This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sardana, D. Articles by Krishna, V.V. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Government, University and Industry Relations

The Case of Biotechnology in the Delhi Region

Deepak Sardana is completing a Ph.D. at the Innovation Policy and Management Programme, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. E-mail: deepak.sardana{at}anu.edu.au.

V.V. Krishna

V.V. Krishna is Professor in Science Policy, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110 067. E-mail: krishna{at}mail.jnu.ac.in.

The triple helix is considered an important concept because it not only advocates partnerships among government, industry and university/public research institutions, but it also claims (explicitly or implicitly) to provide strategy for innovation. The present study was undertaken in 2001 to understand the relevance of triple helix in the context of biotechnology in the National Capital Region of Delhi in India. The empirical research conducted through questionnaire and interviews was restricted to scientists from public sector research and academia. The analysis based on fieldwork data was also supported by secondary sources of information. The empirical findings reveal that bilateral linkages and partnerships—mostly between government and public sector research institutions, including universities—seem to be more relevant and meaningful than tripartite relationships. Even though scientists now do seem to be positively oriented to commercialisation of knowledge and accord high importance to it, they continue to assign equally high importance to publications compared to patenting. Our study reveals that scientists in universities and national research institutions lack adequate and effective institutional and organisational framework and mechanisms that foster commercialisation of knowledge. In conclusion, the study attempts to underscore some policy measures that will catalyse triple helix-based partnerships in context of biotechnology sector in India.

References

• Benner, M. and U. Sandstrom (2000), ‘ Institutionalizing the Triple Helix: Research Funding and Norms in the Academic System ’, Research Policy, 29 (2), pp. 291–301 .[CrossRef]
• Bluementhal, D. (1994), ‘ Growing Pains for New Academic/Industry Relationships ’, Health Affairs, 13 (3), pp. 176–93 .[Abstract]
• Boyd, E.A. and L.A. Bero (2000), ‘ Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships with Industry ’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (17), pp. 2209–14 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Conceicao, P., D.V. Gibson, M.V. Heitor and S. Shariq (2000), ‘Introduction’, in P. Conceicao, D.V. Gibson, M.V. Heitor and S. Shariq, eds, Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Opportunities and Challenges for the Knowledge, USA: Quorum Books , pp. 1–18.
• Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (2001), ‘CSIR 2001: Vision and Strategy’, http://www.csir.res.in/csir/external/heads/aboutcsir/leaders/DG/CSIR%20vision%202001.htm.
• Edquist, C. and B. Johnson (1997), ‘Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation’, in C. Edquist, ed., Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London and Washington: Pinter Publishers .
• Etzkowitz, H. (1998), ‘ The Endless Transition: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations , Minerva, 36 (3), pp. 203–8 .[CrossRef]
• Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster and P. Healey (1998), ‘Introduction’, in H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster and P. Healey, eds, Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. New York: State University of New York Press .
• Etzkowitz, H., A Webster, C. Gebhardt and B.R.C. Terra (2000), ‘ The Future of University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm ’, Research Policy, 29, pp. 273–78 .[CrossRef]
• Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000), ‘ The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations ’, Research Policy, 29 (2), pp. 109–23 .[CrossRef]
• Faulkner, W. and J. Senker (1995), Knowledge Frontiers: Public Sector Research and Industrial Innovation in Biotechnology, Engineering Ceramics, and Parallel Computing. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
• Fenn, N. (1995), ‘Key Note Address’, in M. White and J. Wasi, eds, Indo-British Seminar on Industry–Institute Interaction. CII, British Commission and British Council Division .
• Giesecke, S. (2000), ‘ The Contrasting Roles of Government in the Development of Biotechnology Industry in the US and Germany ’, Research Policy, 29 (2), pp. 205–23 .[CrossRef]
• Juma, C., K. Fang, D. Honca, J. Huete-Perez, V. Konde, S.H. Lee, J. Arenas, A. Invison, H. Robinson and S. Singh (2001), ‘ Global Governance of Technology: Meeting the Needs of Developing Countries ’, International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8), pp. 629–55 .[CrossRef]
• Krishna, V.V. (2001), ‘ Reflections on the Changing Status of Academic Science in India ’, International Social Science Journal, 168 (Special issue on Science and Cultures), pp. 232–45 .
• Krishna, V.V., R. Waast and J. Galliard (2000), ‘ The Changing Structure of Science in Developing Countries ’, Science, Technology & Society, 5 (2), pp. 209–24 .[Free Full Text]
• Louis, K. and M. Anderson (1998), ‘The Changing Context of Science and University–Industry Relations’, in H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster and P. Healey, eds, Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. New York: State University of New York Press .
• Mansfield, E. (1995), ‘ Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing ’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 77 (1), pp. 55–65 .[CrossRef]
• Martin, B.R. (2001), ‘The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University’, as draft chapter prepared for A. Geuna, A. Salter and W. E. Steinmueller, eds, Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance, London: Edward Elgar .
• Pavitt, K. (2001), ‘ Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn) ’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (3), pp. 761–99 .[Abstract]
• Prevezer, M. (2001), ‘ Ingredients in the Early Development of the US Biotechnology Industry ’, Small Business Economics, 17(1–2), pp. 17–29 .[CrossRef]
• Ramani, S.V. (2001), ‘ Who is Interested in Biotech? R&D Strategies, Knowledge Base and Market Sales of Indian Biopharmaceutical Firms ’, 31 (3), pp. 381–98 .
• Saad, M. (2004), ‘ Issues and Challenges Arising from the Application of Innovation Strategies Based on the Triple Helix Culture: Experience of the Incubation System in Algeria ’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 3 (1), pp. 17–34 .[CrossRef]
• Sardana, D. (2002), ‘"Triple Helix": University Industry and Government Partnerships (A case study of the Biotechnology sector in the Delhi Region)’. M.Phil. thesis submitted to Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi .
• Sutz, J. (1998), ‘A Commented Report of the Conference: A Triple Helix of University, Industry, Government Relations—The New Location of Research?’. http://www.csic.edu.uy/documentos/doc3.pdf, accessed 6 March 2005.
• Turpin, T., C. Martinez-Fernandez and L. Brito (2002), ‘ Riding the Waves of Policy: The ‘New Production of Knowledge’ and Implications for Developing Economies ’, Paper presented at the Conference, Development through Knowledge? A New Look at the Global Knowledge-based Economy and Society, 20–22 November, Geneva, Switzerland.
• Viale, R. and B. Ghiglione (1998), ‘The Triple Helix Model: A Tool for the Study of European Regional Socio-Economic Systems’, in The IPTS Report, European Commission .
• Whitley, R. (2003), ‘ Competition and Pluralism in the Public Sciences: the Impact of Institutional Frameworks on the Organization of Academic Science ’, Research Policy, 32 (6), pp. 1015–29 .[CrossRef]

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sardana, D. Articles by Krishna, V.V. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?