
recipients regarding the impacts associated with SBIR awards, and; (3) a
case-based investigation of the social rate of return from SBIR-funded
research. First they try to determine whether SBIR recipients are achieving
innovation and commercialization of their research. The authors conclude
that the DoD's SBIR program is encouraging commercialization from research
(with 1/3 of recipients succeeding at great profit) that would not have been
undertaken without SBIR support; and, moreover, it is overcoming reasons for
market failure that cause the private sector to under-invest in
R&D. Additionally, based on the case studies done, the authors conclude
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
56/100
555
Management of Technology 2006
that most of the companies that relied on SBIR funding to further their basic
research to the Phase II level would not have undertaken such research
without public funding, which is a stated goal of the SBIR program.
The second question to which the authors hope to unlock the answers is
whether or not the SBIR program changes the behavior of knowledge-workers
and thereby helps create a science-based entrepreneurial economy. They
conclude that the program has an overwhelmingly stimulating effect on
scientists and engineers, which also has a spillover effect on the greater
scientific community with academic entrepreneurs inspiring their colleagues to
undertake similar ventures.
Toole, Andrew A. and Dirk Czarnitzki. Biomedical Academic
Entrepreneurship Through the SBIR Program. (June 2005)
http://bibserv7.bib.uni-mannheim.de/madoc/volltexte/2005/1121/pdf/dp0
547.pdf.
Keywords: Academic Entrepreneurship; SBIR Program; University R&D
Paper considers the effectiveness of the SBIR program as a policy fostering
academic entrepreneurship. Toole is unquestionably one of the international
leading scholars tracking SBIR policy, and this is one of several studies that
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
57/100
556
Management of Technology 2006
are widely cited throughout all the scholarship focused on SBIR
policy. There are two main characteristics of the program that make it
effective at spawning academic entrepreneurship; (1) the SBIR program will
fund promising but unproven technologies earlier than private investors,
which creates an incentive to pursue commercialization; (2) the SBIR program
requires academic entrepreneurs to commit "full-time" to the
commercialization process throughout the duration of the project, though it
does not require them to leave their position at the research institution.
In the biotech sector in particular, there is mounting evidence that faculty
involvement in the commercialization of university-based technologies is
important for success. This study also focuses on tracking so called "star
scientists, otherwise known as principal investigators (PI), and it is
hypothesized that these individuals possess valuable specialized knowledge,
network contacts, or reputations. The authors hypothesize that because of
these specialized capabilities or advantages, SBIR firms "linked" to an
academic entrepreneur should be more successful than similar "non-linked"
SBIR firms.
The papers findings determine first that the SBIR program is effective at
promoting academic entrepreneurialism, and the firms that are associated with
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
58/100
557
Management of Technology 2006
these scientists perform significantly better than other non-linked firms in
terms of follow-on VC funding, SBIR program completion, and patenting.
Toole, Andrew and Calum Turvey. The relationship between public and
private investment in early-stage biotechnology firms: Is there a certification
effect? Prepared for presentation at the International Conference on
Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy (July 6-10 2005).
http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/papers/Toole_pape
r.pdf.
Keywords: SBIR Program; Certification Effect; Biotechnology
Toole and Turvey attempt in this study to further understanding how small
business financing programs in the US and EU interact with alternative
sources of private funding like venture capital. The most interesting concept
seized upon by the authors was whether or not a firm experiences a
certification effect once it has proven that its technology is sufficient to
earn acceptance for Phase II SBIR funding. The basic premise underlying the
certification effect is that venture capital firms use SBIR and other programs
that fund small biotechnology ventures as a sort of litmus test, providing them
with a risk adverse investment opportunity. The study concludes that it is
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
59/100
558
Management of Technology 2006
indeed beneficial for firms to have received Phase I approval in order to earn
the investment of a major VC firm. Additionally, the data show there to be an
unmistakably positive correlation between the firms that have a full-time
academic researcher, and those that do not. However, beyond the basic
certification effect, there is no evidence that public investment in product
development is enhanced by the presence of a former university scientist.
Cooper, Ronald S. Purpose and Performance of the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. Small Business Economics(2003) 20:
137-151.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k638316p1j5x3m83/fulltext.pdf.
Keywords: SBIR Program; Certification Effect; Innovation Policy
This paper clarifies the needs and rationale for the SBIR program and
reviews the recent findings regarding the programs impact. Another identifies
five dimensions of the innovation capital gap and outlines a possible extension
of the program to better address this finance gap. Originally chartered to
bring small businesses into the federally funded R&D process and foster
innovative solutions at all levels of the US business community. Evidence has
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
60/100
559
Management of Technology 2006
shown that while the program has succeeded in providing high quality
research meeting agency requirements, the small business share of federally
funded R&D remains small. In 1999, only 17% (3,334 of 19,000) of applicants
received funding.
A survey done in that same year of DoD SBIR found that average quality of
SBIR research was the same as that of other federally funded research. SBIR
recipients are viewed by financial markets and potential investors as
practitioners of high-quality research and are considered to be more viable
investments. This is known as the certification effect. Reviews of
commercialization of SBIR funded research generally conclude a significant
and positive impact on growth of firms. Sales and employment have been
found to increase at a substantially higher rate in firms that receive SBIR
funding versus those that do not. SBIR program also has positive effect on
start-up rates and focus on commercialization by inventors who otherwise
may not have brought product to the market. Finally, SBIR grants support
innovation by addressing a gap in early-stage financing.
Siegel, Donald S, Charles Wessner, Martin Binks & Andy Lockett.
Policies Promoting Innovation in Small Firms: Evidence from the US and
UK Small Business Economics (2003) 20: 121-127.
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
61/100
560
Management of Technology 2006
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h81x31q478848657/fulltext.pdf.
Keywords: New-Technology Based Firms; SBIR; ATP
This essay on the comparative innovation policies of the US and UK was
the first in a series published out of Nottingham University in London, which
held a simultaneous conference at which all of the authors listed presented
their findings in more detail, so this was more of a summation. The focal point
of all research is on new-technology based firms (NTBFs).
The authors approach their analysis making a few assumptions, primarily,
that public funding for NTBFs is absolutely necessary, as policymakers
generally agree that a non-negligible percentage of NTFBs would fail without
some sort of public assistance in the early stages of business development.
The findings of the four economists reached three primary conclusions; (1)
program evaluation is much more prevalent in the US than in the UK; (2) the
US Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program have been successful; (3) shared costs between
government and industry and frequent assessment are the keys to ensuring
that such programs are successful.
Bayh-Dole Act of 1980(http://www.niddk.nih.gov/patient/patent.pdf)
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
62/100
561
Management of Technology 2006
Sampat, Bhaven N. Private Parts: Patents and Academic Knowledge in the
Twentieth Century,
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/workshops/ispw/SAMPAT-Nov-03.pdf.
Keywords: Bayh-Dole; Innovation Policy; University Research
The Bayh-Dole Act was first proposed when it became apparent to legislators and
bureaucrats at the federal level of government that the system for determining patent
and licensing rights for inventions derived from publicly funded research was
unnecessarily cumbersome and counter-intuitive.
Critics of the Bayh-Dole Act assert that it is basically a tax on academic innovation,
and it impedes upon the traditional academic tradition of collaboration through open
publishing in peer-reviewed journals by encouraging researchers to withhold their
discoveries from the public sphere until they have filed all necessary paperwork for
patent. Statistics on invention disclosure, patent application and technology
licensing, which have only been tracked nationally the early 1990s, show that each
has increased dramatically since the ratification of the Bayh-Dole Act.
According to data collected by the Association of Technology Managers (AUTM),
over the ten-year period from 1991-2000, invention disclosures grew 80% while
licenses executed grew 160%. Patents granted from 1993, the first year such stats
were recorded, grew by 137% in the seven years until the end of the decade. These
statistics show that there is an undeniable trend toward entrepreneurial activity
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
63/100
562
Management of Technology 2006
amongst university researchers, but more strikingly, the aggregate increase in
invention disclosure to licenses executed was nearly two to one. This indicates that
reorientation of national policy to encourage university faculty to be more
entrepreneurial has achieved its goal, but it also suggests that they have been less
successful at actually licensing those technologies to industry.
Advanced Technology Program (ATP)(http://www.atp.nist.gov/)
Fogarty, Michael S., Amit K. Sinha and Adam B. Jaffe. ATP and the
Innovation System. A Methodology for Identifying Enabling R&D Spillover
Networks. National Institute of Standards and Technology (October 2006)
GCR 06-895.
http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr06-895/gcr06-895_report.pdf.
Keywords: Advanced Technology Program; Innovation Policy; Knowledge
Spillovers
In 1990 the federal government passed the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) as a means of establishing partnerships with industry to conduct
high-risk research in nascent technologies that have significant long-term
commercial potential and could have a dramatic impact on the national
economy. The success of the program is determined through the programs
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
64/100
563
Management of Technology 2006
Economic Assessment Office (EAO), which conducts multifaceted evaluations
of the impact of the program on the national economic landscape and the
benefits derived by the taxpayers who are the shareholders in any government
investment in industry. Using statistical analysis and other methodological
approaches, the EAO measures the programs effectiveness in terms of (1)
inputs, (2) outputs, (3) outcomes, and (4) impacts.
As of the EAOs most recent comprehensive evaluation, it has been
established that the program has been a resounding success, with 9 out of 10
organizations reporting that ATP funding has accelerated their R&D cycle.
ATP participation in a firms R&D is also found to have a Halo effect or
certification effect in the eyes of private investors. Additionally, because
the ATP stresses the importance of collaboration and partnership during the
R&D process, 85% of firms that receive ATP funding report establishing
industry partnerships in the course of conducting their research. These
three findings together indicate that the program is effective in facilitating
knowledge spillovers, which in turn has a significant impact on the state of the
national economy generally, and thus taxpayers are realizing the benefits of
their investment in their daily lives.
Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR)
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
65/100
564
Management of Technology 2006
(http://www.sba.gov/sbir/indexsbir-sttr.html#sttr)
The Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) is a federally
mandated public/private partnership between the government and small
businesses and non-profit research organizations. The programs central
objective is to foster the innovation necessary to meet the scientific and
technological challenges of the 21st century. History has proven that the
innovation and innovators thrive in a small business environment, but too
often the risks and costs of R&D are beyond the means of these organizations
and the innovative capacity is left untapped. Conversely, non-profit
research institutes (i.e. incubators) have been an indispensable facet of
Americas prowess as a bastion of high-tech achievement and discovery.
However, these advancements are often confined to the theoretical, not the
practical because of disincentives inherent in pursuing any technological
advancement that is without precedent. STTR serves as the arbiter and
matchmaker, bringing these two entities into partnership by joining the
entrepreneurial instincts of small businesses with the high-tech research
capabilities of research institutions. The fruits of these partnerships in the
form of technologies and products are transferred on to the individual
consumer through the normal channels well established in the American
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
66/100
565
Management of Technology 2006
marketplace, with the small business reaping the profits of this
commercialization, which, in turn, stimulates the economy.
Small businesses must meet certain criteria to be considered for STTR
participation. It is essential that the firm be an American-owned and
independently operated, for-profit organization of fewer than 500 employees,
and the principal researcher need not be employed by the small business
under consideration. Conversely, there is no size limitation placed upon
non-profit research organizations, but they too must be located in the US,
and must fall under one of three definitions established by the USSBA; (1)
nonprofit college or university; (2) domestic nonprofit research organization;
(3) federally funded R&D center (FFRDC).
Five US federal agencies are required under STTR to reserve a portion of
their R&D funding for awards to small business and nonprofit research
organizations, under the guidelines stated above for consideration. These
agencies are the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DoE),
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Aeronautics
and Space Agency (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Each agency is responsible for designating research topics and vetting
proposals submitted by small business applicants. Agencies award STTR
-
8/14/2019 The entrepreneurial environment for science-based university start-ups in the US: comparisons to and lessons for J
67/100
566
Management of Technology 2006
funding based upon small business/research institution qualification, degree of
innovation, and future market potential.
Once award recipients are chosen they begin a three-phase program.
Phase I is known as the start-up phase and it involves the allocation of
$100,000 over one-year which is used to fund the exploration of the scientific,
technical and commercial feasibility of the firms idea or technology. Upon
ending this one-year feasibility study, companies that have shown their
technologies to be both viable and practical are graduated to Phase II.
Phase II awards up to $750,000, for as long as two years, to expand upon the
basic research done during Phase I. This is the most R&D intensive phase of
the STTR program and upon its completion the commercial potential of the
technology should be apparent. If this research is deemed to be fruitful, the
firm then enters Phase III, which does not