The paradox of commercialising public sector intellectual property.

Abstract

The juxtapositioning of government providing a public good through research and development investment on one hand and engaging in commercialisation of the research outcome on the other is a paradox. Using agricultural research as an example, we examine the nature of the paradox to determine if commercialisation potentially leads to a conflict in the role of public research institutions set up to fulfil public good responsibilities. We identify the reasons for the shift in policy towards commercialisation and greater exploitation of public sector intellectual property and how this has contributed to the emergence of the apparent inconsistency. We argue that the belief in working for public good is inherent and embedded in an organisation's history and its wider operating environment. We propose that the creation of public sector intellectual property and its commercialisation are influenced by the political, social and economic environment in which the public institutions operate.

Introduction

Public policy changes in recent years have led to a re-examination of the effectiveness of public research institutions' contributions to national wealth and welfare. Historically, the rationale of market failure, provided the justification for knowledge generated from these institutions being placed in public domain, in line with a public good rationale. In recent years there has been a policy shift towards greater commercialisation of public sector research. We attribute this shift to the following reasons: (1) the changing view in respect of the nature and attributes of information as a consequence of the recent recognition of knowledge as a valuable commodity leading to greater appreciation of intellectual property originating from the public sector; (2) the increasing role of the private sector in working with public sector institutions in R&D and getting into research areas previously unattractive due in part to the widening scope of intellectual property protection and (3) the belief that commercialisa tion is both an important and effective way to extend and transfer the knowledge products of public sector research to the marketplace. We argue that commercialising public sector intellectual property may seem to create a dialectical contradiction to the historical public good goal of government addressing market failure but equally we argue that it will be naive to assume that the intellectual property will be used for public good if there are no mechanisms for marketing it to the targeted beneficiaries.

Commercialisation has become an important public sector institutions' agenda that is being pursued aggressively in western developed economies such as Australia, Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. These countries have introduced both legislative and institutional measures to encourage the commercialisation of publicly funded research since the 1980s. This pursuit of commercialisation and the consequent private appropriation of benefits potentially undermine the public good role of public research institutions presenting a paradox as historically many of the results of publicly funded research were placed in public domain for greater societal benefits, as was the case for many of the products of agricultural research.

Public Good Role of Government

Conventional economic theory of public good suggests that knowledge resulting from R&D may have public good characteristics such as non-excludability, i.e. the difficulty of preventing others from using it; and non-rivalry, i.e. results can be made available to a number of users simultaneously at no extra cost to the inventor (Arrow 1962, Reeves, 1999; IC, R&D Report, 1995). These characteristics result in positive externalities, or spillovers and an inability to recover costs from those who benefit

As a consequence of the informational attributes of knowledge, private sector is unlikely to invest in R&D and governments have a role to support and fund R&D particularly in areas where the resulting knowledge is generic and has public good attributes. It has been argued that the problem of externalities is widespread in rural research where there are many farmers who might be able to take advantage of research results than in concentrated manufacturing industries where there are few dominant players (ABARE, 1994). The results of agricultural research have often been categorised as a public good. Its long-term benefits in the form of adequate food supply, greater farm productivity and environmental sustainability, as well as political consideration (the farming community still forms a significant voting bloc in many western countries) ensured government support for agricultural R&D in the past. In several of the agricultural research institutions there was an underlying belief by many researchers that their knowledge was a public good and consequently was made freely available to the public, sometimes charging only for the cost of dissemination.

Apart from the addressing market failure, governments' intervention was to enhance economic productivity and the basic necessities to the community. The agricultural sector represents one of the last bastions of government intervention due to strong political influence of farmers. There was an assumption that the government has to provide assistance to maintain basic services that are essential for human consumption and services. As a result, there have been diverging views about the public sector role in the support for knowledge production and the commercialisation of publicly funded research.

Traditional versus the Contemporary Views of the Nature of Knowledge

While the conventional view of knowledge as a public good has received much support in economic, public policy and innovation literature, recent literature however, has shed new light on the nature of knowledge, in particular technological knowledge and information. For example, it has been argued that much of technological knowledge is embodied in people and the organisations where the research is conducted and to utilise this knowledge effectively usually requires some form of investment and cost (Gallon, 1994). Others have proposed the view that technological knowledge is neither generic nor freely available and public good is not synonymous with free good (for example, Pavitt, 1991). Yet another perspective that has been advanced is that knowledge is both "specific and sticky in nature and this limits the attribute of externalities of knowledge (von Hippel, 1994, 1998). Of particular interest is the idea that there are often high costs incurred in transferring and exploiting technological knowledge. These transfer costs can effectively change a public good into a private good, in that the transfer costs can be recovered, even though the costs in generating the knowledge cannot be easily recovered. Such approaches have been labelled the evolutionary view of knowledge as opposed to the traditional informational view (Salter and Martin, 2001).

In practice however, the generation and products of knowledge cannot easily be classifiable into discrete public or private categories. There is a continuum in the extent to which goods and services possess the characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability (IC, R&D Report 1995). We believe that the concept of public good is a socially constructed concept and depends on the perception of the actors and is also contingent on the organisations which sponsor the research. For example, farmers as a group may view a new variety of plant as a public good because of its contribution to the sustainability of rural communities, whereas a firm-level economic analysis will tend to emphasise the private good aspects, particularly as they are much easier to quantify. Likewise, while the outcome of a particular research project may be commercialisable due to its applied nature, government institutions may still choose to make them freely available to all farmers, making it a public good.

A major development that has impacted on the restructuring of agricultural research is the advent of the knowledge-based era that swept the world since the mid-1980s into the 21st century and created vast challenges and opportunities for agricultural research. Touted as the era of information technology and biotechnology, the pressure is not merely to increase agricultural productivity but to be competitive internationally on a sustainable basis taking into consideration the broader issues of food safety and environmental quality. The recognition of knowledge as a critical organisational asset has led to a greater appreciation of the value of its intellectual property assets by public research institutions.

History Matters

The Case of the Agricultural Sector

In the developed economies up to the 1970s, the agricultural sector typically exemplified the active and dominant role of governments in supporting, managing and directing research activities for public good purposes. Being the oldest form of human endeavour, agriculture was perceived to be a socially productive activity exerting strong influence in government policies and direction of funding. The modus operandi for agricultural research follows a similar pattern for most countries-governments predominantly fund agricultural research and disseminate the results freely to the farmers. In Australia for example, the government clearly spelt out the role of the government in rural R&D as that of providing benefits to the community as a whole, to overcome the free rider problem and in particular, to undertake projects that involve substantial risks.

To quote: "governments must be actively involved in the R&D process" (Kerin & Cook, 1989) (1)

Since the 1970s, public sector R&D in most developed countries underwent structural changes, particularly in the agriculture sector. In countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, there has been the gradual erosion of public sector dominance and leadership in agricultural R&D. Public provision of extension services is an important component of the delivery or dissemination of new technologies to the farmers. For much of the post-World War II period, advisory services have been treated as public good and provided freely to the farmers, even though they have "both public and private good aspects and benefits"; public where the information content is of general application and private where it serves identifiable beneficiaries (Lloyd, 1986, p.141). Godden (1997) observes that publicly provided extension services are also a key 'political good' facilitating the shifting of resources to the rural sector, and a means of providing employment, especially in small country towns.

The decline in the dominance of the public sector, as providers in

agricultural research is reflected by increased private industry involvement as providers of agricultural research and information. This trend is reflected particularly in the United States which experienced a three fold increase in private expenditure on agricultural research between 1960 and 1992, from US$1.3 to 3.9 billion (Fuglie et al, 1996). Data in 1993 indicates that the share of private sector involvement in agricultural research in the US is in excess of 50 per cent. For the same year, in the United Kingdom the private sector is estimated to perform over 60 per cent of all agricultural research. Australia however, still has significantly smaller private sector involvement in agricultural research although privately performed R&D is becoming more important (Alston et al, 1998). In tandem with the enhanced involvement of private industry in agricultural research, public research institutions are also adopting commercial practices for t heir activities, balancing this approach with their public good role at the same time.

What has brought about this change? Literature on R&D, including agricultural R&D, most frequently cites budgetary cuts as the key impetus for the shift to a commercial focus of public sector research (Papageorgious, 1993; Eisenberg, 1996; Massaro, 1996). While not disputing that waning financial support from the public purse is an important factor leading to increased focus on commercialisation of public sector research, we caution that linking this shift to budgetary constraints masks the other important developments that have been responsible for the evolving structural changes in agricultural research as mentioned in the introduction to this paper.

Implications of Commercialising Public Sector Intellectual Property: A Paradox?

The shift from the traditional model where agricultural research is conducted within the framework in which agriculture information is considered a public good to a model that considers information output from research as private good that has to be "shielded" and commercialized for private gains began in the late 1970s intensifying in the 1980s. The commercialisation of public sector research has important implications not only in respect of the institutional rules and conventions under which research takes place (Dasgupta and David, 1993) but also in respect of the complementary relations between open and commercial research and the processes that have enabled long-term exploitation of the public stock of knowledge (Rappert, 1999). If the historical reason for government's initial involvement in R&D was to address the public good, then its current engagement in commercialisation of research raises a paradox. True paradoxes, by their nature are not solvable, but must be managed within the organisations (Hand y, 1994). Agricultural R&D has been undergoing structural changes in the past few decades, and seems caught in this dialectical situation.

A path dependency perspective helps explain embedded institutional rules and conventions under which agricultural research is conducted. In many developed countries, the history of government support for agricultural research had been intimately associated with land grants, regional economic development, modernisation, resettlement of WWII veterans, resource conservation and agriculture education (2). The establishment of public sector agricultural research institutions was thus purposive and mission-oriented, to undertake applied research activities and to transfer such information quickly and effectively to the farming community. Its pervasive national significance and service to the community at large guaranteed government support for many years. This support was augmented by consistent evidence of high payoffs for past investment in agricultural research (Byerlee, 1998).

The "public good" role of agricultural research institutions has facilitated and expedited the quick and effective transfer of technology from the sources of knowledge (research institutions and universities) to technology producers (industry) and users (farmers) (Postlewait et al, 1993). Historically, the agricultural research and extension systems worked in tandem in developing new technologies and encouraging their adoption and uptake by farmers.

However, with the passage of time the original reasons for government's role and intervention are not longer valid today as they were 50 years ago. Structural changes in the agricultural sector accompanied by shifts in public attitude towards farming and the willingness of private companies to undertake research in the agriculture encouraged no doubt by expansion in the scope of intellectual protection demand a rethinking of public sector role in providing certain public good which may crowd out the private sector initiatives. In fact what was considered public good research in one period of time may not necessarily be considered so at a later time. Moreover, if some public good research properly achieves its goals, such as facilitating economic development or settling new farmers, it also sows the seeds of its own demise as a public good. As the initial public good objectives are achieved, the R&D activity may become more and more appropriable and hence more a private good.

Intellectual Property Rights: Extending the Scope of Protection

Conventional patents did not cover many of the advances in either information technology or biotechnology since their emergence in the 1980s. IT protection was limited to copyright or secrecy, neither being entirely adequate. Similarly in the agricultural sector, historically, intellectual property rights protection was limited to mechanical and chemical inventions. Biological inventions, such as new plant varieties and animal breeds were not patentable as they were considered as products of nature. As a consequence, many private plant breeders concentrated their research on hybrid seed technology, which offers a natural form of protection for intellectual property since the yield of second-generation progeny of a hybrid declines markedly (Fuglie et al, 1996).

The emergence of biotechnology led to an expansion in the scope of intellectual property rights for agricultural research and provided new incentives for private finance and conduct of R&D. The extended definition for a patent, which provides the threat of prosecution of infringement for embodied inventions, is the key instrument for private innovation in agriculture in developed countries. The other important intellectual property right protection for agricultural research, at least in the western world, is the breeders' rights legislation that have been strengthened in the United States (3) and in Australia (4) extending protection rights to crop varieties. In the United States, since the new breeders' rights were defined for crop varieties the rate of private sector release of new soybean varieties has greatly increased, and private seed companies have replaced public sector plant breeders as the primary breeders of new commercially successful soybean varieties (Huffman and Evenson, 1994; Fuglie et al, 19 96).

Intellectual property rights allow inventors to appropriate benefits from their research, thus addressing the non-rivalrous and non-excludability problems of knowledge. On the other hand, it creates another form of market failure resulting from monopoly and reduces the social benefits of the invention. Much of public policy debate on intellectual property rights has been centred on the tradeoffs between these two types of market failure. The implications for agricultural research are particularly significant as granting of monopoly rights albeit for a temporary period can lead to greater restriction in the flow of knowledge in seed technology and result in higher seed costs to farmers. The challenge for public research institutions is to strike an appropriate balance between the tradeoffs to ensure that both economic efficiency and equity are not compromised.

The introduction of plant breeders' legislation and the extension of protection for plant varieties under the Patent Act paved the way for increased interest in commercialisation of agricultural R&D in developed economies such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. While some technologies are still being diffused through the extension services, many others, particularly embodied and shielded technologies are being commercialised through private industry. Commercialisation of public sector research has two dimensions. From the government's perspective, the primary goal of commercialisation is to increase the uptake of new technologies by the end users, in particular, to ensure that the research outcomes are turned into applications for the benefit of the farmers. For the private company that is selected to commercialise the technology, the goal is to maximise profits. The challenge in public policy is to converge the two goals.

One commonly used mode of commercialisation, particularly for new plant varieties is to grant licences to industry partners who then have the responsibility to develop the technology and subsequently distribute and market the technology to the farmers. Where the markets are small and fragmented such as the case in Australia, exclusive licensing is preferred over non-exclusive licensing.

The use of private industry to commercialise public sector research can be viewed as one of the ways in which public policy attempts to deal with the paradox and also represents an adjustment to the structural changes confronting agricultural research. It can be perceived that knowledge resulting from agricultural research has private benefits and can be appropriable given the right environment.

Managing the Paradox

The apparent paradox of commercialising public good R&D raises a series of questions related to the proper role of government in agricultural research, the changing nature and different perceptions of public good R&D and how institutions might adjust. How do R&D institutions identify or recognise changes in the nature of public good R&D among their many stakeholders? How do they recognise the change in the constituents of their stakeholders? How should these institutions respond in the changing government-business relationships and perceptions of their respective roles in the agribusiness environment? By commercialising their research results are public research institutions any different from private industry? Are they competing with private industry? Should they refocus their priorities? Does it mean that their traditional public good role is a thing of the past?

Governments do not start with a blank canvas. There is already an extensive system of publicly-funded R&D in most developed countries. The issue is not what the system should look like, starting from nothing, rather how the existing system can be adapted to better meet current needs and resources, but at the same time recognising where they are coming from. As some governments have learned at their expense, publicly employed people, their families and communities can vote and influence outcomes in regional electorates.

Taken in the context of their historical beginnings and their traditional roles, public sector research institutions in different jurisdictions have attempted to manage the paradox of commercialising public good R&D in different ways. Currently, there seems to be a common belief in Australia, the UK and the US that commercialisation is an effective mechanism for encouraging the uptake of public sector research. However, the types of reforms or changes to commercialise public sector research vary considerably, sometimes in conjunction with the pursuit of a number of different agendas.

We observe that the approaches to commercialisation of public sector agricultural R&D are determined primarily by the goals of the institutions and the targeted beneficiaries of the R&D. The issues of who funds and who conducts the research is then dependent on the potential benefits flowing from the research results and the infrastructure and skills available to carry the R&D.

Conclusions

The paradox inherent in commercialising public sector research is partially due to the historical public good role of public research institutions with their embedded traditional approach of conducting research for the public good. Structural changes (enhanced productivity and modernisation of the agricultural sector; declined importance of agriculture relative to manufacturing and service sectors) that have occurred over the years, precipitated by reduction in public funds for research had elicited new approaches to commercialisation, but these were not always matched by appropriate public policy and planning processes. As evident from some of the vagaries for research commercialisation in public sector research institutions, there is little evidence to suggest that strategies for commercialisation are well defined or integrated with organisational goals. Commercialisation for profits is a new phenomenon for many of the key actors in research (the scientists) and the policy framework must address their conc erns and improve their better understanding of commercialisation.

The paradox of commercialising public good research is also driven by the inability of the multiple stakeholders in the research projects to identify the boundary between public good aspects and the commercial value of the research. Clear policy guidelines are necessary to distinguish programmes that are funded and supported mainly for the purpose of pre-commercialisation stages of research where results can be disseminated without any policy or organisational barriers. There may also be a wide margin such as pre-competitive results that cannot be identified and will spill over to research commercialisation. Public sector institutions need to develop competence to identify these overlapping research activities and employ appropriate commercialisation strategies for their eventual uptake. Although universities have used the model of spin-off companies to commercialise university research, this model has not been explored as an alternative mode of commercialisation by public agriculture research institutions.

The paradox creates the necessary catalyst and environment for these institutions to respond to changes and jolts them from complacency. In the agricultural sector the paradox is clearly manifested by the dilemma of reduced funding for research leading to a strategic focus in commercialisation, and the underlying political and scientific rationales of public research to provide knowledge for the good of community.

As highlighted in our paper, the paradox is inherent and inevitable, made more visible by the changing agricultural, political, social environments. It is in the interest of government institutions to manage the paradox to ensure that they can still perform the public good role and at the same time institute commercialisation strategies to address the squeeze in public funds for research. The management of the paradox is important in a dynamic research setting where different forms and different levels of interactions are necessary for successful research commercialisation. The challenge is for governments to recognise that policies that served public good purposes post war need to be changed and modified to take into consideration today's political, social and economic environment and public sector institutions to set appropriate policy guidelines and strategies to support the initiatives for commercialisation while still performing their public good role.

Taken in the context of their historical beginnings and their traditional roles, we observe that public sector research institutions in different jurisdictions have attempted to manage the paradox of commercialising public good R&D in different ways. But underlying the different approaches is a common belief all jurisdictions that commercialisation is an effective mechanism for encouraging the uptake of public sector research. However, the types of reforms or changes to commercialise public sector research varies considerably, sometimes in conjunction with the pursuit of a number of different agendas. The contribution to the formation of intellectual capital in public sector, therefore, depends upon the satisfactory resolution of this paradox.

End Notes

(1.) A Government Statement by John Kerin, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, and Peter Cook, Minister for Resources, May 1989.

(2.) In the United States, formal federal support for agricultural research started in 1862 with the establishment of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in parallel with the passage of the Morrill Land Grant College Act (Fuglie et al, 1996). These colleges started experimentation to assist farmers to solve their problems and some even made research a priority (Arnon, 1989). In the United Kingdom, agricultural societies were established at the beginning of the 19th century with the objective of solving farmers' problems. This was followed by the development of agricultural teaching at university level. In Australia, the Department of Agriculture which had its origin in The Land Act of 1884, was established in 1887. The first decade of its work was devoted to assisting settlers and serving the pastoral industries to achieve greater development and productivity, through experimentation (conducted in State farms, known later as research stations and laboratories); education (e.g. the Queensland Ag ricultural College at Gatton-1897) and publication (Queensland Agricultural Journal, 1897).

(3.) In the United States, the Plant Variety Protection Act was amended in 1994 to conform with international standards for plant breeders rights established by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). These amendments increase the scope of protection offered by Plant Variety Protection Certificates. Judicial decision in the 1980s also significantly expanded patent protection for biological inventions, particularly those involving biotechnologies such as genetic engineering (see judicial rulings in Diamond vs. Chakrabarty, Ex parte Hibberd and Ex parte Allen). (Fuglie et al, 1996).

(4.) The Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 replaces the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. This new Act conforms with the 1991 revision of the UPOV Convention. Under the new legislation, new varieties of all plant, fungal, algal species and transgenic plants are eligible for protection.

References

Alston, J. M., Pardey, P. G., Roseboom, J. 1998. "Financing Agricultural Research: International Investment Patterns and Policy Perspectives" World Development 26(6): 1057-1071.

Arrow, K.J. 1962. "Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention" In: Nelson, R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University, Princeton: 609-625.

Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 1999. "Science and Technology Budget Statement, 1999-2000", Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.

Barney, J., 1991. "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage" Journal of Management 17(1):99-120.

Byerlee, D., 1998. "The Search for a New Paradigm for the Development of National Agricultural Systems" World Development 26(6):1049-1055.

Cary, J., (1998). "Issues in Public and Private Technology Transfer: The Cases of Australia and New Zealand" in S. Wolf, ed. Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization, CRC Press: New York. 183-207.

CCST University Industry Interaction Working Group, Coordination Committee on Science and Technology (CCST), (1998) "Interactions Between Universities and Industry", Canberra, Commonwealth Government of Australia: 1-42.

Callon, M., 1994. "Is Science a public good?" Science, Technology and Human Values 19:345-424.

Industry Commission, (1995.) Research and Development Report Volumes 1-3, Australian Government Publishing Service, Conmonwealth Government of Australia:, Canberra.

Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2000. "Australian Science and Technology at a Glance 2000" Commonwealth Government of Australia Canberra.

Eisenberg, R.S. 1996. "Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research" Virginia Law Review, 82: 1663-1735

Fuglie, K.B.N. Day, K. Klotz, C. Ollinger, M. Reilly, J. Vasavada, U., Yee, J. 1996. "Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions" United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Godden, D., 1997.Agricultural and Resource Policy: Principles and Practice, Oxford University Press: Melbourne.

Handy, C., 1994. The Empty Raincoat; Making Sense of the Future, Random House: New York.

Higgins, V., 1999. "Economic Restructuring and neo-liberalism in Australian rural adjustment policy" Restructuring global and regional agricultures: transformations in Australasian agri-food economics and space, Burch, D. Goss, J. and Lawrence, G.; Aldershot, (eds). Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Huffman, W. E. Just, R. E. 1999. "The organisation of agricultural research in western developed countries" Agricultural Economics 21:1-18.

Industry Commission, 1995. Research and Development Report Volumes 1-3, Australian Government Publishing Service, Commonwealth Government of Australia: Canberra.

Lack, S. 1996. "Use of Research Evaluation in Decision-making in R&D Corporations", 40th Annual Conference of the Australian Agriculture and Resource Economics Society, Melbourne, Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research.

Lattimore, R. 1996. "Research and Development Fiscal Incentives in Australia: Impacts and Policy Lessons", Industry Commission: 91-134, Canberra.

Massaro, T.A. 1996. "Innovation, technology transfer, and patent policy: the University contribution--Commentary", Virginia Law Review 82:1729-1737.

Papageorgiou, J.C., 1993. "Issues on the future of R&D and Innovation in the USA", Int. J. Technology Management 8(6/7/8): 500-512.

Pavitt, K., 1991. "What makes basic research economically useful?" Research Policy, 20 (2):109-119.

Penman, R. 2000. "Reconstructing communication: looking to a future", Mahwah, Lawrence Eribaum Associates: NJ.

Postlewait, A. Parker, D.D. and Zilberman, D., 1993. "The Advent of Biotechnology and Technology Transfer In Agriculture", Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43:271-287.

Pray, C.E., 1996. "The impact of privatising agricultural research in Great Britain: an interim report on PBI and ADAS." Food Policy 21(3):305-318.

Pray, C.E., and Umali-Deininger, D., 1998. "The Private Sector in Agricultural Research Systems: Will it Fill the Gap?" World Development 26(6):1127-1148.

Pray, C., E., (1996). "The impact of privatising agricultural research in Great Britain: an interim report on PBI and ADAS." Food Policy 21(3):305-318.

Rappert, B., Webster, A. and Charles, D., 1999. "Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic-industrial relations and intellectual property", Research Policy (28):873-890.

Thirtle, C., Palladino, P. and Piesse, J. 1997. "On the organisation of agricultural research in the United Kingdom, 1945-1994: A quantitative description and appraisal of recent reforms" Research Policy 26: 557-576.

Whittemore, C.T., 1998. "Structures and processes required for research, higher education and technology transfer in the agricultural sciences: a policy appraisal", Agricultural Economics 19:269-282.

Young, A.L., Jones, D.D. and Staton, J.C., 1994. "Encouraging research; development, and commercialisation in agricultural biotechnology", ACS-symp-ser. Washington D.C.; American Chemical Society, 1974-1994(551):497-508.

Von-Hippel, Eric. 1998. "Economic of product development by users: The impact of sticky local information", Management Science, 44 (5) 629-644.

_____ 1994. "Sticky information" and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovations", Management Science, 40 (4): 429-439.

Von-Hippel, Eric (1998) "Economic of product development by users: The impact of sticky local information", Management Science, 44 (5) 629-644.

Revesz, J., 1999. "Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights", Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, AGPS:Canberra.

Salter, AJ. and Martin BR., 2001. "The Economic Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research: A Critical Review" Research Policy 30(3):509-532.

Toennies, F., 1963. Community and Society, Harper and Row: New York.

Art Shulman

Art Shulman, PhD, is Reader, School of Business, The University of Queensland. Teaches in MBA programmes in a range of subjects including Organisational Behaviour, Organisational Design and Change, Leading and Managing People, and Challenges of Management. He has consulted widely in both private and public sector and has published extensively. One of his current research interests is in the area of management of change: R&D Extension and commercialisation.

Drew Wollin

Drew Wollin, PhD, lectures in strategic management, organisation theory and entrepreneurship at the University of Queensland Business School. He worked in engineering research and development, as both a researcher and manager for 17 years, before moving to academia in 1996. His research interests include: macro-entrepreneurship, the establishment of new industries not just new business; public sector management; the management of research and commercialisation, theories of change, both incremental and discontinuous, and complexity theory.

Rose H Wong

MBA United Kingdom, Lecturer at the University of Auckland, teaching Management in undergraduate programmes and Managing People in Executive Programmes. She is currently pursuing a doctoral programme with the University of Queensland and her research focuses on commercialisation of public sector research.