Knowledge Transfer or technology transfer is a contentious issue in Canadian universities and in Canadian public policy. "Public Investments in University Research: Reaping the Benefits," the report of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACST, May 1999), recommended processes by which intellectual property developed by university faculty should be protected and commercialized. University faculty, research and technology transfer administrators and national academic and faculty union organizations cautioned against any unilateral imposition of a knowledge transfer and commercialization regime. While ACST recognized the importance of enhancing the knowledge transfer role of the university for the intellectual, social, cultural and economic benefit to Canadians, universities argued that they already had effective vehicles for knowledge transfer and policies that reflect institutional culture and philosophy. In this paper, we analyze some of the issues related to the knowledge/technology transfer processes in Canadian universities, describe two examples of knowledge transfer (spin-off companies and National Centres of Excellence), and consider policy issues with which Canadian scholars and administrators are confronted as they address the various demands on their and the universities’ resources.

In the mid-to-late 1990s, Canadian universities had their operating budgets slashed, saw their physical infrastructure crumble, and seemed powerless to counter the attraction of more highly paid employment in the private sector or in the United States for leading scientists and promising young scholars (“brain drain” (Munroe-Blum, 1999, pp. 20-23)). Reactions of university faculty  ranged from wailing lamentations of the under-funding of research programs and infrastructure, to declaiming the lack of public investment in public science, to innovative responses seeking new collaborations between public universities with public, community or industry partners, including not-for-profit and community-based organizations. The latter appears to be the most effective strategy, one that holds greater promise for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge, and one that can deliver benefits to universities and researchers.

In Canada, universities traditionally have been the sources of research output, while until recently, compared to G-7 and OECD nations, industry has not invested as heavily in fundamental and applied research and development. In 1980s and 1990s, Canadian federal and provincial governments recognized universities as “the centre of the knowledge economy” and promoted them as “engines of economic growth.” Through a variety of programs managed by Medical Research Council (MRC), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the federal government increased it focus on industry and community collaborations by using investments in university-based research and development as a means to foster partnerships between university faculty and graduate students and community, industry and government technology-focussed sponsors (Nimmo and Brennand, 1999). These programs added significantly to general scientific knowledge as well as to applied knowledge, processes, and products.

In 1998 the gross expenditures on research and development (GERD) approached $CDN 14 billion and the GERD as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased from 1.39 percent in 1988 to 1.64 percent in 1997, a trend that is contrary to its G-7 partners (AUCC, 1999, p. 82). Federal and provincial governments funded $CDN 1.7 billion in university research in FY 1996 compared to nearly $CDN 23 billion invested by the United States in research at American universities, a very wide discrepancy on a per capita basis. Moreover, research funding is concentrated in the largest universities, with the top ten universities garnering nearly 75% of the total R&D investment.

Canada has never had a formal national science policy. Yet the federal and provincial governments’ programs collectively could be construed, more or less, as science policy.  Some of these programs focus on regional economic development that incorporate investment in research and science and technology as foundational elements to economic growth.  Since 1997, federal government and provincial governments have adhered to a strategy that is based on investment in research and development as the foundation for the emerging knowledge-based economy and society.  This shift, from a laissez-faire approach to a targeted, some would suggest a “directed”, approach to investment in university-based research and development reflects the political realities of federal Canada and a concern about the future of federalism in Canada.

Once the Federal Government balanced its fiscal budget in 1997, it provided significant infusions in the three national research granting councils (MRC, NSERC, SSHRC), in the NRC’s Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) and Technology Partnership Program (TPP) programs, and a five year, $CDN 1.2 billion foundation for the renewal of Canadian university laboratories (Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)) which, by the FY2002 will have levered at least an additional $CDN 2 billion from the provincial governments, universities, and the private sector. In FY 2000, the Federal Government announced an additional $CDN 900 million to the CFI and major investments in research through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Genomics Canada, and Environment Canada. Provincial governments created specific programs to respond to, and to set themselves apart from, these Federal initiatives. Ontario’s Research and Development Challenge Fund (ORDCF) initially responded to the CFI and became a key instrument of government policy to re-energize the economy through strategic investments in the post-secondary, primarily scientific, research infrastructure.  Quebec, with a longer tradition of strategic investments in university-based research for social, economic and political development, made a “concerted effort” since the 1970's “to expand the research capabilities of [its] universities and to increase the competitiveness of its university research.” Quebec supports three granting councils to complement federal counterparts and to enhance an atmosphere of collaboration among and within its universities (Munro-Blum, 1999). While strides have been made in the last three years, the lack of a national science and technology policy and coherent, systematic coordination amongst federal and provincial governments and their agencies has created an uneven and disparate research environment in the university sector.

All governments recognize the importance of the post-secondary sector in knowledge creation and transfer. Through a “centres of excellence” approach, governments use university research to lever industry and producer organizations’ funds in areas of strategic importance to the nation. Since 1988 Canada has funded 19 national centres of excellence (NCE), invested nearly $CDN 430 million, and levered $CDN 500 million additional funds from industry, provincial and municipal governments and universities. NCEs are “networks of university researchers and scientists from across the country to conduct world class research in areas crucial to Canada’s competitiveness (ARA, 1997, p. 1).” Each NCE focuses on a strategic niche, drawing together scientists in transdisciplinary projects, linking university and industry and government laboratories, and encouraging the development of the next generation of scientists, faculty and practitioners. From the perspective of the federal bureaucracy, NCEs are excellent vehicles for knowledge creation and dissemination, technology development and diffusion, economic development and wealth creation, through the creation of new IP that form the bases of new products, new companies, and new jobs.  The views of research scientists often differ from this assessment. Many view the NCEs as vehicles of conducting more fundamental and applied research, obtaining support for graduate students and PDFs, and expanding linkages with the industrial sector, while also identifying opportunities for knowledge and technology transfer. NCEs, however, represent a shift to greater collaboration between university scholars and colleagues in government laboratories, industry, and community organizations, as well as internationally.

Mirroring the governments’ shift in emphasis to focus on the outcomes of research investments, particularly in the form of wealth creation and economic development, universities re-focussed their efforts to develop policies and mechanisms whereby research results are assessed for commercial applications. While not all sectors of the academy agree with this emphasis (Bell, 1996, pp. 322-348; Rhoades and Slaughter, 1991, pp. 65-77; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Canadian Academy of Engineering, 1999), considerable human and fiscal capital has been invested in offices of technology transfer or industrial liaison or stand-alone, university-owned companies that seek effective mechanisms to commercialize university research. Much effort has been invested in the internal political systems of the university to ensure that there is a reasonable balance between applied research and the commercialization of research and the support of fundamental or basic research that is the foundation of new discoveries and products and the formation of highly qualified personnel.

One of the more attractive approaches to commercializing research emerging from university laboratories is the “spin-off” or “start-up” company. Some have suggested spin-off companies are the most effective vehicles for the transfer of useful new discoveries from the laboratory to the market place (Crelinsten, 1987). The enthusiasm with spin-off companies is not difficult to understand, since the creator of the IP or discovery is usually a key figure in the new company.  The potential for individual wealth is linked to the creator’s desire to be intimately involved in the development and growth of the discovery into a mature product or product line. A number of Canadian universities, notably Alberta, British Columbia (Livingstone, 1997; Gu and Whewell, 1999), Toronto and Waterloo, are exemplars of using spin-off companies to commercialize university developed IP.

This brief review suggests that Canada, even without a national science and technology policy, recognizes that knowledge is the basis for its new economy. In the following sections, we look at each element discussed above -- principles of knowledge transfer; the “centres of excellence” as vehicles for knowledge development and transfer; and the spin-off as effective mechanisms for the identification and appropriate commercialization of IP development within the university. The central issues are:

• what is the appropriate role of in knowledge development and transfer;

• what are the most efficient means of knowledge and technology transfer;

• who benefits from knowledge transfer; and

• what are the lessons learned that would benefit universities?

There are no correct answers to these questions nor is there one model that will work most effectively for all environments.

In Canada, government-sponsored university research programs and university responses to those programs are based on the assumptions and realization that universities often:

• emphasize research in areas of relevance to regional economies and to new and existing industries, including cultural industries such as theatre, symphonies, and museums;
  
• exploit opportunities for research in fields of knowledge and technology that lead to and support new industries;
  
• foster ties with industry by serving as sources of highly qualified personnel, new technologies, research expertise and facilities;
  
• collaborate with industry, community organizations, NGOs and government on strategic research planning;
  
• encourage multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional and multi-sectoral approaches to fundamental and applied research problems; and
  
• encourage researchers to recognize the commercial applications of their discoveries

Livingstone (1997, p. 6) demonstrated that, at UBC, knowledge and technologies that emerge from university-based research often “improve[d] the practices and products of existing businesses, to form the basis of new companies, and to support the emerging industries that are stimulating and diversifying Canada’s economy.”  This suggests that the paradigms in which university faculty, graduate students, and post-doctoral fellows operate blur the boundaries between fundamental, applied and targeted/strategic research in all academic disciplines.

• An effective policy framework;

• An organizational structure that encourages a research culture supporting the disclosure of knowledge/technology to be assessed, developed, and transferred; and integrates service delivery and resource utilization; and

• Resources to support the organizational structure to provide efficient services to creators.
  

To allow for a reasonable knowledge and technology transfer process while at the same time adhering to a level of accountability within the university to faculty, staff and students, and externally to the public, universities require a policy framework that includes: patent policy, copyright policy, policies for research grants and contracts, research ethics, equipment use and use of research space, consulting and supplementary professional activities, conflict of interest, signing policies, student rights to student-developed IP.  Such policies should be made available to faculty and staff upon employment with the University and be published in print and electronically. However, universities, through their academic and administrative processes, must implement educational processes to ensure that faculty, staff and students are informed in a reasonable manner as to their rights and obligations.

Organizational structures that encourage the disclosure of knowledge/technology to be assessed, developed, and transferred vary from institution to institution. Faculty and graduate students are encouraged to present papers to conferences, symposia and workshops; to publish refereed articles and monographs; to present their knowledge and creations in exhibitions of art and public performances of plays; and to disclose IP or technologies for commercialization.  An Office of Research Services, University-Industry Liaison or Technology Transfer, is an administrative structure by which faculty and students are encouraged to (i) disclose IP or technologies developed under grants or contracts or with university resources and equipment that have a commercial potential; (ii) assess the IP for its unique qualities and its market potential; (iii) determine what form (e.g., trade mark, patent, trade secret) of IP protection should be pursued; (iv) identify the extent of the university’s investment in that protection; and (v) develop a strategy for the transfer or commercialization of the IP.  It is this component of the process that requires a strategy and action plan.

Yet most recognize the two most effective forms of knowledge and technology transfer are (i) the training of undergraduate and graduate students who then are employed in industry, business, government or community sectors; and (ii) the dissemination of the results of research in trade journals, refereed journals and conference proceedings, monographs, and technical reports. Canadian universities promote these media and encourage faculty to support the research training of senior undergraduate and graduate students and to publish the results of their research programs.

However, the universities also encourage faculty and students to consider other vehicles by which to transfer their new knowledge/technology from the university to appropriate receptors (e.g., industry, business, community agencies). In keeping with the initiatives of the national granting councils, the universities maintain an approach that recognizes the traditions of the various disciplines while at the same time affording faculty and student creators with options for knowledge and technology transfer.

In Canada, there are two general strategies for ownership of intellectual property created by faculty members, students and associated personnel in the conduct of their research: (i) university-owned and controlled; (ii) creator-owned and controlled. Most Canadian universities claim university ownership, although some state that the creator owns and controls the exploitation of the IP.  In most cases of creator-owned and controlled, however, the University retains a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use the IP in its teaching and research programs, although it is not always crystal clear how such use is managed where the creator is not a faculty member.

Creating new companies is a risky and labour intensive enterprise for the university and for the champion -- usually a faculty member or graduate student who was instrumental in the development of the new knowledge. While some new companies are based on speculative technologies, most focus on a technology satisfying key criteria – “it has to be able to do what it claimed to be able to do, it has to be new and, above all, it has to have market potential (Zeiminski and Wadra, 1998, p. 3).” Yet in many cases, spin-off companies are created where there are no local or regional receptors for the technology and where the creator has a strong desire to continue to nurture the technology to the market place.  However, creators are not necessarily the best managers and marketers of new products in the marketplace.

One of Canada’s best examples of using the spin-off model as an effective vehicle for knowledge transfer is the University of British Columbia. In 1997, Angus Livingstone evaluated the UBC experience with the spin-off company phenomenon, specifically the opportunities, challenges and future directions. By 1997, UBC could count more than 70 spin-off companies created (approximately 20% of the Canadian total) in the preceding 13 years with another 5 to 7 new companies created annually. Notwithstanding the commercial value of these companies (those that were traded had a market capitalization of more the $Cdn 1.1 billion in 1997 dollars) and a return-on-investment that averaged 4.4 (range was 0.9 to 7.7), for UBC the key factors to assessing returns included, annually: licenses to these companies (approximately 60% of the UBC total), value of royalty receipts from spin-offs (45% of the UBC total which equaled 80% of the value of UBC’s equity holdings), value of research contracted back to the University from these spin-offs ($3.5 million), and new employees who were graduates of the university (188 in 1997). Moreover, these companies created more than 1500 highly paid jobs, 96% of which had been retained in the British Columbia economy and were part of an emerging high technology sector (pp. 31-32). While clearly a successful venture, the spin-off company works well at UBC because of the convergence of key factors -- a vibrant science and technology rich university, entrepreneurial faculty, a dynamic University-Industry Liaison Office (UILO), access to seed capital, and a university that is willing to take risks by partnering with researcher-entrepreneurs as a knowledge transfer management strategy.  The UILO has had to manage increased demands on human resources to undertake effective due diligence on disclosures, to provide assistance during company formation and financing, to seek and provide on-going business and technical support (e.g., incubator facilities), to be open to renegotiating agreements, to managing conflicts of interest, and to maintaining open and transparent communication. Moreover, with an increasing diverse portfolio of disclosures and companies in which it has an interest, UILO staff has been required to understand the life cycles of vastly different industries. In addition, there is the need to continuously educate the administration and faculty that knowledge transfer by spinning off companies is a viable and valid activity for the university, one that contributes to the institution’s short and long term goals and does not to a decline of resources for core activities -- teaching, fundamental and applied research, and service.

• stimulate the production of leading-edge fundamental and long-term applied research of importance to Canada;
• develop and retain world-class Canadian scientists and engineers in technologies that are critical to future industrial competitiveness;
• integrate Canadian research and technology development efforts into national networks with the participation of, and in partnership with, universities, the private sector, the federal government and the provinces, based on excellence as measured by international (peer review) standards; and
• develop strong university-industry partnerships to accelerate the diffusion of advanced technological knowledge to industry. (ARA, p. 9)

The principle of self-sustainability is built into the network program -- after seven years, with the option for renewal, networks should be financially sustainable through private sector research contributions and revenues from commercialization of knowledge developed by research participants. Another principle, that of multi-disciplinarity, is based on the understanding that the problems facing a knowledge-based economy and society can not be resolved from one methodological paradigm and that researchers working as multi-disciplinary teams can bring added insight and innovativeness to the resolution of strategic problems -- in health care, in engineering, in leading-edge science, in the social and economic impact of science and technology on human society.

The key output of the NCEs is knowledge. A large percentage of researchers reported new products, processes or services emerging from their research, increased receptor capacity, and enhanced treatment of disease, or physical injury while industrial partners report a more modest impact.  More than 70% of the partners in NCEs that were renewed after Phase I indicated  “that some of the network’s research results have the potential to lead to significant revenues being earned (or significant costs being saved), relative to the investments the partners made (ARA, p. 28).” ARA’s analysis demonstrated that, conservatively and in the relatively short period of the program’s existence, the NCEs made a “net profit”, by subtracting total program costs from the benefits.² There remains some debate over this point.  The NCE R&D contributions to university researchers are in addition to the support they received from NSERC or MRC programs and investments by the universities to laboratory development or graduate student support. These latter contributions, which may have extended over many years and reach hundreds of thousands of dollars, are not factored into the assessment of “net profit.”

External assessments of the NCE program and the individual networks have been positive.  The scientific outcomes have been staggering, leading to new discoveries in the health sciences, physical and natural sciences, and engineering, as well as major contributions to the social and physical well-being of Canadians. From a knowledge transfer perspective,  NCEs are extraordinarily successful. A leading indicator of success is the percentage of new, highly trained individuals who are employed in Canada. More than 70% of the HQP trained through the networks take jobs in Canada after leaving the network and of these nearly half are employed by the private sector. Canada experiences a “brain gain,” “since only 60% of the students and post-docs are Canadian [while] 70% of the total stay in Canada (ARA, 1997, p. 16).” From the perspective of the science community, these individuals “transfer” knowledge from the lab to industry in the most effective manner --   the educated and trained  scientist – among scientists, and from industry to the academy.

The NCEs’ technology transfer activities incorporate a variety of “creative” solutions to the limited receptor capacity for discoveries -- spin-off company formation, investing seed capital in spin-offs, creating R&D investment funds, forming NCE technology commercialization companies to exploit network IP, adding seed funds to promising projects (limited venture capital), completing market studies and business plans for new products and services, hiring “business managers” (p. 40). The NCEs’ scientific programs and key discoveries have social, health and economic impacts.  Discoveries have led to license revenues for the universities and researchers, the creation of companies and jobs, and the buttressing of industrial research in areas that were attractive but where costs were prohibitive. While some NCEs have successfully commercialized research developed at the interface between university laboratories and industry, most often the industrial partners use centres as windows into the universities. NCE’s allow industry participants “to stay abreast of state-of-the-art knowledge by being associated with university researchers, … to do work they couldn’t do otherwise because of lack of in-house resources, and the training for students was especially useful in that it provided industry with suitably-trained potential employees (p. 25).” At the same time, few universities willingly signed over promising technologies to the centres to commercialize independently of the university.

• faculty members

• graduate students

• post-doctoral fellows and research associates

• the university -- enhanced teaching, more professional research programs, (potentially greater) revenue streams

• the local community -- increased economic activity ranging from job creation in university laboratories and through spin-off companies to increased economic activity to a higher profile as a leading community

• local, national and international firms that access the new knowledge and new technology for new products and enhanced services.

A number of studies, including the Bank-Boston assessment of MIT’s impact on the local and national economy of the United States and Munroe-Blum’s assessment of the strategic role of university research in Ontario’s innovation system (1999), have focused on more than economic returns. Pappas (1998) claimed that technology transfer activities in universities contribute to a region’s economic development as well as leading to enlarged partnerships and alliances between the university’s researchers and industry partners. Martino (1996, pp 316-320) noted that knowledge transfer benefited the academy by ensuring that faculty and students were “aware of cutting edge developments, having a pool of experienced candidates [for positions]” as well as exposing the university to and furthering its understanding of industrial and real-world problems and ways of working.  When graduate students are involved in an internship or co-op style program that required placement in an industrial setting or interaction with industrial research partners, such interaction helped forge university-industry interactions and understanding and on-going research relationships, (Szabo, 1995, pp. 18-24). Following on this, Roberts (1995, pp 149-156) viewed effective knowledge transfer by universities as supplying industry with well-education people (HQP) who contribute to the innovation processes and increase the capacity of receptor companies to access strategic research.

From the perspective of these authors, all sectors of the community benefit from knowledge transfer activities of capacity building in the academy and industrial partners through the exchange of highly qualified personnel -- particularly students - industry -- who add directly to the industry’s ability to access new technological developments from the academy and, as importantly, to the local, regional and national economies. From an industrial perspective, industry becomes more familiar with the leading-edge research conducted in university laboratories and is able to strengthen relationships with the universities, their key researchers, and a pool of highly qualified graduates students, leading to a more seamless interchange of ideas, personnel and product.

There is no one knowledge transfer strategy that will work in all environments or for all institutions. Universities must select from the menu of strategies that is available to them, select those that meet the demands of the individual case and the needs of the institution, reflecting its history, culture and areas of scholarly expertise, and the receptor capacity of the local or national economy, and invest financial, infrastructure and human resources to making these strategies work.

From this survey, however, the following might be inferred. First, universities must have a reasonable policy framework that encourages humanists, social scientists, scientists and engineers to disclose discoveries in a timely manner. This policy framework must address issues of the costs of investment in the “science” by the institution while at the same time providing incentives to the creators to disclose the IP. These benefits may be financial (e.g., a reasonable expectation of a share of the royalty stream, career advancement, recognition.)

Second, national and provincial governments need to invest in the basic science infrastructure to ensure that when the academy is expected to contribute to strategic research programs, these laboratories and their scholars – including natural and physical scientists and engineers -- can respond in an open, enthusiastic manner. National and provincial governments must invest “patient” capital into strategic research and development programs, such as the NCEs, as a means to seed research excellence in areas of national or regional importance.  Governments cannot and should not expect an immediate return on investment, including large numbers of new jobs, increased taxation, or repayment of capital.

Investment in fundamental and applied research in universities helps stem the “brain drain” from dependent economies to those that are more robust. Such investments lead to increased discoveries and to economic development and enhanced social and physical well-being of the community. Recent federal and provincial investments such as the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Innovation Trust, Alberta’s Heritage Foundation for Science and Engineering, and the Canada Research Chairs are significant steps to assist the university sector in reversing the “brain drain.” They are not, in themselves, sufficient and attention needs to be directed to the issue of Indirect Costs of research, adequate funding of the non-research infrastructure and personnel, and increased funding to each of the national granting councils and their provincial counterparts.

The most effective means for knowledge transfer and economic development is investment in the training of highly qualified personnel.  Knowledge development and transfer is a body-contact business (Langford, 1999; GUIRR 1998a, 1998b). Individuals create knowledge; individuals transfer knowledge; universities, laboratories and businesses merely provide the means for such creation, development and commercialization.

`In addition to the elements outlined above there are other strategic and fundamental questions that research administrators need to address.  One major question that is raised when faculty members seemingly redirect their research focus from fundamental to more applied research, especially if that research is being conducted for special interest groups such as trade unions, community organizations, governments or industry, is that the academic freedom of the faculty members and their research assistants is compromised.  The GUIRR, in “Openness and Secrecy in Research: Preserving Openness in a Competitive World,” argued that there are several trends that act to restrain scientific communication. These include “the increasing intimacy of industry’s involvement in academic research, an increasingly competitive environment for research funding and career advancement, and myriad legal and regulatory concerns (1998b, pp. 2-4).”  While these are not new concerns (MacAulay and Dufour, 1984, pp. 76-77), there is a sense within the academy that the balance has shifted too much from openness toward secrecy. Many sponsors, including government departments, industry and non-governmental groups, wish to contract with universities in such a way as to restrain release of the outcomes of the research. Faculty researchers and graduate students themselves often limit the release of research results “to protect their positions in competition for funding or in the race for scientific primacy.” Universities too often advise faculty and graduate students to delay the publication of the results of the research or the release of techniques in order to seek protection of the intellectual property through trade secrets or patent filings. GUIRR argued that universities, which are on the front lines of any response, need to ensure that “their technology transfer policies … acknowledge both commercial pressures and the traditions of open research and graduate education. Their officers need to be creative and flexible when tensions arise between interested parties in a commercialization approach. … Graduate students must receive adequate training in the ethical and legal challenges that they will face in their careers, and working scientists must acknowledge that their private privilege to seek the truth implies a personal duty to serve a broader public interest (1998b, pp. 2, 4.).”

A second major issue is the lack of understanding of the scholarly enterprise, both within the academy and in the public.  Inside the academy there is a misconstruing of the role of faculty in the humanities and social sciences and the natural sciences, engineering and health sciences.  There often appears to be an envy or antagonism on the part of humanists and social scientists toward their colleagues in the sciences and engineering, often undervaluing their approach to publication or the constant grubbing to generate research grants and contracts or to respond to government or industry opportunities as undermining the purity of the academy.  Faculty in all disciplines are under significant stress to apply for external research support – universities in Canada rarely have the internal resources to provide even a small portion of the funding required for graduate students, laboratory equipment, and operating costs, let alone funding travel to conferences or field trips. Moreover, those outside of the academy rarely have a clear understanding of the balance of teaching, research and creative activities, and community service in which faculty members are engaged. The press willingly trumpets new scientific discoveries but often fail to caution the public who may be unaware that these latest discoveries are years away from an application to the human condition.

The university, then, has two principal responsibilities: the creation of new knowledge; and the dissemination of the knowledge through teaching, publication and knowledge transfer. There is a need to ensure that the university maintains the balance between these functions. It is not a question of fundamental versus applied research – which is a false dichotomy (AUCC, 1998). Research is rarely linear. Scholarly research more often resembles a woven piece of cloth, with the latest applications of techniques and tools informing new areas of scholarly endeavor that may have no known application. The same is as true in the social sciences as in the natural and physical sciences, engineering or bio-medical fields.

Universities should focus on their mission – scholarly teaching, scholarly research and creative activities, the scholarship of integration, and the scholarship of dissemination. Universities and faculty members need to keep their mission in focus when consider ways to undertake knowledge transfer. Within the university there needs to be a clear understanding of why and when and how as well as what and by whom knowledge transfer will take place. Without consistency on these issues and a clear and comprehensive communications strategy within the academy, the role of the university in knowledge transfer and the perceived benefits and drawbacks will be misunderstood by all – administrators, faculty members, students, sponsors, and the public.

1. If the “spin-off” or “start-up” strategy is to be employed, universities required clearly articulated procedures on how it will assess these opportunities, when and how it will dispose of equity (e.g., a percentage upon a company going public, a percentage within a certain period thereafter, etc.). Such open and transparent policies and procedures will permit the university officers to make judgments that do not appear to be favouring one individual over another or to be benefiting from insider knowledge.

2. The “profit” is not a return to the NCE program but to the partners B universities, private sector participants, and to the economic, health and social benefits to the public at large.
 

ARA Consulting Group Inc. (1997). Evaluation of the National Centres of Excellence Program: Final Report. Ottawa.

Armit, Robert E. (1997). “Realizing the Economic benefits of Good Science,” in Ch. Proukakis and N.Katsaros (eds.), The New Role of the Academies of Sciences in the Balkan Countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 85-95.

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (1999), Trends: The Canadian University in Profile. Ottawa.

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (1998). “Closing the Gap: Investing in Knowledge for a Better Canada – A brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance by the AUCC, CCR, HSSFC, Canadian Graduate Council, and L’ACFAS,” October 1998.

Baclawski, Joseph E. (1997). “How University research benefits the USA: A Checklist,” Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 11,No. 4, pp. 25

Bell, Stephen (May/June 1996),  “University-Industry Interaction in the Ontario Centres of Excellence,” Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 67, No. 3 pp. 322-348.

Blais, Roger A. et al 1999. “Technological Entrepreneurship and Engineering in Canada: Report by the Canadian Academy of Engineering,” as cited in “Comments on the Report.”