The executive science network: University trustees and the organization of university industry exchanges

本研究探讨了大学董事会和大学高级官员的外部利益如何影响学术界和产业界的创新。以前的研究已经注意到，美国大学协会(AAU)所属私立大学和公立大学的受托人的组成和职能有所不同。私立大学的受托人往往是以科学为基础的公司的负责人，同时也是其他公司的董事会成员(S)。随着时间的推移，受托人的研究利益和他们管理的大学的研究利益在他们申请专利的领域和他们的大学得到资助的广泛科学领域变得更加相似。私立AAU大学的受托人和大学高级管理层形成了一个密集的网络，其中一个成员与其他任何成员都不超过半步之遥，构成了一个在学术界和产业界之间创造创新渠道的执行科学网络。公立AAU大学的受托人不是这个网络的一部分。这项研究收集了额外的数据，扩展了早期研究的时间覆盖范围，同时扩大了范围，将公立大学基金会(独立组织)的受托人包括在内，因为试点研究表明，这些受托人可能是网络的一部分，并在公立大学和行业之间创造了创新的渠道，而不是政治任命的公立大学受托人。使用网络分析和回归分析对数据进行分析，以了解网络是如何运行的(即，是否受托人？律所？在生物技术网络或子网络或计算机科学子网络中的地位预示着大学研究资金的成功；是否受托人？公司可能会与他们管理的大学进行专利申请或建立合作伙伴关系)。这些量化数据通过对4所大学的60名受托人的采访得到补充，以深入了解受托人？与他们管理的大学进行企业交流，以及这些交流如何为技术发展和经济创新做出贡献。然而，如果受托人和高级大学官员将他们的大学作为公司管理，并与他们的公司公司建立交流(无论是作为首席执行官还是董事会成员)，就可能出现制度性利益冲突。而受托人公司呢？和大学都可能从这些交流中受益，但追求技术发展可能会损害大学科学(即，强调某些类型的科学而不是其他类型的科学)。因此，访谈的重点不仅在于校董会与大学在技术发展方面的交流，还在于校董会和高级管理层如何处理体制利益冲突。这个项目的更广泛的影响有几个。首先，这个项目增进了我们对研究型大学理事在将创新科学推向市场、增强美国国际竞争能力方面所扮演的角色的理解。其次，比较了公立和私立大学在学术界和产业界的受托渠道，找出了促进创新的受托特征。第三，该项目研究了参与与其管理的大学进行交流的受托人如何管理机构利益冲突，为其他研究型大学提供了最佳做法。所有这三个更广泛的影响都将有助于制定政策，使研究型大学能够更好地参与将导致经济增长的技术开发和经济创新。

This study explores how the external interests of university trustees and senior university officers influence innovation between academe and industry. Previous research has noted a difference in the composition and function of the trustees of private and public universities belonging to the American Association of Universities (AAU). Trustees of private universities are often heads of science-based corporations and simultaneously members of boards of directors of other corporation(s). Over time trustee research interests and those of the universities of which they are stewards become more similar with regard to areas in which they patent and broad fields of science in which their universities are funded. The trustees and senior university management of private AAU universities form a dense network, in which one member is not more than half a step away from any other, constituting an executive science network that creates channels for innovation between academe and industry. Trustees of public AAU universities are not part of this network. This study gathers additional data extending the temporal coverage of the earlier research while broadening the scope to include trustees of public university foundations (arms-length organizations) because pilot research suggests that these trustees may be part of the network and create channels of innovation between public universities and industry rather than public university trustees who are political appointments. The data are analyzed using network analysis and regression analysis to understand how the network functions (i.e., whether trustees? firms? position in biotechnology networks or sub networks or computer science sub networks predicts success in university research funding; whether trustees? firms are likely to patent with or have partnerships with the universities of which they are stewards). These quantitative data are augmented by interviews with 60 trustees at 4 universities to gain in-depth understanding of trustees? corporate exchanges with the universities they govern and how these contribute to technology development and economic innovation. However, if trustees and senior university officers are managing their universities as firms and establishing exchanges with their corporate firms (whether as CEO or member of a board of directors) the possibility of institutional conflict of interest arises. While trustees firms? and universities may both benefit by these exchanges, there is a possibility that pursuit of technology development may harm university science (i.e., by emphasizing some types of science over others). Thus, the interviews focus not only on trustee-university exchange with regard to technology development, but also on how trustees and senior management handle institutional conflict of interest. Broader impacts of this project are several. First, this project advances our understanding of the part research university trustees play in bringing innovative science to the market place, enhancing U.S. ability to compete internationally. Second, the research compares public and private university trustee channels between academe and industry, identifying trustee characteristics that promote innovation. Third, the project examines how trustees involved in exchanges with the universities they govern manage institutional conflict of interest, suggesting best practices for other research universities. All three of these broader impacts will be helpful in developing policy to enable research universities to better participate in technology development and economic innovation that will lead to economic growth.