ipHandbook Blog
European Union Archive

At its essence, the triple helix model is a partnership between the industrial, academia and governmental groups which recognizes the differing goals and stakeholder communities of these three groups but emphasizes on the common interest of those groups in order to provide value to the societies in which they reside. It is often operationalized as cosponsored programs. These programs support both small and large firms to transfer technologies from government and academic research laboratories and have enabled societies to more greatly benefit from the technological research that those same societies fund.

The landmark attempt towards the triple helix model was made by the U.S. when it enacted the Bayh-Dole legislation in 1980. This legislation granted permission for federally funded researchers to file for patents, and to issue licenses for these patents to other parties, thereby increasing participating of U.S. universities in national patenting. Conversely, in Eastern Europe, during the transition from socialism, some reformers were trying to remove government from a role in science and technology policy. Innovation systems were largely coming to a halt. Even though foreign direct investment was encouraged, it seldom involved utilizing local R&D resources. More recently, political leaders are moving away from that rigid position and bringing government back into the picture to take advantage of the R&D resources left behind from the previous era.

In the U.S., government-industry relations assumed increased significance in the 1990s even as university-industry bonds came to the forefront of attention in the 1980s. In much of the European Community these two sets of bilateral relations developed in reverse sequence with academic-industry connections following upon the development of government-industry relations. Academic-industry-government relations in the U.S. are taking on the cast that government-industry labor relations have long had in Europe. In the EU, EU sponsored activities, other efforts by European governments, NEXUS, IVAM are all examples of Government, Academia and Industry working together in order to maximize the commercial potential of macro and nano technologies in Europe.

This post in Part I on the larger area I intend to cover on the triple helix model for Technology Transfer on this blog.

References and Suggested reading:

1. Dr. Steven Walsh, ‘The Use of the Triple Helix Concept in Accelerating the Pace of Commercialization of Micro and Nano Technology Based Products’, available at http://www.cmc.ca/news/events/cwmems01/presentations/walsh.pdf
2. Richard Barras, ‘Interactive Innovation in Financial and Business Services:  The vanguard of the Service Revolution,” Research Policy, 19 (1990) 215- 37.
3. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, ‘The Decline of University Patenting & the End of the Bayh-Dole Effect’, Scientometrics, available at http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/Bayh-Dole/index.htm
4. Henry Etzkowitz, “The Bi-Evolution of the University in the Triple Helix Era,” available at http://www.ie.ufrj.br/eventos/seminarios/pesquisa/a_universidade_e_o_desenvolvimento_regional.pdf.

Categories: Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), European Union, Intellectual Property, Product-Development Partnerships (PDP), Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), Uncategorized, patents  |  Comments (0)

At least one prominent EU science advisor is looking to a rather unusual source for inspiration regarding the future of global science and health policy: President Obama’s newly appointed panel of science advisors. Professor John Beddington, science advisor to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, urges EU member states to look to the U.S. as an example of how science policy should be made. Changes in policy-making are necessary, Beddington argues, because a global food, water, and energy shortage will culminate by 2030. Recognition of the benefits of GM crops and other sustainable technologies by top UK policy-makers is an important step in the right direction because this recognition within a historically resistant nation indicates a potential for a shift in policy away from prior restraints on growing and selling useful GM foods. If UK officials are beginning to speak out against inappropriate prior restraints on science and technology, all EU member states have similar potential. Currently, the UK and Ireland are the only EU member states with a designated science advisor.

Acceptance of GM crops (both in government and public spheres) as a viable, safe technology is essential to the survival of millions because demand for food, feed and fiber is predicted to increase by 50% by 2030, at which time the world population will exceed 8.3 billion. As previously discussed on this website and elsewhere, we will face a serious global crisis if food and water shortages are not remedied quickly and efficiently. Many countries are doing their part to alleviate the problems posed by vast increases in global population and shortages of many vital natural resources by utilizing sustainable technologies and increasing agricultural yields. Although the EU has failed to take advantage of certain technologies (e.g., biotech crops) capable of alleviating, at least in part, the food shortages, (see below: “Rethinking the Precautionary Principle at Upcoming Biotech Conferences” by J. Kasting & V. Lancaster) there are respected EU scientists, such as Professor Beddington, who recognize the benefits of implementing such technologies. However, in order for sustainable technologies to take hold in the EU, a greater majority of senior government officials and legislative bodies must be willing to adopt such technologies.

Food shortages must be prevented because when supply becomes scarce prices will begin to increase throughout the world. Having top scientists advise policy-makers will lead to relatively quick increases in acceptance of GM crops which could eliminate the risk of dwindling food supplies. Food prices are currently low, but we must not forget that they will rise someday soon resulting in various ancillary problems (such as a decrease in access to education in developing countries). Although the food, water, and energy shortage is not expected to culminate until the distant future, the time is now to stimulate a debate that can lead to real change. The world’s fresh water supply is dwindling, and now more crops are lost to drought than ever before. Acceptance of GM crops in the EU will aid the food crisis, so we must act fast.

Promoting scientists like Professor Beddington to top advisory positions will be one important means of countering the negative effects of the precautionary principle in the EU. Member states can and should provide policy-makers with the same high quality scientific advice President Obama receives. To do so increases the potential to reshape the global regulatory landscape thus facilitating increased food supplies and delaying or eliminating a global crisis. A significant step that can be taken to remedy a future global crisis is to install informed advisors in top government posts throughout the EU because this will facilitate an informed debate among citizens and their government leaders. Also, for the sake of argument, any country (not just the EU) currently lacking a prominent science advisor would do well to have one as science and technology continue to impact the global economy now more than ever.

Jason Kasting and Brian Harel

Categories: Agricultural Biotechnology, European Union, Health, Policy  |  Comments (0)