USDA, Economic Research Service
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Mail Stop 1800
Washington, DC 20250-1800
NBER Working Papers and Publications
|August 2007||Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurship through the SBIR Program|
with Dirk Czarnitzki
in Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, Adam Jaffe, Josh Lerner, Scott Stern, Marie Thursby, organizers
|July 2005||Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurship Through the SBIR Program|
with Dirk Czarnitzki: w11450
This paper considers the U.S. Small Business Innovation research (SBIR) program as a policy fostering academic entrepreneurship. We highlight two main characteristics of the program that make it attractive as an entrepreneurship policy: early-stage financing and scientist involvement in commercialization. Using unique data on NIH supported biomedical researchers, we trace the incidence of biomedical entrepreneurship through SBIR and describe some of the characteristics of these individuals. To explore the importance of early-stage financing and scientist involvement, we complement our individual level data with information on scientist-linked and non-linked SBIR firms. Our results show that the SBIR program is being used as a commercialization channel by academic scientists. Moreover, we f...
Published: Toole, Andrew A. and Dirk Czarnitzki. "Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63, 4 (August 2007): 716-738 . citation courtesy of
|October 1999||Is Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence|
with Paul A. David, Bronwyn H. Hall: w7373
Is public R&D spending complementary and thus "additional" to private R&D spending, or does it substitute for and tend to "crowd out" private R&D? Conflicting answers are given to this question. We survey the body of available economectric evidence accumulated over the past 35 years. A framework for analysis of the problem i is developed to help organize and summarize the findings of econometric studies based on time series and cross-section data from various levels of aggregation (laboratory, firm, industry, country). The findings overall are ambivalent and the existing literature as as a whole is subject to the criticim that the nature of the "experiment(s)" that the investigators envisage is not adequately specified. We conclude by offering suggestions for improving fut...
Published: Research Policy, Vol. 29 (May 2000). citation courtesy of