U.S. Universities and Technology Transfer

Richard G. Hamermesh; Josh   Lerner; Phillip  Andrews

Background Note | HBS Case Collection | August 2011 (Revised September 2011)

U.S. Universities and Technology Transfer

by Richard G. Hamermesh, Josh Lerner and Phillip Andrews

Abstract

Technology transfer from U.S. universities to industry has increased dramatically in the last 25 years. Reviews the history of technology transfer with particular emphasis on the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. It then examines how universities responded to Bayh-Dole, the growth of technology transfer offices, and compares how three different universities (MIT, Stanford, and Harvard) approach technology transfer. Provides an overview of the technology transfer process and issues around current practices.

Keywords: Higher Education; Technology; Laws and Statutes; Education Industry; Technology Industry; United States;

Format: Print

33 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Hamermesh, Richard G., Josh Lerner, and Phillip Andrews. "U.S. Universities and Technology Transfer." Harvard Business School Background Note 812-016, August 2011. (Revised September 2011.)

The treatment of foreign investors has been a contentious topic in U.S. entrepreneurship policy in recent years. This paper examines foreign corporate investments in Silicon Valley from a theoretical and empirical perspective. We model a setting where such funding may allow U.S. entrepreneurs to pursue technologies that they could not otherwise, but may also lead to spillovers to the overseas firm providing the financing and the nation where it is based. We show that despite the benefits from such inbound investments for U.S. firms, it may be optimal for the U.S. government to raise their costs to deter investments. Using as comprehensive as possible a sample of investments by non-U.S. corporate investors in U.S. start-ups between 1976 and 2015, we find evidence consistent with the presence of knowledge spillovers to foreign investors.

Venture capital is associated with some of the most high-growth and influential firms in the world. Academics and practitioners have effectively articulated the strengths of the venture model. At the same time, venture capital financing also has real limitations in its ability to advance substantial technological change. Three issues are particularly concerning to us: 1) the very narrow band of technological innovations that fit the requirements of institutional venture capital investors; 2) the relatively small number of venture capital investors who hold, and shape the direction of, a substantial fraction of capital that is deployed into financing radical technological change; and 3) the relaxation in recent years of the intense emphasis on corporate governance by venture capital firms. While our ability to assess the social welfare impact of venture capital remains nascent, we hope that this article will stimulate discussion of and research into these questions.

Precision medicine company Blueprint Medicines was building a successful track record for bringing drug therapies to market 40% faster than average. The company had spent $40 million dollars and two years building a compound library that became its drug development engine. Blueprint’s drug development strategy was twofold—it focused on creating a single drug compound for multiple disease indications, while at the same time developing drugs to track a disease through its progression. The company’s goal was to become a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company that could move from drug discovery to development to marketing. But it was increasingly challenging to prioritize and manage programs, personnel and partnerships.

Faculty & Research

U.S. Universities and Technology Transfer

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors