Keys to the kingdom

Wong, Sybil C K; Sasportas, Laura S.; Richardson, Katie; Gordon, Brian R.; Jayatunga, Madura K P; Shalizi, Aryaman; Pfister, Sophia X.; Chui, Cecilia; Mathur, Melina; Thomsen, Soren K.; Shetty, Charvi; Pliuskys, Laurynas; Mehra, Akhil; Bahar, Hila; Godec, Jernej; Jong, Simcha; Perez, Daniel A

doi:10.1038/nbt.3159

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…MIT's IP policy vests ownership to MIT for intellectual property developed by faculty, students, staff and others participating in MIT programs, including visitors, with the significant use of funds or facilities administered by MIT (MIT, 2016c). However, contrary to a large number of universities in the US, the UK and Canada, MIT takes at most a 5% equity stake in spin-outs (Wong et al, 2015;Hen, 2010). Such policies, when combined with an entrepreneurial culture, accessible financing from public and private sources, and a vast pool of skilled highly qualified personnel, can sustain university spin-off formation and lead to huge value creation.…”

Section: Foster 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of regional systems of innovation on the formation of university spin-offs by biomedical star scientists

Thomas

Maine

2019

IJESB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists in research universities can play a formative role in commercializing their inventions for the benefit of society. University spin-off formation is increasing in importance as an alternative to licensing, and can be impacted by both micro and macro-level factors of the regional system of innovation. However, there is limited understanding of the ways in which these factors can interact to enable the formation of university spin-offs. In this study we examine how the productivity of two biomedical star scientists in co-founding university spinoffs can be supported or constrained by other elements of the regional system of innovation. Recommendations are made for research universities seeking to foster entrepreneurship through university spin-off formation.

show abstract

Section: Foster 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of regional systems of innovation on the formation of university spin-offs by biomedical star scientists

Thomas

Maine

2019

IJESB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The initiation of R&D projects in science‐driven technological fields generally requires firms to make substantial upfront resource commitments that are not transferable to other fields. To gain access to and use tacitly held scientific knowhow in specific fields, firms often set up internal corporate laboratories, as well as attract researchers from, and forge collaborations with academic laboratories with expertise in those fields (Cohen and Levinthal, ; Fabrizio, ; Fleming and Sorenson, ; Jong, ; Liebeskind et al, ; Wong et al, ; Zucker et al, ). However, the ability to redeploy those R&D resources across different fields is limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Funding for Science and the Value of Corporate R&D Projects; Evidence from Project Initiation and Termination Decisions in Cell Therapy

Huang

Jong

2018

J Management Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do firms decide which R&D projects to pursue and which ones to cast aside? We use a real options approach to advance our understanding of how firms manage uncertainties in R&D project management, in particular uncertainties linked to the external scientific environment. Our findings highlight how these uncertainties have an impact on the initiation and discontinuation of R&D projects. We examine these effects in the context of shifts in US science policy in the cell therapy field, using a dataset on 570 R&D projects in the global cell therapy sector, initiated over the period 1986–2011. We find decreased R&D project initiation rates and higher discontinuation rates for projects initiated by US firms in the aftermath of policy shifts that increased uncertainties about public funding support for US cell therapy research. We also highlight how this effect was reversed as the US public funding outlook for such research recovered.

show abstract