The Triple Helix framework focuses attention on institutional interactions within innovation systems. In particular, it is important to understand the nature of university–industry interactions such as the translation of university expertise to clinically and commercially viable innovations. This paper examines university and industry collaboration practices in the context of the innovative, entrepreneurial and translational research environment at the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus (BNMC) and at the University at Buffalo–State University of New York. The findings highlight the importance of funding opportunities and networks. Collaboration predominantly assumes the form of consultancy, contract research and joint research. The benefits of consulting and contract research are increased knowledge production through publications, grant applications and patenting activities among BNMC scientists. Collaboration with industry through joint research is more likely to lead to entrepreneurial outcomes than any other effort to engage industry.
AllenT. (1977), Managing the Flow of Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
2.
AnselinL.VargaA.AcsZ. (2000), ‘Geographical spill-overs and university research: A spatial econometric perspective’, Growth and Change, Vol 31, pp 501–515.
3.
ArzaV., (2010), ‘Channels, benefits and risks of public–private interactions for knowledge transfer: Conceptual framework inspired by Latin America’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 37, pp 473–484.
4.
ArzaV.VazquezC. (2010), ‘Interactions between public research organisations and industry in Argentina’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 37, pp 499–511.
5.
BarabasiA.-L. (2002), Linked: The New Science of Networks, Cambridge, MA, Perseus.
6.
BekkersR.FreitasI. (2008), ‘Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?’, Research Policy, Vol 37, pp 1837–1853.
7.
BercovitzJ.FeldmanM.P. (2006), ‘Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 31, No 1, pp 175–188.
8.
BishopK.D'EsteP.NeelyA. (2011), ‘Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity’, Research Policy, Vol 40, pp 30–40.
9.
BlumenthalD. (1994), ‘Growing pains for new academic–industry relationships’, Health Affairs, Vol 13, pp 176–193.
10.
BoardmanP.PonomariovB. (2009), ‘University researchers working with private companies’, Technovation, Vol 29, pp 142–153.
11.
BoschmaR.A. (2005), ‘Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment’, Regional Studies, Vol 39, pp 61–74.
12.
CasperS. (2013), ‘The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science’, Research Policy, Vol 42, pp 1313–1324.
13.
CohenW.NelsonR.WalshJ. (2002), ‘Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D’, Management Science, Vol 48, pp 1–23.
14.
D'EsteP.PatelP. (2007), ‘University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?’, Research Policy, Vol 36, pp 1295–1313.
15.
De FuentesC.DutrenitG. (2012), ‘Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit’, Research Policy, Vol 41, pp 1666–1682.
16.
Di GregorioD.ShaneS. (2003), ‘Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 209–227.
17.
DutrenitG.De FuentesC.TorressA. (2010), ‘Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: Evidence from Mexico’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 37, pp 513–526.
18.
EtzkowitzH. (1994), Academic–industry relations: A sociological paradigm for economic development. In: LeydesdorffL.Van den BesselaarP., eds, Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory: New Directions in Technology Studies, London, Pinter.
19.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1998), ‘The endless transition: A “Triple Helix” of university–industry–government relations’, Minerva, Vol 36, pp 203–208.
20.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 109–123.
21.
EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.GebhardtC.TerraB.R.C. (2000), ‘The future of the university and the university of the future: Evoluation of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 313–330.
22.
EvansJ.MathurA. (2005), ‘The value of online surveys’, Internet Research –Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol 15, pp 195–219.
23.
FreemanL.C. (1984), ‘Turning a profit from mathematics: The case of social networks’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol 10, pp 343–360.
24.
FreitasI.M.B.GeunaA.RossiF. (2013), ‘Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university–industry interactions’, Research Policy, Vol 42, pp 50–62.
25.
GiulianiE.ArzaV. (2009), ‘What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university–industry linkages? Insights from the wine industry’, Research Policy, Vol 38, pp 906–921.
26.
HagstromW.O. (1965), The Scientific Community, New York, Basic Books.
27.
JaffeA.B. (1989), ‘Real effects of academic research’, American Economic Review, Vol 79, No 5, pp 957–970.
28.
JongJ.P.J.FreelM. (2010), ‘Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms’, Research Policy, Vol 39, pp 47–54.
29.
KatzJ.MartinB. (1997), ‘What is research collaboration?’, Research Policy, Vol 26, pp 1–18.
30.
KnokeD.YangS. (2008), Social Network Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
31.
LatourB. (1987), Science in Action, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
32.
SmithLawton H.Bagchi-SenS. (2012), ‘The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: Research propositions and current evidence’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 24, pp 383–404.
33.
LeeY. (1996), ‘Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration’, Research Policy, Vol 25, No 6, pp 843–863.
34.
LeeY.S. (2000), ‘The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 25, pp 111–133.
35.
LeydesdorffL. (2003), ‘The mutual information of university–industry–government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics’, Scientometrics, Vol 58, No 2, pp 445–467.
36.
LeydesdorffL.MeyerM. (2006), ‘Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems (Introduction to special issue)’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 10, pp 1441–1449.
37.
LinkA.SiegelD.BozemanB. (2007), ‘An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 16, pp 641–655.
38.
LouisK.S.JonesL.M.AndersonM.S.BlumenthalD.CampbellE.G. (2001), ‘Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 26, pp 233–245.
39.
MansfieldE. (1991), ‘Academic research and industrial innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 20, pp 1–12.
40.
MansfieldE.LeeJ.Y. (1996), ‘The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support’, Research Policy, Vol 25, pp 1047–1058.
41.
MarsdenP.V.LaumannE.O. (1984), ‘Mathematical ideas in social structural analysis’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol 10, pp 271–294.
42.
Meyer-KrahmerF.SchmochU. (1998), ‘Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields’, Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 835–851.
43.
MoweryD.NelsonR.R.SampatB.N.ZiedonisA.A. (2001), ‘The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980’, Research Policy, Vol 30, pp 99–119.
44.
MurrayF. (2002), ‘Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 1389–1403.
45.
NelsonR.R. (1994), Economic growth via the coevolution of technology and institutions. In: LeydesdorffL.Van den BesselaarP., eds, Evolutionary Economic and Chaos Theory: New Directions in Technology Studies, London, Pinter.
46.
NewmanM. (2003), ‘The structure and function of complex networks’, Siam Review, Vol 45, pp 167–256.
47.
NIH (National Institute of Health) (2007), Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award (U54), Part 2, Section 1, Definitions, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-10- 020.html#_Section_I._Funding (last accessed 19 January 2015).
48.
OliverA. (2004), ‘Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations’, Research Policy, Vol 33, pp 583–597.
49.
PerkmannM.WalshK. (2007), ‘University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 9, No 4, pp 259–280.
50.
PerkmannM.WalshK. (2009), ‘The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university–industry relations on public research’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 18, pp 1033–1065.
51.
PerkmannM.KingZ.PavelinS. (2011), ‘Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry’, Research Policy, Vol 40, pp 539–552.
52.
PerkmannM.TartariV.McKelveyM.AutioE.BrostromA.D'EsteP.FiniR.GeunaA.GrimaldiR.HughesA.KrabelS.KitsonM.LlerenaP.LissoniF.SalterA.SobreroM. (2013), ‘Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations’, Research Policy, Vol 42, pp 423–442.
53.
PetruzzelliA. (2011), ‘The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis’, Technovation, Vol 31, pp 309–319.
54.
PowellW.W.DimaggioP.J. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
55.
RapoportA.I. (2006), ‘Where has the money gone? Declining industrial support of academic R&D’, National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources and Statistics, available at: www.nsf.gov/statistics/inbrief/nsf06328.
56.
SantoroM.BierlyP. (2006), ‘Facilitators of knowledge transfer in university–industry collaborations: A knowledge-based perspective’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol 53, No 4, pp 495–507.
57.
SchartingerD.RammerC.FischerM.FrohlichJ. (2002), ‘Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants’, Research Policy, Vol 31, No 3, pp 303–328.
58.
ShinnT. (2002), ‘The Triple Helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology’, Social Studies of Science, Vol 32, No 4, pp 599–614.
59.
Van LooyB.RangaM.CallaertJ.DebackereK.ZimmermannE. (2004), ‘Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?’, Research Policy, Vol 33, pp 425–441.
60.
WattsD.J. (2003), Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, New York, Norton.
61.
WoolfS. (2008), ‘The meaning of translational research and why it matters’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 299, No 2, pp 211–213.
62.
WrightM.ClarysseB.LockettA.KnockaertM. (2008), ‘Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries’, Research Policy, Vol 37, pp 1205–1223.
63.
YusufS. (2008), ‘Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses’, Research Policy, Vol 37, pp 1167–1174.
64.
ZuckerL.DarbyM.ArmstrongJ. (2002), ‘Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 138–153.
