Is the commercialisation of academic R&D weak? A critical assessment of a 'dominant belief' and associated policy responses

For some fifteen years it has been argued that Europe's research and industrial base suffers from a series of weaknesses, the greatest of which is the comparatively limited capacity to convert scientific breakthroughs and technological achievements into commercial successes. This perception of a strong European science base which is not translated into technological and commercial success has subsequently been labelled the "European Paradox". Over time the focus has shifted from discussing how European firms can increase their competitiveness, to the commercialisation of publicly financed R&D. There is a strong belief that the EU is under-performing in its ability to exploit and commercialise publicly funded science. Scrutinising the interaction between universities and industry at the European level is, however, fraught with empirical difficulties. The phenomena in question are complex, and require very detailed analysis using local knowledge and case studies. An interesting case in point for a detailed scrutiny is Sweden in which a perception of a Paradox has influenced policy discussion for two decades. The first purpose of this paper is to critically assess a) the validity of this dominant belief of a poor commercialisation of academic R&D, and b) the actual and proposed solutions to handle that problem. In addressing this first purpose, we focus empirically on the case of Sweden. With high R&D spending and a long standing perception of a "Swedish Paradox", the Swedish case is, arguably, of particular value for a detailed analysis. First, we detail how the dominant belief has emerged over the past two decades. Second, we scrutinize the empirical foundation of the literature that upholds that belief as well as empirical indications that cast serious doubt on it. The second purpose is to critically assess the usefulness of copying US science policy solutions in Europe in which much attention is given to the ownership of IPR. This is done by returning to the EU level and draw upon literature in both the US and Europe. The paper ends with our main conclusions

Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?-A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses

There is a widespread belief that EU underperforms in the commercialization of publicly funded research and that the appropriate policy response is to transfer the ownership of intellectual property rights to Universities. This paper assesses the validity of these twin beliefs. In addressing the first, we limit ourselves to Sweden which still retains its "Teacher's Exemption" model. In spite of confident statements made in the literature and by Government, we provide evidence to the contrary, i.e. that Swedish academia performs well in terms of commercialization. We also have doubts about the usefulness of the medicine prescribed to cure the alleged problem. Largely drawing on US literature, we argue that the medicine risks harming strong university-industry networks, biasing technical change, reducing entrepreneurial activity and generating costs to Universities which may be detrimental to technology transfer. In conclusion, we seriously question the validity of both beliefs. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Using quality improvement methods to implement guidelines to decrease the proportion of urinary retention in orthopaedic care

In patients treated with indwelling urethral catheter (IUC), complications such as catheter associated urinary tract infections are common, while underuse of IUC may cause harmful urinary retention (UR). A quality improvement (QI) program called ‘Indwelling urethral catheter (IUC) - only when needed’ was developed in Jönköping County Council, Sweden, aiming at creating a new approach: hospital staff should be able to identify and manage patients with risk of UR, prevent UR or treat UR without delay, and only use urinary IUCs on appropriate indications. The aim of this study was to describe the process of application of the quality improvement program. The Model for Improvement was used, and process coaches were appointed in the participating units. Their training was based on clinical issues and facts about UR, IUCs, guidelines, QI methods and measurements. Data were collected through prospective and retrospective patient record reviews, and differences were analyzed by inferential statistics. Before the intervention, only two patients out of 296 were cared for following the guidelines perfectly. During the intervention, adherence to guidelines showed a rising trend, and reached a new stable level, with an average of 67% adherence to guidelines. A systematic improvement program supported by coaches and improvement tools can increase the adherence to new guidelines and incorporate them into local practice. This study also shows that adherence to guidelines can improve patient safety, in this case a decreased risk for and incidence of UR in an orthopaedic patient population