Begleit- und Wirkungsforschung zur Hightech-Strategie : Ex-Post-Evaluierung der Fördermaßnahmen BioChance und BioChancePlus im Rahmen der Systemevaluierung

Der vorliegende Bericht stellt die Ergebnisse der Evaluation der BMBF-Fördermaßnahmen BioChance und BioChancePlus dar. Beide zielten als Vorläufer der Förderinitiative "KMUinnovativ: Biotechnologie" darauf ab, innovative und anspruchsvolle Forschungsvorhaben von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen in der Biotechnologie zu ermöglichen. Die beiden Fördermaßnahmen unterschieden sich in Förderziel und Design: Während BioChance ab 1999 darauf abzielte, neu gegründete Firmen zu unterstützen, ging es in BioChancePlus ab 2003 darum, die weitere Entwicklung junger Biotechnologie- Unternehmen und deren risikoreichen Projekte voranzutreiben. Die vorliegende Analyse zeigt, dass BioChance und BioChancePlus eine angemessene Reaktion auf die Schwierigkeiten waren, mit denen die dedizierten Biotechnologie-Unternehmen in Deutschland in den Jahren 1999-2009 zu kämpfen hatten. Die Fördermaßnahmen wurden in ihrem Design jeweils adäquat weiterentwickelt und den Erfordernissen der Zielgruppe entsprechend angepasst. BioChance und BioChancePlus haben ihre Zielgruppen in hohem Maße erreicht: Von BioChance profitierten 15% der jungen Biotechnologiefirmen in Deutschland, der Nachfolger BioChancePlus erreichte 40% seiner Zielgruppe. Insgesamt erhielten 260 Unternehmen eine Zuwendung. 85% davon wurden nur einmal gefördert. Die öffentliche Förderung stellte eine wichtige, jedoch keineswegs die dominierende Finanzierungsquelle für die Unternehmen dar. So flossen im Zeitraum 2000-2009 rund 3 Mrd. Euro an VC-Investitionen in die Biotechnologie-Branche, während sich die öffentliche Förderung auf ca. 5% dieser Summe belief. Bei BioChance erhielten 17% der eingereichten Anträge eine Förderung, bei BioChancePlus waren es 29%. Insgesamt wurden durch die Maßnahme BioChance etwa 36 Millionen Euro und durch BioChancePlus 133 Millionen Euro an Fördergeldern gewährt

Factors that Impact on University-Industry Collaboration :Empirical Evidence from Sweden and Germany

Public policy supports knowledge and technology transfer from university to industry since it is frequently assumed to have a positive impact on innovation processes in firms. University-industry collaboration is especially encouraged although not all individual university scholars are equally interested in university-industry collaboration. The purpose of this paper is to assess to which extent certain factors relate to the decision of university researchers to collaborate with industry. It builds upon a survey of university professors in Sweden and Germany. It is shown that financial constraints, individual attitudes, and personal experience with patenting are related to industry collaboration. The regression results show that researchers who experienced a decrease in base funding and conduct applied research are much more likely to collaborate with industry. Furthermore, researchers who hold previous patents, have a positive attitude towards commercial issues and conduct research in the engineering sciences have a higher propensity to engage in industry collaboration.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Is there a local innovation policy to support academic start-up activities? an exploratory case study of Heidelberg

It is increasingly acknowledged that innovation is a systemic phenomenon where the interaction in a regional system of innovation is important. This is particularly true for the establishment of new enterprises. The autonomy of the regions and the resulting regional policy focus is accentuated in Germany. However, the availability of public funds for the early phases of firm establishment and development is very limited. A new means of the local and regional governments to support entrepreneurship with rather small public funds is the interactive economic policy approach. In this approach, the local or regional government acts as mediator to facilitate cooperation between different stakeholders in order to overcome coordination problems. The purpose of this paper is to assess entrepreneurship support in Heidelberg and to investigate whether it follows an interactive economic policy approach. Heidelberg is embedded in a high-technology region in Germany with a large number of public and private research institutes in the field of medicine and biotechnology. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders from the university, regional and local policy makers and start-up companies. Special emphasis is on the type of support that the start-ups received.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Bortom elfenbenstornet : En jämförelse av patenträttsregimer i Sverige och Tyskland

The purpose of this dissertation is to assess the impact of patent rights regulation in universities in Sweden and Germany. Two empirical studies were conducted in order to answer the research question What are the incentive effects of patent rights regimes in the university?. A qualitative study based on interviews with representatives from the public support infrastructure in both countries assessed the role of technology transfer offices and other intermediaries in both countries. The process of patenting and commercial exploitation in Sweden and Germany was presented in stylised models. A quantitative study based on a survey of researchers in Sweden and Germany was carried out in order to find out the factors that impact on the decision to apply for patents. The quantitative results together with the qualitative findings from the interview study allow us to draw a number of conclusions. First of all, the incentive effects of patent rights regimes in universities in Sweden and Germany are rather small. Despite two diametrically opposed patent rights regimes – Sweden with researcher-ownership and Germany with universityownership – the results indicate that patenting is rather unaffected by it. Researchers in both countries are similarly patent-active. Thus, the patent rights regime has only limited explanatory power. Other factors seem to have a stronger impact on the incentives to patent. The infrastructure for patenting and commercialisation has an important role. Researchers that received support were more inclined to get their results patented and the results from the interview study indicate that it is mainly a well-working infrastructure that increases incentives to patent and not the patent rights regime alone. When it comes to the public infrastructure for patenting and commercial exploitation, the role of technology transfer offices etc. and the type of support is different in both countries. Swedish public infrastructure provides primarily support with regard to patenting and financial support aiming at the establishment and development of spin-offs. German public infrastructure focuses primarily on patenting and licensing. The patent rights regime has limited power to explain patenting. Structural factors of research organisations and personal characteristics of the researcher are more important. Structural factors such as research orientation (applied vs. basic) can explain patenting behaviour. Researchers that have previous experience with patenting show a greater propensity to patent. The survey results about hindrances to patenting have shown that a lot of researchers did not apply because they lacked knowledge, regarded the patenting process to be too time-consuming or too costly. This illustrates the importance of experience and infrastructure. Since the university wants the researcher to accomplish all three missions (research, teaching and transfer), it has to induce the researchers to do so. Nevertheless, the analysis of the reward system has shown that this is rarely the case. The empirical results in Sweden and Germany show that salary either directly or indirectly is determined by publications and the extent to which researchers acquire external funding. In addition to career concerns and salary, researchers have the possibility to earn a bonus. This bonus is related to the third mission (knowledge transfer) of universities and can take different forms. It can include honoraria for books or lectures, income from consulting assignments, or income from patents. It is therefore important to acknowledge that there is a broad range of means to transfer knowledge and technology. Consulting seems particularly important. The bonus associated with consulting seems to be less risky than the potential bonus of patenting. The maximum bonus with regard to patents is determined by the patent rights regime. In Sweden, the university teachers can receive the entire bonus, whereas this share is limited to 30% in Germany. The chances that a bonus materialises are uncertain. The basic role of technology transfer offices and other actors that support patenting and commercialisation is to reduce the risks associated with patenting. If the risks can be reduced the chances that a bonus will materialise are larger, which increases the incentives of researchers to exert effort with regard to patenting.Syftet med avhandlingen är att analysera inflytandet av patenträttsregleringen i universitet i Sverige och Tyskland. Två empiriska studier har genomförts för att få ett svar på forskningsfrågan Vad är incitamentseffekterna av patenträttsregimer i universiteten?. En kvalitativ studie baserad på intervjuer med representanter för den offentliga infrastrukturen i båda länder analyserade tekniköverföringsaktörernas roll. Processen för patentering och kommersialisering i Sverige och Tyskland har illustrerats i grafiska modeller. En kvantitativ studie baserad på en enkätundersökning av forskare i båda länder har genomförts för att veta mer om de faktorer som påverkar beslutet att söka patent. De kvantitativa resultaten tillsammans med de kvalitativa resultaten från intervjustudien gör det möjligt att dra slutsatser. Först och främst så är incitamentseffekterna av patenträttsregimer i universiteten ganska små. Trots två motsatta patenträttsregimer – i Sverige äger forskaren forskningsresultaten (”Lärarundantaget”) i Tyskland universiteten – visar resultaten att patentering inte berörs av detta. Forskarna i båda länderna är lika patent aktiva. Patenträttsregimer har därför begränsad förklaringskraft. Andra faktorer har starkare påverkan på incitament att söka patent. Infrastrukturen för patentering och kommersialisering spelar en viktig roll. Forskare som fått stöd visade en större sannolikhet att söka patent och resultaten från intervjustudien visar att det är främst en väl fungerande infrastruktur som ökar incitament att söka patent och inte bara patenträttsregimen. Den offentliga infrastrukturen i båda länder har lika roller. Den svenska offentliga infrastrukturen stödjer patentering och nystartandet av företag genom finansiellt stöd. Den tyska offentliga infrastrukturen stödjer framförallt patentering och licensiering. Patenträttsregimer har begränsat förklaringskraft. Strukturella faktorer, såsom forskningsorientering (tillämpad vs. grundforskning) kan delvis förklara patentbenägenheten. Forskare som har erfarenhet av patentsystemet har större patentbenägenhet. Enkätresultaten om hinder att patentera har visat att många forskare avstår att söka patent på grund av begränsad kunskap eller på grund av tidsbrist. Detta illustrerar hur viktig erfarenhet och infrastruktur är. Universitet som vill att forskare ska fullfölja alla tre uppgifter (forskning, undervisning och kunskapsöverföring) borde uppmuntra forskarna att satsa på alla tre uppgifter. Ändå har analysen av belöningssystemen visat att så är sällan fallet. De empiriska resultaten i Sverige och Tyskland visar att lönen är direkt eller indirekt beroende av publikationer och i vilken mån forskarna lyckas att attrahera externa medel. Utöver karriären och lönen har forskarna möjlighet att tjäna en bonus. Bonusen är relaterad till tredje uppgiften (kunskapsöverföring) och kan ta olika former. Det kan inkludera arvode för böcker eller föreläsningar, inkomster från konsultverksamhet eller inkomster från patent. Därför är det viktigt att erkänna att det finns olika kanaler för kunskaps- och tekniköverföring. Konsultverksamhet har visat sig särskild viktigt eftersom bonusen i relation till konsultverksamhet är mindre riskabelt än bonusen relaterad till patent. Maximala bonus i relation till patent påverkas av patenträttsregimen. I Sverige kan forskaren få alla intäkter från ett patent. I Tyskland är andelen begränsat till 30 procent av alla bruttoinkomster från patentet. Chansen att en bonus kommer till stånd är osäkert. Tekniköverföringsorganisationer kan reducera riskerna som är relaterad till patent och kommersiell exploatering. Om riskerna kan reduceras och om chanserna att en bonus erhålls ökar, ökar incitamenten för forskarna att anstränga sig att patentera

Factors that Impact on University-Industry Collaboration :Empirical Evidence from Sweden and Germany

Public policy supports knowledge and technology transfer from university to industry since it is frequently assumed to have a positive impact on innovation processes in firms. University-industry collaboration is especially encouraged although not all individual university scholars are equally interested in university-industry collaboration. The purpose of this paper is to assess to which extent certain factors relate to the decision of university researchers to collaborate with industry. It builds upon a survey of university professors in Sweden and Germany. It is shown that financial constraints, individual attitudes, and personal experience with patenting are related to industry collaboration. The regression results show that researchers who experienced a decrease in base funding and conduct applied research are much more likely to collaborate with industry. Furthermore, researchers who hold previous patents, have a positive attitude towards commercial issues and conduct research in the engineering sciences have a higher propensity to engage in industry collaboration.University-industry collaboration; Technology transfer; Commercialisation of research; Research funding

Toward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational Life

cladistics, classification, configurations, diversity, evolution, organizations, phylogeny, taxonomy, typology, A1, L0, L2, L6, M1, N0,