Technology Transfer: An Overview with a Government Research Perspective, or, Sometimes it is a Platypus not a Duck!

• Author: Stan Benda
• Pages: 963-992

963

Chapter 32

Technology Transfer:

An Overview with a Government

Research Perspective, or,

Sometimes it is a Platypus, not a Duck!

stan benda*

A. DEFINITIONS

The start ing point of any discussion is a def‌inition of the key terms. Tec hn ol -

ogy transfer comm un ic at es a s en se of com pl et io n: a f‌i ni sh ed tec h nol og y p as se d

from the inventor to the seller. It can transpire that way. It rarely does.

One generic def‌i nition holds: technology transfer is the movement of

technological and technology-related organizational know-how among part-

ners (individuals, institutions, and enterpr ises) in order to enhance at least

one partner’s knowledge and expertise and streng then each partner’s com-

petitive position. Another holds:

Technology transfer occurs throughout all stages of the innovation process,

from initial idea to f‌inal product. Like the innovative process proper, tech-

nology transfer usua lly iterates, involving multiple transfer steps. Technol-

ogy tra nsfer can take place via informal interactions between individuals;

formal consultancies, publications, workshops, personnel exchanges, and

joint projects involving groups of experts f rom different organizations; and

the more readily measured activities s uch as patenting, copyrig ht licens-

ing, and contract research. Technology transfer may be conf‌ined to speci f‌ic

* The writer is sole ly responsible for the contents and viewpoi nts expressed in this pape r, and

this paper in no way ref‌l ects the opinions of Her Majesty t he Queen in Right of Canada .

964 stan benda

regions, or it may span regions or nations within one continent or across

several continents.1

Technology transfer def‌initions also differ between disciplines. Bozman has

three conceptual models: market failure, mission technology, and coopera-

tive technology.

[Market failure] In this paradigm, the market is perceived as an eff‌icient de-

terminant of scienti f‌ic research and technical change in general . However,

there m ay be a role for t he government in science and technology pol icy

when there are clear externalities, when transactions costs are high, or when

information is asymmetric al. The mission technology paradigm is based

on theories of governance with a broad def‌in ition of the government’s role.

It “assumes that the government should perform R&D in ser vice of well-

specif‌ied missions in whic h there is a national interest not easily served by

private R&D. The cooperative technology par adigm is based on theories

of industr ial policy or regional economic development. It covers a variety

of policies th at emphasize cooperation among sectors. In this perspect ive,

government can serve bot h as a research performer and broker.2

A more pedestrian description would be “knowledge transfer,” and

knowledge can be proprietary intellectual property (patent, copyright, plant

breeders’ rights) or non-proprietary intellectual property (trade secrets,

know-how/show-how). A sound-byte descr iption would be the process by

which government-funded research institutions transfer their inventions to

the private sector for further development and commercialization.

Regardless, what often comes “off-the-bench” or out of the laboratory is

not necessar ily “market ready.” Often making a market-ready tec hnology

can add eighteen to twenty-four months to any business plan. It can be a

huge friction point between the market-naïve and the research-naïve.

Tra ns fe r, too, is a problematic term. The typical device is a licence, but

it can also be a sale. In between one can f‌ind instruments such as MOU/

MOI (memorandum of understanding, memorandum of intent also known

as letter of understanding, letter of intent), collaborations, options, research

licences, and material t ransfer agreements. So the unarticulated issue is

the purpose and degree of control exercised by the transferor over the trans-

1 Peter C . Lockemann, “Technolog y Transfer, Political Pressure, Economic Necess ity, Social

Phenomenon, Financial Rew ard or Intellectual Pleasu re?” (2004) 2:2 Comparative Technol-

ogy Transfer and Socie ty 133 at 134.

2 B. Bozeman, “Technolog y Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Re search and Theory”

(2000) 29 Research Polic y 627 at 632, as cited in K.D. Rubenstein & P.W. Heisey, “Can

Technology Transfer Help Public-Sector R esearchers Do more with Less? T he Case of the

USDA’s Agric ultural Research C entre” (2005) 8:2&3 AgBioForum at 1 42–43.