The UK's bioscience research base is one of the country's genuine long-term economic assets. It is critically important for the UK not to repeat past mistakes, when financial exploitation of innovative and groundbreaking bioresearch went overseas. This study reviews commercialization from the Department of Biological Sciences at Warwick University as a microcosm of the current state of technology transfer in academia. Its technology transfer operation is typical of many other such organizations. Warwick University does, however, have the benefit of being in the ‘Ivy League’ of UK universities and is regarded as a beacon of entrepreneurial flair. If the power of academic entrepreneurship is to be fully unleashed anywhere, Warwick is as well placed as any to capitalize on the opportunities. While the purpose of the study has been to consider how Warwick's enormous entrepreneurial prowess can be harnessed for the greater commercialization of its bioscience research, many of the conclusions and recommendations are applicable to other departments and academic institutions worldwide.
AlicJ.A.BranscombL.M.BrooksH.CarterA.B.EpsteinG.L. (1992), Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing World, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
2.
AUT (2000), University and Business Links – the Gap Between Vision and Reality, Association of University Teachers, London.
3.
AUTM (2000), AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 2000, Association of University Technology Managers, Chicago, IL.
4.
BeerM.EisenstatR.A.SpectorB. (1990), ‘Why change programmes don't produce change’, Harvard Business Review, November–December, pp 158–166.
5.
BerkeleyA. R. (2005), ‘The economic impact of university technologies’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 19, No 3, August, pp 217–220.
6.
BeveridgeL. (2001), Cambridge Entrepreneurs: In the Business of Technology, Granta, London and New York.
7.
BoltonW.K.ThompsonJ. L. (2000), Entrepreneurs – Talent, Temperament, Technique, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
8.
BygraveB. (1998), ‘Building an entrepreneurial economy: Lessons from the US’, Strategy Review, Vol 9, No 2, pp 11–18.
9.
CardulloMarioP.E. (1999), Technological Entrepreneurism, Enterprise Formation, Financing and Growth, Research Studies Press, Baldock.
10.
CarterN. M.GartnerW. B.ReynoldsP.D. (1996), ‘Exploring start-up event sequences’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 11, pp 151–166.
11.
CBI (2001), Partnerships for Research and Innovation between Industry and Universities: A Guide to Better Practice, Confederation of British Industry, London.
12.
ChristiansenJ. A. (2000), Building the Innovative Organisation: Management Systems that Encourage Innovation, Macmillan, London.
13.
CVCP (1999), Technology Transfer: The US Experience, Report of a CVCP mission funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, London.
14.
DayG.S.SchoemakerP.J.H. (2000), Wharton on Managing Emerging, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
15.
DTI (1999a), Biotechnology Clusters, Report of a team led by Lord Sainsbury. Minister for Science, URN 99/1027, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
16.
DTI (1999b), Competitiveness Indicators, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
17.
Financial Times (2005a), ‘Labour to give £10bn boost to sciences’, Financial Times, 7 March.
18.
Financial Times (2005b), ‘Nurturing entrepreneurs: The fertile soil of Silicon Fen’, Times, 9 February.
19.
GatewoodE. J.ShaverK. G. (1999), Expectancies for Success and Attributions for Failure: Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurial Persistence, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
20.
GavronR.CowlingM.HoltmanG.WestallA. (1998), The Entrepreneurial Society, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
21.
GeertzC. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York.
22.
HagueD. C. (1996), Beyond Universities: A New Republic of the Intellect, Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
23.
HagueD. C.OakleyK. (2000), Spin-Offs and Start-Ups in UK Universities, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, London.
24.
HagueD.C. (1993), Transforming the Dinosaurs: How Organisations Learn, Demos, London.
25.
HEFCE (2001), Higher Education – Business Interaction Survey: A Report by the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Higher Education Funding Council for England, London.
26.
HitchcockG.HughesD. (1995), Research and the Teacher, 2nd edition, Routledge, London.
27.
House of Lords (1997), The Innovation–Exploitation Barrier, Report of theSelect Committee on Science and Technology, HL Paper 62, The Stationery Office, London.
28.
HughesA. (2002), ‘New approaches to measuring innovative activities’, paper presented at 5th Cambridge Enterprise Conference, Cambridge, 11 September.
29.
KonecnyE.QuinnC.SachsK.ThompsonD. (1995), Universities and Industrial Research, Royal Society of Chemistry, London.
30.
LambertR. (2003), Lambert Review of Business–University Collaboration: Final Report, HM Treasury, London.
31.
LorenzA. (2002), Kumar Bhattacharyya, the Unsung Guru: The Story of the Warwick Manufacturing Group, Random House, London.
32.
LoweR. A.QuickS. K. (2005), ‘Measuring the impact of university technology transfer: A guide to methodologies, data needs, and sources’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 19, No 3, June, pp 231–239.
33.
MillerR.CoteM. (1985), Growing the New Silicon Valley, Harvard Business Review, p 114.
34.
MooreG.DavisK. (2001), Learning the Silicon Valley Way, Discussion Paper No 00–45, Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, Stanford, CA.
35.
Network for European Innovation Cooperation (Neico) (2001), ‘Invention – realising the potential’, & Technology Transfer, January.
36.
Observer (2002), ‘Building vigour from rigour, The Observer, 9 June 2002.
37.
PorterM. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.
38.
PorterM. (1998), ‘Clusters and the new economics of competition’, Harvard Business Review, November–December, pp 77–90.
39.
PriggeG. W. (2005), ‘University–industry partnerships: What do they mean to universities? A review of the literature’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 19, No 3, June, pp 221–229.
40.
RobertsE.B. (1991), Entrepreneurs in High Technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
41.
RugmanA.D'CruzJ. (2000), Multinationals as Flagship Firms: Regional Business Networks, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
42.
ShaneS.VenkataramanS. (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 25, No 1, pp 217–226.
43.
ShaverK. B.ScottL. R. (1991), ‘Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 16, No 2, pp 23–45.
44.
ShaverK. B.GartnerW.B.CrosbyE.BakalarovaK.GatewoodE.J. (2001), ‘Attributions about entrepreneurship: A framework and process for analyzing reasons for starting a business’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 26, No 2, pp 5–32.
45.
SmithB.L.R.BarfieldC.E. (1996), Technology, R&D and the Economy, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
46.
StoreyD.J. (1994). Understanding the Small Business Sector, InternationalThomson, London.
47.
SturmanA. (1997), ‘Case study methods’, in KeevesJ. P., ed, Educational Research, Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook, second edition, Elsevier Science, Oxford.
48.
SullivanN. F. (1995), Technology Transfer: Making the Most of Your Intellectual Property, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49.
SurowieckiJ. (2005), The Wisdom of Crowds, Abacus, London.
50.
van AlsteJ.A.van der SijdeP.C. (1998), The Role of the University in Regional Development, Twente University Press, Enschede.
51.
VargaA. (1998), University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.
52.
WalshokM.L. (2005), ‘The transformative role of universities in a knowledge society’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 19, No 3, June, pp 209–215.
53.
WardS.LightL.GoldstineJ. (1999), ‘What high-tech managers need to know about brands’, Harvard Business Review, July–August, pp 85–94.
54.
Warwick Ventures (2004), personal communication, April.
55.
YinR.K. (2003), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol 5, Sage, London.
