This paper describes the author's involvement in the early experiences of a start-up biotechnology company created outside the university environment. In this case, two self-employed, entrepreneurial scientists with no university affiliation developed commercializable intellectual property. Falling outside the more common university technology commercialization process, there were a number of issues that were quite different from those a typical university start-up company might face, and these are illustrated. Most importantly, this case is an exemplar of how other non-university entrepreneurs might contemplate utilizing universities to further their technology commercialization objectives.
BloedonR. V.StokesD. R. (1994), ‘Making university/industry collaborative research succeed’, Research-Technology Management, Vol 37, No 2, pp 44–48.
2.
CampbellE. G.PowersJ. B.BlumenthalD.BilesB. (2004), ‘Inside the triple helix: Technology transfer and commercialization in the life sciences’, Health Affairs, Vol 23, No 1, pp 64–76.
3.
CockburnI.HendersonR. (1998), ‘Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery’, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol 46, pp 157–182.
4.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1989), ‘Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D’, Economic Journal, Vol 99, pp 569–596.
5.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 35, pp 128–152.
6.
de RondM.BouchikhiH. (2004), ‘On the dialectics of strategic alliances’, Organization Science, Vol 15, No 1, pp 56–69.
7.
EisenhardtK. (1989), ‘Building strategies from case study research’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 14, No 4, pp 532–550.
8.
EllisC. (1991), ‘Sociological introspection and emotional experience’, Symbolic Interaction, Vol 14, No 1, pp 23–50.
9.
GelijnsA. C.TheirS. O. (2002), ‘Medical innovation and institutional interdependence’, JAMA, Vol 287, No 1, pp 72–77.
10.
LernerJ. (2005), ‘The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 30, No 1/2, pp 49–56.
11.
OliverA. L. (2004), ‘Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations’, Research Policy, Vol 33, pp 583–597.
12.
Owen-SmithJ. (2005), ‘Dockets, deals, and sagas: Commensuration and the rationalization of experience in university licensing’, Social Studies of Science, Vol 35, No 1, pp 69–97.
13.
Poyago-TheotokyJ.BeatJ.SiegelD. S. (2002), ‘Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university–industry partnerships’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 18, No 1, pp 10–21.
14.
SlaughterS.ArcherdC. J.CampbellT. I. D. (2004), ‘Boundaries and quandaries: How professors negotiate market relations’, Review of Higher Education, Vol 28, No 1, pp 129–166.
15.
StakeR. E. (1998), ‘Case studies’, in DenzinN.LincolnY., eds, Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
16.
StakeR. E. (2000), ‘Case studies’, in DenzinN.LincolnY., eds, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
17.
ThursbyJ. G.ThursbyM. C. (2004), ‘Are faculty critical? Their role in university–industry licensing’, Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol 22, No 2, pp 162–178.
18.
TurpinT. (1999), ‘Managing the boundaries of collaborative research: A contribution from cultural theory’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 18, Nos 3/4, pp 232–245.
19.
WallendorfM.BrucksM. (1993), ‘Introspection in consumer research: Implementation and implications’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 20, No 3, pp 339–359.
20.
WoodsideA. (2004), ‘Advancing from subjective to confirmatory personal introspection in consumer research’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol 21, No 12, pp 987–1010.
