IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v32y2007i4p343-365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of technology transfer offices in building the South African biotechnology sector: an assessment of policies, practices and impact

Author

Listed:
  • Rosemary Wolson

Abstract

While South Africa appears to have many of the building blocks in place to support a vibrant biotechnology sector, the potential which exists has not yet been realised. Several policies and programmes have therefore been introduced by government in recent years in order to address some of the barriers. The poor flow of technologies from research laboratories to industry has been identified as an area of particular concern, with the role of institutional technology transfer offices (TTOs) as facilitators of improved technology transfer being highlighted. This paper describes the status quo of biotechnology in South Africa, discusses relevant policy developments and against this background, examines the status of TTOs, the constraints which are faced and how these might be overcome. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Rosemary Wolson, 2007. "The role of technology transfer offices in building the South African biotechnology sector: an assessment of policies, practices and impact," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 343-365, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:32:y:2007:i:4:p:343-365
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-006-9027-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10961-006-9027-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-006-9027-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    2. Sachin Chaturvedi, 2005. "Dynamics of Biotechnology Research and Industry in India: Statistics, Perspectives and Key Policy Issues," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2005/6, OECD Publishing.
    3. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jong-Bok Park & Tae-Kyu Ryu & David Gibson, 2010. "Facilitating public-to-private technology transfer through consortia: initial evidence from Korea," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 237-252, April.
    2. Weiping Wu, 2010. "Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 203-224, April.
    3. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    4. Temel, Serdal & Dabić, Marina & Murat Ar, Ilker & Howells, Jeremy & Ali Mert, & Yesilay, Rustem Baris, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between university innovation intermediaries and patenting performance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Kadigia Faccin & Christle Beer & Bibiana Volkmer Martins & Grabriela Zanandrea & Neta Kela & Corne Schutte, 2022. "What really matters for TTOs efficiency? An analysis of TTOs in developed and developing economies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1135-1161, August.
    6. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Samira Yusef Araújo Falani Bezerra & Ana Lúcia Vitale Torkomian, 2024. "Technology Transfer Offices: a Systematic Review of the Literature and Future Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 4455-4488, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eleftherios Sapsalis & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2003. "Insight into the patenting performance of Belgian universities," Brussels Economic Review, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles, vol. 46(3), pages 37-58.
    2. Eleftherios Sapsalis & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007. "The Institutional Sources Of Knowledge And The Value Of Academic Patents," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 139-157.
    3. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Eleftherios Sapsalis & Ran Navon, 2006. "Academic vs. industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Working Papers CEB 05-008.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Xue Yang & Hao Zhang & Die Hu & Bingde Wu, 2023. "The timing dilemma: understanding the determinants of innovative startups’ patent collateralization for loans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 371-403, January.
    5. Aldo Geuna & Lionel Nesta, 2003. "University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 99, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Sapsalis, Eleftherios & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Navon, Ran, 2006. "Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1645, December.
    7. Hille, Erik & Althammer, Wilhelm & Diederich, Henning, 2020. "Environmental regulation and innovation in renewable energy technologies: Does the policy instrument matter?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    8. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. "A Percolation Model of Innovation in Complex Technology," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. Borrás , Susana & Edquist , Charles, 2014. "Innovation Policy for Knowledge Production and R&D: the Investment Portfolio Approach," Papers in Innovation Studies 2014/21, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    10. Anna Maria Biscotti & Eugenio D’Amico, 2019. "Does Equity Market Differently Perceive IC Management and Disclosure Behaviours?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(2), pages 756-775, June.
    11. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    12. Scherer, F.M., 2010. "Pharmaceutical Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 539-574, Elsevier.
    13. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    14. Toole, Andrew A. & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2007. "Life Scientist Mobility from Academe to Industry: Does Academic Entrepreneurship Induce a Costly ?Brain Drain? on the Not-for-Profit Research Sector?," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-072, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2023. "No evidence of counteracting policy effects on European solar power invention and diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    16. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Joel Peress & jim goldman, 2016. "Firm Innovation and Financial Analysis: How Do They Interact?," 2016 Meeting Papers 531, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    18. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    19. repec:sol:wpaper:08-041 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Dirk Bergemann & Ulrich Hege & Liang Peng, 2008. "Venture Capital and Sequential Investments," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1682R2, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Oct 2009.
    21. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2012. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," NBER Working Papers 18292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology transfer office; Research and development; O3; O32; O34; O38;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:32:y:2007:i:4:p:343-365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.