Inter-organizational technology transfer: the case of the NSF science and technology centers

Author(s):  
D.V. Gibson ◽  
G.T. Harlan
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Analía Roxana Dávila

It is proposed to analyze the scope and limitations that Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) offer as collaboration mediators; and enhancers of innovative experiences in non-formal education spaces. To this end, it is proposed to implement a methodology mediated by ICTs to promote and achieve greater use of the guided visits to the interactive science and technology centers. The work contemplates, firstly, carrying out a bibliographic inquiry and background review of interactive science and technology centers in different Ibero-American countries and secondly, it is proposed to design a methodology to enhance collaboration mediated by technologies in the framework of visits to centers interactives and then apply this methodology to a particular case study to measure its impact. The experience will take place at the Open Science and Technology Interactive Center (CICyT) of the National University of Lanús and proposes, through a specific intervention, comparatively analyzing 3 types of guided visits: a) traditional in-person visit format, b) visit face-to-face with instance of collaboration activities without the use of technology, c) interaction mediated by ICTs prior to the visit, face-to-face visit with use of ICTs, and instance of interaction mediated by ICTs after the visit, which will then be contrasted with the antecedents and theoretical studies found in the bibliography.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex D. Rogers ◽  
Amy Baco ◽  
Elva Escobar-Briones ◽  
Kristina Gjerde ◽  
Judith Gobin ◽  
...  

Growing human activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is driving increasing impacts on the biodiversity of this vast area of the ocean. As a result, the United Nations General Assembly committed to convening a series of intergovernmental conferences (IGCs) to develop an international legally-binding instrument (ILBI) for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of ABNJ [the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement] under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The BBNJ agreement includes consideration of marine genetic resources (MGR) in ABNJ, including how to share benefits and promote marine scientific research whilst building capacity of developing states in science and technology. Three IGCs have been completed to date with the fourth delayed by the Covid pandemic. This delay has allowed a series of informal dialogues to take place between state parties, which have highlighted a number of areas related to MGR and benefit sharing that require technical guidance from ocean experts. These include: guiding principles on the access and use of MGR from ABNJ; the sharing of knowledge arising from research on MGR in ABNJ; and capacity building and technology transfer for developing states. In this paper, we explain what MGR are, the methods required to collect, study and archive them, including data arising from scientific investigation. We also explore the practical requirements of access by developing countries to scientific cruises, including the sharing of data, as well as participation in research and development on shore whilst promoting rather than hindering marine scientific research. We outline existing infrastructure and shared resources that facilitate access, research, development, and benefit sharing of MGR from ABNJ; and discuss existing gaps. We examine international capacity development and technology transfer schemes that might facilitate or complement non-monetary benefit sharing activities. We end the paper by highlighting what the ILBI can achieve in terms of access, utilization, and benefit sharing of MGR and how we might future-proof the BBNJ Agreement with respect to developments in science and technology.


Author(s):  
Joe E. Heimlich ◽  
Andy Aichele ◽  
Frederic Bertley

Science centers and museums have been heavily invested in helping scientists engage in reaching broader publics. Starting with understanding the types of learning that happen in these institutions, the chapter explores the roles of science centers in society as defined by the Association of Science and Technology Centers. The authors explore how those roles play out in COSI, a large science center in Columbus, Ohio. Each of the roles identified is tied to programs related to the interface among school-aged youth, teachers (formal and informal educators), and scientists. The authors explore these roles by describing each program and then laying out the theoretical foundations and the desired outcomes of the engagement.


2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 1550003 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS WOLFGANG THURNER ◽  
STANISLAV ZAICHENKO

Little is known about how transfer processes are shaped by the underlying industry and its technical regimes. In our analysis, we differentiate between Science and Technology-modes of learning which incorporate the latest developments in research, and a more practice-oriented mode based on industry-specific knowledge. We test whether Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs), that provide technology transfer to firms, follow one or the other mode in correspondence to their customer's needs. Our analysis is based on 67 Russian RTOs transferring technology either to low-tech or high-tech manufacturing firms. For high-tech manufacturing, the use of patents and the intake of scientists are vital for successful technology transfer. Own basic research is positively correlated only with transfer to low-tech manufacturing.


1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-226
Author(s):  
Manfred E. Szabo

The author examines a number of schemes and programmes that promote technology transfer and industrial R&D through university—industry linkages. He identifies the creation of receptor capacities, the establishment of networks of technology transfer and the adoption of appropriate science and technology policies as key elements in the success of such linkages.


Author(s):  
Mariana Imaz ◽  
Claudia Sheinbaum

Purpose In September 2015, the UN member states approved an ambitious agenda toward the end of poverty, the pursuit of equity and the protection of the planet in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. The purpose of this paper is to raise a concern about the context and framework that science, technology and innovation have in the finalized text for adoption that frames the SDGs especially regarding environmental degradation. The authors argue that emphasizing technology transfer in the agenda has the risk to do not recognize other technological alternatives such as eco-technologies, and endorse a limited vision of the role of science and innovation in the achievement of the SDGs. Science for sustainability has to go further than technology transfer, even questioning the limits of the current patterns of intensive use of natural resources and inequity in consumption. By discussing the historical backgrounds of this paradigm and elaborating on the role of science to achieve sustainability in a broader sense. It is in these terms that inter- and intra-discipline and the roles of researchers in sustainability transitions acquire relevance. Design/methodology/approach Although many theories regarding human development are in place and under discussion, the dominant view, reflected in the UN agreement, is that the progress of a country can be measured by the growth in the per capita gross domestic product. This variable determines if a society is able to reduce poverty and satisfy its basic needs for present and future generations (Article 3: United Nations (UN), 2015). Progress and economic growth in several aspects of human development has been substantial over the past 40 years. However, at the same time, the state of the environment continues to decline (UNEP, 2012). The obvious inquiry of these opposing trends is whether progress irremediably comes at the cost of environmental degradation. In 1972, the Club of Rome’s report entitled “Limits to growth” (Meadows et al. 1972) confronted the viability of perpetual economic growth. The report alerted of the impossibility of endless growth in population and production in a finite planet (Gómez-Baggethun and Naredo, 2015). The essay forecasted future crises of food and energy if the population and economic growth continued to grow at the same rate of the first half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the catastrophic projections were not met, mostly because of great advances in agriculture, water and energy technologies. Findings The SDGs constitute a relevant international recognition of the importance of the three edges of sustainable development. However, the pathways toward the achievement of the SDGs need to fully recognize that poverty, inequalities and global environmental problems are expressing a deeper crisis in the shape of economic growth, patterns of production and consumption and, in general, the logic of no limits in the exploitation of natural resources (Sheinbaum-Pardo, 2015). For this reason, the science of sustainability requires a deep understanding of the technological change and that technology is not the only approach toward sustainability. Research limitations/implications The paper reflects a conceptual discussion of the narrow vision of science and technology in the SDGs and their UN framework. The most important objective in the UN documents is technology transfer. This has the risk to do not recognize other technological alternatives such as eco-technologies, and endorse a limited vision of the role of science and innovation in the achievement of the SDGs. Practical implications An important discussion of the key points regarding SDGs is developed. Social implications “Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (UN, 2015)” presents a narrow vision and a limiting role to the science of sustainability. Moreover, if these issues are not recognized, the achievement of the SDGs will continue to gain only marginal success. Originality/value It brings out a very important discussion of the role of science and technology in the ambitious UN agenda of the SDGs.


2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-159
Author(s):  
Marita Graube ◽  
Fiona Clark ◽  
Deborah L. Illman

This study examines the content of press releases from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Technology Centers (STCs) to determine how public information officers (PIOs) presented the outcomes of centers to journalists and the public. A total of 68 press releases were analyzed for type of news covered, visibility of centers and their funding agency, extent of inter-institutional cooperation in the issuance of releases, and players covered. Three-quarters of STC releases mentioned the center, but less than half mentioned the NSF STC program and one-quarter didn't mention the center name at all. PIOs covering the STCs mainly issued research-oriented press releases accredited to their own institution. There was a low level of inter-institutional cooperation, with 13% of press releases jointly issued. Compared to research results and institutional news, which together accounted for 82% of the news events, broader activities such as knowledge transfer, diversity enhancement, and education were much less visible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document