University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States

量nd関心iaHz血g KoⅥedge

University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States

edited byしewis M･ Branscomb, Fumio Kodama,

and Richard Florida

The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England

◎ 1999 The President and Fellows ofHaⅣard College

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any fom by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.

This book was printed and bound in the United States ofAmerica･ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Industrializing knowledge : university-industry linkages in Japan and the日nited States / edited byしewis M･ Branscomb, Fumio Kodama, and

Richard Flonda.

p･ Cm･ In｡udes bibliographical references and index･ ISBN 0_262-02465-9 (hc: alk･ paper) 1. Research-United States･ 2･ Research→apan･ 3･ Research･ Industria｣日nited States･ 4･ Research, Industrial〇十apan･

5. Universities and colleges-Research･ 1･ Branscomb,Lewis M･, 1926- . 11. Kodama, Fumio. Ill. Florida, Richard L. Q180●U5143 1999

607･.052-dc2l

1

University Research as an Engine for Growl: How Realistic Is the Vision? Fum乞o Kodama and Leひノ8.5 M. Bγanscomb

There is intense public interest in the role of universities as the pnmary source of new skills, new knowledge, and new ideas for addressing almost every Issue facing industrialized societies. Indeed, expectations of economic contributions百〇m universiウ

research are so strong and widely held that many academics are increasingly concerned that these expectations may be unrealistic.

They also worry about potential distortion of traditional academic values arising from links to industry. Political or commercial demands placed on the intellectual life of the university are far from uncommon, and universities have, as a result, sought insulation

from these forces. At the same time, the dominantrealityis that the best of the world's research universities are uniquely the sources of vitality, understanding, and skills in highly developed societies･ Both as a matter of civic duty and in response to an opportunity to be acknowledged as vitally important institutions, universities in most industrialized nations are actively exploringjust what their relationships with the commercial world should be･ Eve重ywhere in this relationship there are questions and contra-

dictions that are not easily resolved (Brooks and Randazzese 1998: 361-99) ･日niversities are by tradition-one might say by intellec-

tual necessity-open to participation by scholars from all over the world･ l七t their sources of血nding are almost entirely domestic,

and in most countries (including the United States) primarily governmental. Politicians may be expected to ensure that the benefits of university research are effectively, if not primarily,

Kodama and Branscomb

captured by domestic workers and investors･ When university research in the日nited States is carried out by guest researchers

百〇m fbreign乱ms, or is conducted in collaboration with multina-

tional industry, or when faculty inventions are licensed to foreign 血ms, politicians may ask hard questions about who captures the

benefits from public funding of university research.I At the same time major sclence agencies of the federal government are providing s廿ong量ncentives to the universities to expand their collabora-

tions and business relationships with industry･ The current wave of legislation intended to gain economic benefits from federally

sponsored academic research began with the Bayh-Dole PatentAct of 1980, which allowed universities t○ Own the patents arising血om

govemment血nded魚culty inventions with the expectation that

this would accelerate the diffusion of new technology to industry through licenses and new venture creation (see chapter 11)･ In Japan, economic policy throughout the posⅣar period has

rested on expanding exports based on rapid technical imovation, a strategy that has brought great success. The emphasis has been placed on indus正al蝦D investment, and the role of universities

in the national research system has been much less visible intemationally (Odagiri and Goto 1993: 76-1 14) ･ However, despite vαγ

conseⅣa心ve budge帥y management in the government, university

research has received special and favorable treatment in both good

times and bad. The Basic Plan for Science and Technology of 1996

de｡ared that the government budget for Science and Technology should be doubled and reach to亡he level of判7正11ion in the year

2000. However, the員nancial and budge加y structure applied fbr

Japanese national universities is such that the plan for doubling expenditure for university research may not actually be achieved

(see Ohtawa chapter 6) ･2 Nevertheless, university faculties in the national universities are expected, with some recent exceptions, to restrict their collaborations with indus叩to time-honored infbmal relationships, even as

the government gives high priority to expanding investments in

university research despite severe budget stringency elsewhere. As civil servants, professors in national universities are, in general, not allowed to accept personal compensation for their research缶om outside sources such as commercial爵rms.3

University Research as an Engine for Growth

There are also poten心al conHicts beⅣeen individual鼠culty and

their university administrations aboutwho will capture the benefits 舟om academic innovations･ Universities may have a dif掩rent view 五〇m that of the public agencies that血nd their research over the balance beⅣeen public and private interests in patents and copy-

rights. Private institutions may worry about the possible effect that business connections might have on philanthropy by businesses

that might suffer competitively. The entire scene of universityindust重y collaboration is血aughtwith divided loyalties and account

ability. But many of these debates are clouded by substantial uncertainty as to how much commercial interchange exists be-

tween universities and industry, and the extent to which these rela心onships actually produce economic payo蹄･ This book prima-

rily addresses these underlying issues･ How important,五〇m an economic perspective, is the growing

linkage of academic research to industry? How extensive are these ties, which, if they become ubiquitous, could血ansfbrm the priori-

ties and even the mission of the universities? Are universities just脆ed in looking to patents and industrial research sponsorship

for material financial support? Are govemment's expectations reasonable, that economic bene乱s just埠7 public policies that

encourage university-industry collaboration? What might we learn from a study of these two countries, the United States and]apan, so similar in their economic and technological capabilities and so dif掩rent in culture, tradition, and institutional structure of their universitiesう

Evolution of University-Industry Links in the Twentieth Centny

University-industry links have an old and honorable history in both countries (Etzkowitz chapter 8; Geiger 1986, 1993; Hashimoto chapter 9; Odagiri chapter 10) ･ In the era before the development of the modem corporate laboratory, inventions-mostly in chemistry-came directly from university faculty. Since technology was l狐gely tacit and embedded, the researchers needed a critical

assembly of experience and skill, so educational institutions tended

to specialize in the needs of the local economy. Thus the University ofAkron (Akron, Ohio) became a main source of expertise in


polyners and elastomers, suppor｡ng the Akron tire industry (Love, Gi鮎Is, andvan Tassel 1998) ･ Comell pioneered the農rstAmerican

electrical engineering department; with Tesla as a faculty member they collaborated with George Westinghouse and built the丘rst municipal electric power seⅣice fbr the mining tom ofTelluride,

colorado. Comell students went to Telluride for a year to install

and operate the system for Westinghouse (Spencer 1997). As discussed in these papers, in the日nited States the nowering ofBellしabs, GE, and dupont as research centers led U･S･ indus正al

growth, and from the university perspective they, with some financial help血om a缶w foundations, were a primary source of demand

for research outputs. These links became relativelyweaker after the

second WorldWar as the technical community turned its attention to science; government superseded industry as the prima重y customer for new technology五〇m the universities･ The direct link to indus叫7 was replaced, to a large extent, by an implicit "social contract''beⅣeen university science and government, in which in

return fbr a high degree of research autonomy and generous 血nding, universities accepted the premise that public bene島ts

would, ultimately, far exceed public costs (Guston and Kenist,on 1994: 1-41). In Japan something similar happened, but fbr quite d瓶rent

reasons. As documented by Hashimoto and by Odagiri in chapters 9 and 10, there were strong and e批ctive links beⅣeen the large 宜ms in｣apan and the imperial universities in the l920s and l930s,4

linkages which were broken抽er the war with the breakup of the

zaibatsu and the rejection ofa role for universities in support of the military-industrial complex･ Instead, national policy fbcused on accelerating the market incentive誼〉r農ms to create血eir own technical capability t〇･･catch up''with the West, and then in

selected areas to forge ahead of their international competitors. Thus with a strong∫apanese (and Geman) indus正al capability ch拙enging日･S･血ms in the 1980s,日･S･ government attention turned to the lack of ･･competitiveness''of American乱ms･5 The

u.s.廿ade balance in high-tech man血ctures山med negative for

the first time in 1986. This policy focus became even more intense with the fading of the cold war in 1989, so that by the time Clinton became President in 1993 the administration was committed to a


major effort to shift the national focus from defense R&D to accelerated innovation in the commercial sector (Branscomb 1993:

15). Similarly in∫apan, as industry achieved pariウwith westem丘rms in most technologies and fbrged ahead in several ve重γ Important

areas such as consumer electronics, autos, and ceramics, and U.S. 丘rms responded to competition by reducing their manu患cturing

costs, shortening product cycles, and improving quality and responsiveness to customers, it became dear that血rther∫apanese

progress depended on creating an independent base for rapid innovation. Calls were heard fbr more intense investment in basic science and a more robust venture capital market･日niversities became a center of attention in both countries, again

for different reasons. Injapan, research investments were primarily industriaL In government, the education ministry, the

Monbusho, was best positioned to finance a broad investment in

diversified "small" science. While the Science and Technology Agency (STA) was a vital source of research in the "big science”

fields of nuclear energy, space research, and high-energy physics,

STA never had the breadth of mission in basic research enjoyed by NSF, NIH, and the Department of Energy in the日nited States･ In

1998 the government began the restructuring of its S&T organiza心on, dismantling STA with parts expected to go to MITI and the main science emission going to the Monbush〇･

In the United States the strategy for accelerating the competitiveness ofu.S. industry also focused on universities, for two reasons. First, the higher education sector is not亡he responsibility of the

national government, but rather of the states and of private institu-

tions. Thus the primary source of federal support of universities came, not from an education ministry, but from the research

agendas ofa broad variety ofgovemment agencies, each of which had concerns about the economic impact of the research it請nded･

Second, because the government defense, space, and energy sectors had so successfully engaged the research universities in driving 血eir imovation-based strategies in the 1950s and 1960s, it was natural for the Congress to seek to accelerate the dif蘭sion of this

血owledge to the commercial sector in the 1980s･ Many日･S･

universities responded by aggressively seeking to improve their


connections to indus叩as competition fbr government research 請nding became more intense, institutional costs rose, and dem○○

graphic changes meant a lowering of opportunities in academic

careers for those holding S&E doctorates･ Forces D心血ig量nterdependence of Rese狐ch日記versi缶es狐d

High-Tech Industry These historical explanations for the current interest in universサ

industry collaboration are not the whole story. There are even

more profound reasons why industry, both in the united states and in∫apan, increasingly looks to the most creative technical people

and institutions, and research universities recognize the most

innovative fims as a major client for the services of their graduates, as needed sources of their research agenda, and as poten心al

sources of血ancial support to supplement the increasingly con-

strained sources of public support for research･ Indus叩dependence on innovation has been accelerating dra-

matically since the Second World War, for a variety of reasons. The 角rst is the creation of a scien髄c baseめr most engineering practice･ There is now su組cient theoretical underpinning for

engmeermg, and enough quantification of the behavior of matter

and materials to pemit engineering to become more predictable, less risky, and faster in its accomplishments. In many fields inven-

tions can be systematically managed into being･ With computer modeling and simu山ion of both product designs and produc心on

processes, the performance and cost of products can be predicted without the traditional "bread board” design verification and pilot line production eng看neenng･

More important, the economic sectors with the most rapid growth are those closest to the science base: microelec億onics,

software, biotech, and new materials. These industries also have the most soughし抽er "social''qualities-high wages, good environmental characteris心cs, low barriers to market ent重γ for small血ms,

independence血om geographic constraints on where the鼠m

(and its scientists and engineers) must be･ National governments seek to drive progress in these areas; local governments compete for them, whether from direct foreign investment or relocation

University Research as an Engine fbr Growth

血om a neighboring politicaljurisdic心on･ These growth areas are

dependent on new, high-level skills and directly dependent on the latest research ideas. It is small wonder that the universities島nd

themselves in a uniquely advantageous position to foster business growth in these ve宣γ industries･

Why Ex劃血e Academic-Indus億珊重nterac仕ons in ∫ap狐狐d血e

United Statesp Since∫apan and the日nited States are the Ⅳo leading economies in the world, especially血om the perspective of their commitment

to technology as a driving force for economic growth, it makes sense to look at the dynamics of university-industry interactions in these two coun正es･ But there is another, more important reason

for making this comparison.

The histories and cultures of the two nations are profoundly dif掩rent, even as they meet one another on the same島eld of

diplomatic and economic interchange･ Research, diplomacy, and trade are intrinsically transnational activities･ The fbrces ofcompedtion and the requirements for cooperation, whether intellectual, political, or commercial, cause the participants on each side to map 血eir own assumptions and cultures onto the other･ This can easily lead to misunderstanding when the mapping魚ils, as it o紅en does

(Na心onal Research Council 1999).

This is a particularly uncomfbrtable situation fbr Japanese participants, who feel that they have been expected to accept western

assumptions, practices and values when engaging with theirAmerican counterparts･ This became ve重y apparent in a recent United States丁apanese Joint Task Force on Corporate Innovation, in

which the two sides had great difficulty agreemg on how to examine 血e hypothesis that there had been a ``convergence''of industrial policy in the Ⅳo countries in the early 1990s･ The di鯖cultywas that

the Japanese participants felt that the hypothesis implied that ‘convergence" necessarily meant greater acceptance by]apanese 丘ms (or government) ofAmerican policies･ The American particip狐ts insisted they did not intend this interpretation･

To avoid this di餓cu吋in the present study, the Japanese and

American scholars selected the issues fbr study and adopted crite-


ria and metrics fbr their examination that were, in each country, most appropriate for an understanding of the system under study･ This led to a result that could have a profound impact on日nited

States-Japan relations in science and technology. What, in fact, do we know about the extent and modalities of interactions between

university faculties and industry in]apan and in the United States?

what metric should we adopt for assessing the extent and importance of economic activities engaging universitieswith紳ms? In the

United States, where the leading research universities (both private and state) are丘ee t○ Own and exploit patents on govemmenト

sponsored research and are encouraged by government to solicit industry support for and participation in their research, the natural

metric is to count the extent of these activities･ How much industrial請nding supports academic research? How many universiサ indust重y research centers on campus invite industrial experts to

participate子How many patents and copyrights, oⅦed by the

university and arising from faculty research, are licensed to private

flms, and how much revenue is returned to the university and its inventors?

If these American tests are applied to the leading (national)

universities in Japan, it would appear that relative to American experience, little is happening in ∫apan･ Indeed, as described by

Niwa in chapter 5, when it is measured in tens ofR&D血nds paid by｣apanese companies t○ Outside institutions, the outsourcing of R&D to domestic universi心es has increased slowly, while R&D

outsourcing to fbreign institutions has grown rapidly･ However,

there are good reasons to believe that using American metrics might produce deceptive results･ The national universities in∫apan

are severely limited in their abili甲o accept research血nding缶om

industry by their institutional structure as public institutions whose

faculties are public employees. Only recently have these universities begun to establish patent por血1ios which can be licensed to individual証ms with the returns shared by the inst正調tion and its

faculty inventors. However, there are other traditions of informal

｡｡Ilaboration in Japan that cross institutiona=ines and might represent very sign庇ant Hows of knowledge･ Indeed, one of the most signi魚cant丘ndings of this study (see chapter 4 by pechter and

Kakinuma) is that if coauthorship statistics rather than patent


licenses and research血nding are used as evidence of university

faculty links to industry, faculty-firm collaboration appears to be at least as strong in｣apan as it is in the日nited States･

This result will come as a major surprise to mostAmericans, and puts u･S･ govern:nent policy toward u･S･丁apan relations in science

and technology in quite a new light･ Thus, it appears to be the case that di批rentmetrics should be applied in∫apan and in the united

States when attempting to quantify our understanding of the interactions of academies with commercial丘rms.

U. S. Assumptions Underlying Science and Technology Reladonships wi血∫ap狐

As the two leading economies in technologically intensive industries, the日nited States and∫apan both cooperate and compete･

Trade relations have been strained throughout the second half of the 20th century, partly because each side tends to project its own view of the interaction onto the behavior of the other side. In scienti角c and technological relations, the prevailing American

view, at least since the 1970s, has been that there is a serious asymmetry between the American andjapanese "national systems”

for research. The American view is that United States depends

heavily fbr industrial imovations on a vast array of academic research laboratories which are very generously supported by government and are generally open to all with few proprietary constraints on scientific information generated by faculty and students･ U･S･ indust宣y, at least in academic eyes, is seen as driven

by quarterly pro乱reports and devoted to incremental technological improvements･ The exception to this drea重y Image of American

血dus叫are the high-tech starトups,請nded by venture capital and

o血en spun o紐缶om univers中research･ The∫apanese economy, on the other hand, is seen by U･S･ policy makers as driven by a set of very large, very aggressive島rms led in

many cases by executives with engineering backgrounds and deToted to魚st and risk-prone commitments to new technology血om

`-hich they seek a competitive advantage. These flrms, like their American competitors, do not o娩r public access to their intellec-

mal assets. Furthermore, this caricature goes, while the Japanese

12


universi丘es are open (at least to those who speak∫apanese) they are

isolated from industry, are bureaucratic, and are far behind the

best of their western counterparts･ This oversimp岨ed model has led American policy makers to create a demand for ``symmetrical access''to the缶uits of∫apanese

research･ The asymmetry about which they complain arises血om the assumption that Hows of knowledge go紅om U･S･ universities to

Japanese industry, without a comparable flow in the other direc-

tion. This has been a theme in U.S.-Japan relations at least as far back as 1985, when itwas extensively discussed in bilateral meetings of prominent scientists and engineers五〇m both countries orga-

nized by the O能ce of ∫apan A勤irs of the日･S･ National Research

Council and committee 1 49 ofthejapanese society for the promotion ofScience･ At the農rst meeting at Santa Barbara in 1985, Dr･

Harold Brown was quoted as saying:

We believe this concept of symmetrical rather than identical access to a broad range of high technolo執r resources is what has been missing in

previous discussions of US/Japan trade matters, which have concentrated heavily on markets. For example, the bestjapanese scientific and technological research takes place in federally supported institutes and industrial cooperative ventures that have not, in the past, been readily accessible to American researchers. In contrast, much of our fbre五〇nt high technology research takes p血ce in association with open research

universities and is published in widely readjoumals･ The answer is not to

limit access at US facilities, but to get symmetrical access to the best Japanese research results･ (Brown 1986) This point of view, which implies that∫apanese universities are not seen as use請1 to indust重y, is questionable if the relationships

of faculty members rather than of the university as an institution

are taken as the example. If japanese academics are, in fact, diligent collaborators with ∫apanese乱ms, an American might

condude thatwestem firms have failed to understand thejapanese system and to participate in itin awholeheartedway･ For this reason the s正uation may be even more ``asymmetric''than Americans assumed because westemers最nd it di餌cult to participate in the

informal neⅣorks that血nc五〇n so ef龍ctively in ∫apan･ A suⅣey by Negishi and sun in chapter 7 will show that∫apan now

ranks second in many fields of science and technology, below only


the United States, in terms of papers registered in the science databases used worldwide･ But the statistics are not as reassunng when the country size is taken into account, that is, when the number of papers is divided by the size ofscienti丘c communities. This is probably because the papers were written in the∫apanese

language for domestic readers and thus do not appear in all databases･ There are also several structural魚ctors involved spec範c

to the Japanese university system, as discussed by Yamamoto in

chapter 20 and Ogura in chapter 21. The accountability of the university injapanese society and industry had been focused on the quan心ty of undergraduates; a sh距toward quality and research at the graduate level is needed to activate universiサindus叫1inkages

for industrializing knowledge. There are distributional issues in terms of supply and demand in engineenng subdisciplines･ Ec○○

nomic structural changes call for changes in distribution, but the government regulates admission quotas by discipline･ In the na心onal universi心es, new programs can only be established when the

government allocates new admission quotas to them･

Patents, Venture Capital, and Industrial Transformation The fact of extensive collaboration between faculty members and indus叫does not, of itself主ndicate how economically productive

such relationships might be. Evidence of extensive universityindustry coauthorship simply refutes the assertion that the level of interchange is low･ To test the economic impact, itwould be help血1

to know about new firm creation based on university research, and 血e subsequent success ofthese最rms･ In the日nited States there is a widely held assump心on, at least in govemmental circles, that the

combination of govemmenしsponsored basic research, university

patents with rights shared by institution and inventors, and the c｢ea心on of new帥ms to exploit the patents not only creates a

-payback" on the govemment's investment but also provides a mechanism for regional economic rejuvenation.

Universities are struggling with the right balance between utilit証anism and independence. How dose should the coupling be,

between the academic and commercial worlds? Universities feel

hey should respond to the opportunity to benefit humanity through


commercial realization of new ideas and discoveries (while bring-

ing back to the university some needed unrestricted income). On the other hand, they realize that they are almost uniquely situated to view both the natural and social worlds from a distance, bringing perspective and perhaps vision that would be eroded by being too

dose to the "customer･''One must start by recognizing that universities, especially in North America but in Japan as well, are quite diverse ins心tutions･ Princeton and Chicago, great private institu-

tionswith strong humanistic and scholarly traditions, may feel little

need to encourage the faculty to cozy up to industry, while poly-

technics like Rensselaer Polytechnic University, in New York, and しehigh日niversity, in Pennsylvania, may see partnerships with indus叫7 as a natural expression of their emphasis on engineenng･

The University of Georgia will provide a broad-gauge liberal arts program to the citizens of that state, but its engineering and agricultural extension programs will not neglect the needs of

Georgia's peanut famers. And within each university the links to indust重γ tend to be highly concentrated in schools of engineering･

in computer science and computer engineering departments, in

molecular biology, and in dinical medicine･ But having noted that, what do we know about the effectiveness

of government policies to encourage entrepreneurship in American research universitiesうWhat do we really know about the

inHuence of the Bayh-Dole PatentAct? This question is investigated

by Mowery, Nelson, Sampat, and Ziedonis in chapter 1 1 through a study of three major U.S. research universities. They find that indeed these universities and their患culties are bene乱ing五〇m annual revenues of紛40 million or more血om licensed inventions,

most of which resulted from federal research grants. But the rise of biotechnology as a promising new arena fbr角rm creation hap-

pened at abou=he same time as the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act･

At about the time that biotechnology fims began to mature and sell drugs as well as stock certificates, software applications and 工nternet seⅣice companies captured the attention of the venture

capitalists･

The 1980 U.S. patent policyfacilitated the licensing of university inventions, but it seems somewhat more likely that the real spur to entrepreneurship in university faculties was the appearance on the commercial scene of a business opportunity that seemed to arise

University Research as an Engine fbr Growth

straight out of basic science. Indeed Mowery et al. (chapter 11) describe the Bayh-Dole PatentAct as an ``expression of魚ith in the linear model of innova心on･''They found in their study that al-

though the universities they studied had each licensed a substantial number of patents, almost all of the revenue could be traced to a relatively few patents of a very basic nature, underlying some

process or tool that everyone in the industrywould need, andwhich

were generally licensed non-exdusively･ The larger number of exclusively licensed patents typically showed relatively little activity.

Yet one of the arguments for passage of the Bayh-Dole Act at the time was the belief that only by licensing exdusively could the inventor shield the investor缶om competition long enough to

provide the risk limitations required. In fact, experience from the most lucra心ve university patents in the United States seems to show that universities'interests in血ndamental research, in the di組ision ofknow量edge, and in the need fbr resources are not necessarily

incompa心ble with an en亡repreneurial approach to魚culty and sta節

inventions･ However, experience with moderate rates of nonexclusive licensing ofquite請ndamental science is still limited, and

hope springs etemal for wimers among the inventions o批red exclusively･ Eventually the cost of patent珊ing, maintenance, and

defense will provide the incentive for a more finely tuned intellectual property strategy･

In technology transfer dynamics at Japanese universities, as argued in this volume by Kneller, Yoshihara and Tamai, and Kano, the new Technology Licensing o緬ice (TLO) system will not diminish transaction costs associated with having t○ Obtain government

permission to patent or license inventors, nor will it give universi心es control over the inventions made by their employees･ More-

over, in order to realize technology transfer through creation of new血ms in∫apan, public policy must indude universiサindus叫

coordination dynamics in its understanding of technology transfer

dynamics. Thus it appears that public policy injapan will have to reach more deeply into the structure of relationships among universities, their患culties, the島rms, and their researchers if the

desired economic benefits are to be enjoyed without the resurrec心on of historical concerns in the academic community about the

implications of their association with corporate interests.


Finally, political interest in university contributions to economic progress is strong at the level ofnational governments, and it is also seen as a critical tool fbr the restructuring of regional economies

mired in mature and de｡ining industries, such as the ``rust belt''in the midwestem日nited States･ University-centered indus正al de-

velopment may also be pushed as way of achieving geographical

dispersion of economic opportunity. For example, the newTsukuba Science City was intended to build a center of research-based economic activity outside Tokyo that could attract indus血al re-

search and reduce the growth pressures in Tokyo. This "technopolis" idea, originating in∫apan, has been picked up in Korea and other

Asian countries, but its conceptual parents were the high-tech indus正al successes around Route 128 in Boston, Silicon Valley in

California, and Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. In every one of these cases one or more research-intensive universities were

at the core of the project prior to its initiation. NoⅣithstanding the success of these American and Asian examples, can this approach to university-based industrial res虹uctur-

ing be used as a deliberate policy tool in placeswhere there is a large established indus正al base which is in decline or stagnationう

Michael Fogarty and Amit Sinha examine this question in chapter 18, and the contrast beⅣeen their島ndings and those of Amy

Candell and Adam∫a批(chapter 19) , who analyzed the economic leverage ofpublicly血nded research on the economy of Massachu-

setts, is very informative.

These studies all suggest that disappointment awaits those who expect quick result誼om universサbased high-technology s廿ategies for industrial renewal･ Firsトrank research universities can and

most o節en do make a large and positive con正bution to economic

perfomance, regionally and nationally. But to understand the e批cts we should not focus on the style and content ofthe億ansactions with血ms but rather look at血e university as a pivotal part of a neⅣork of people and institutions who possess high skills, imagina心on, the incentive to take risks, the ability to form o血er

neⅣorks to accomplish their dreams･ For universサindus叩col-

laboration to work its magic without diminishing the power that is rooted in either culture, it must be a loose, Hexible, continually rearranging network. In short, the quality of the social capital in a region willねrgely detemine whether universサbased entrepre-

17


neurial activity "sticks" to the region's economy or slides away to

more fertile ground. The ecology ofa tropical marine reef is a more appropriate metaphor for this process than is a spider's web or a telephone neⅣork･ The challenge to sound public policy is evident, a point to which we s血11 return in the last chapter･

Finally, this book explores the question, What accounts for the apparent success of university-indust宣y relationships in the United States, at least in terms of new島rm creation and licensing of

intellectual property? One important American advantage is a vigorous venture capital industry (Lemer chapter 15). But Feller (chapter 3) makes the point that it is Hexibili亡y, resulting缶om decen廿alization of control, diversity of institutions, and the spec直um of sources of support, that accounts in large measure fbr this

situa心on･しester (1998)角nds a similar source of advantage in his explanation for the resurgence of indus血al competi心veness of

U･S･ industry in the 1990s･ The book is organized into six parts･ The農rst paints the scene

and provides an oveⅣiew of what we know about the interactions

of universities and science-based industry in Japan and in the United States･ Part 11 addresses the me正cs through which the two

systems can be observed and described. To place these contemporary assessments in appropriate context, Part Ill provides some historical and sociological perspective･ Part IVl○○ks at the mechan-

ics of university industry interactions, the incentives and barriers to

the kinds of interactions that take place. Partv asks, To what extent can policies for encouraging university activity with industry serve to address regional or national economic needs? Partv賞condudes 高山some industrial perspectives and a農nal chapter that looks to 血e血ture and the challenge to public policy makers･

Notes 1･ }宣IT was spec亜cally singled out by Congressional cridcs for the extensive

呼止cipa心on by∫apanese scien心sts and engineers in u･S･ government-sponsored research, criticism to which a患culty studygroup under the leadership ofEugene

敦olniko鯖responded (Skolniko紐1994: 194-223) ･

9..i comparable situation prevails in the U.S. Congress, where bipartisan resolu丘ons in the Senate calling for R&D budget doubling are not binding on 重pp○○pnations committees in either house･

18


3. In 1998 a biology professor at the medical school ofNagoya University and the president of Otsuka Phamaceudcal C〇･ were each indicted on suspicion of


Love, Steve, David Giffels, and Debbie Van Tassel. 1998. Wml o揮o融"3e..nee Stoり〉

o/Rubber 2n A鳥mn･ Akron, OH: Univ. ofAkron Press.

National Research Council. 1999. Report of thejoint Task Force on Corporate Innovation,Lewis M. Branscomb and Fumio Kodama, c○○chairmen, Thomas

Arrison, editor (forthcoming). Odagiri, Hiroyuki, and Akira Got○○ 1993･ "The∫apanese System oHmovation: Past Present and Future,''in Richard Nelson, ed･, National 1moひahon S}∫tem∫.. A