Appendix for Commercializing Knowledge: University Science, Knowledge Capture, and Firm Performance in Biotechnology by Lynne G. Zucker, Michael R. Darby, and Jeff S. Armstrong Management Science, Vol. 48, No., January 22, pages 38-53. Excerpted from National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 8499, October 2. The tables and figure in this appendix provide supplementary analyses to those in the published article and some additional detail on data used in the empirical analysis. The depth of involvement of top academic scientists in the best biotech firms indicated in Table is corroborated in Appendix Tables A. Appendix Tables A2 and A3 provide totals by states of the firms in the sample and the 99 counts of total products, human therapeutics, vaccines, diagnostics, and agricultural products in development and on the market, respectively. Figure A shows how concentrated research activity is in the top decile biotech firms. Appendix Table A4 lists exactly which universities make the ISI s top-2 list based on amount of federal research funding received. Appendix Table A5 reports the results of running the patent analysis as a cross-section without exploiting the timing aspect of the data. The ability to have both star and top-2 science base indicators in the regression simultaneously appears to be a feature of the fuller analysis and not of the patents per se. 2 by Lynne G. Zucker, Michael R. Darby, and Jeff S. Armstrong. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including notice, is given to the source: Lynne G. Zucker, Michael R. Darby, and Jeff Armstrong, "Commercializing Knowledge: University Science, Knowledge Capture, and Firm Performance in Biotechnology," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 8499, October 2.
Appendix Table A Leading Academic Scientists Held Key Positions in the Top- Biotechnology Firms in 994 Position Number of Tied Star Scientists a Number of Top-Ten University Scientists b Founder/co-founder President and CEO 2 Vice-President Director c 2 2 Scientific Advisory Board Member d 2 24 Notes: a Equals the number of tied star scientists holding the position indicated by the row label. The column total may exceed the number of scientists since scientists could hold multiple positions within the firm. b Equals the number of top-2 university scientists holding the position indicated by the row label. The column total may exceed the number of scientists since scientists could hold multiple positions within the firm. c One tied star scientist was listed as the Board Chair and another was listed as Board Secretary. d One of the top-2 university scientists was listed as the Scientific Advisory Board Chair. 2
Appendix Table A2 Products in Development by State as of 99: Total Products, Human Therapeutics, Vaccines, Diagnostics and Agricultural State Total Products Therapeutics Vaccines Diagnostics Agriculture Firms in Sample California 75 3 2 4 4 9 Massachusetts 8 4 39 Maryland 8 9 5 3 New Jersey 73 57 27 New York 4 28 3 2 24 Others 235 33 9 42 7 4 Total 48 444 4 83 2 342 Source: Bioscan. Appendix Table A3 Products on the Market by Key State as of 99: Total Products, Human Therapeutics, Vaccines, Diagnostics and Agricultural State Total Products Therapeutics Vaccines Diagnostics Agriculture Firms in Sample California Massachusetts Maryland New Jersey New York Others 38 48 5 4 235 73 33 4 37 9 73 7 59 22 9 24 9 39 27 24 4 Total,29 79 8 4 5 342 Source: Bioscan. 3
Appendix Table A4 List of Top-2 Universities as Defined by the Institute of Scientific Information ARIZONA STATE UNIV NEW MEXICO STATE UNIV UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO UNIV NEW MEXICO BAYLOR COLL MED NEW YORK UNIV UNIV CALIF SANTA BARBARA UNIV OREGON BOSTON UNIV NORTHWESTERN UNIV UNIV CALIF SANTA CRUZ UNIV PENN BRANDEIS UNIV OHIO STATE UNIV UNIV CHICAGO UNIV PITTSBURGH BROWN UNIV OREGON HLTH SCI UNIV UNIV CINCINNATI UNIV ROCHESTER CALTECH OREGON STATE UNIV UNIV COLORADO UNIV SO CALIF CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV PENN STATE UNIV UNIV CONNECTICUT UNIV TENNESSEE CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV PRINCETON UNIV UNIV DELAWARE UNIV TEXAS AUSTIN COLORADO STATE UNIV PURDUE UNIV UNIV FLORIDA UNIV TEXAS DALLAS COLUMBIA UNIV RICE UNIV UNIV GEORGIA UNIV TEXAS HOUSTON CORNELL UNIV ROCKEFELLER UNIV UNIV HAWAII UNIV TEXAS SAN ANTONIO HLTH SCI CTR CUNY RUTGERS STATE UNIV UNIV ILLINOIS CHICAGO UNIV UTAH DARTMOUTH COLL STANFORD UNIV UNIV ILLINOIS URBANA UNIV VERMONT DUKE UNIV SUNY BUFFALO UNIV IOWA UNIV VIRGINIA EMORY UNIV SUNY STONY BROOK UNIV KANSAS UNIV WASHINGTON FLORIDA STATE UNIV SYRACUSE UNIV UNIV KENTUCKY UNIV WISCONSIN MADISON GEORGETOWN UNIV TEXAS A&M UNIV UNIV MARYLAND BALTIMORE UTAH STATE UNIV GEORGIA INST TECHNOL TUFTS UNIV UNIV MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK VANDERBILT UNIV HARVARD UNIV TULANE UNIV UNIV MASS AMHERST VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV INDIANA UNIV UNIV ALABAMA UNIV MASS WORCESTER VIRGINIA POLYTECH INST IOWA STATE UNIV UNIV ALASKA UNIV MASSACHUSETTS W VIRGINIA UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV UNIV ARIZONA UNIV MIAMI WAKE FOREST UNIV LEHIGH UNIV UNIV CALIF BERKELEY UNIV MICHIGAN WASHINGTON STATE UNIV LOUISIANA STATE UNIV UNIV CALIF DAVIS UNIV MINNESOTA WASHINGTON UNIV LOYOLA UNIV UNIV CALIF IRVINE UNIV MISSOURI WAYNE STATE UNIV MICHIGAN STATE UNIV UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES UNIV N CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL WOODS HOLE OCEANOG INST MIT UNIV CALIF RIVERSIDE UNIV NEBRASKA YALE UNIV N CAROLINA STATE UNIV UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO UNIV NEW HAMPSHIRE YESHIVA UNIV Source: Institute of Scientific Information, U.S. University Science Indicators, machine-readable database on CD-ROM, Philadelphia: Institute of Scientific Information, 2. [Although the data base aims at the top research universities, the stopping rule appears to include the 3 universities tied for th place in their covered list of 2 universities.] 4
Appendix Table A5 Estimates for Patenting-Success Models for All U.S. Firms Dependent Variables (across) I. Cumulative Patents Granted as of 99 Cumulative Citation-weighted Patents Granted as of 99 Explanatory Variables (down) Model a Model b Model c Model d Model e Model f Model g Model h Constant -.74*** -.9774*** -.973*** -.799*** -.299***.32***.73***.8275*** (.47) (.52) (.42) (.549) (.7) (.7) (.) (.74) Star Authorships of: Local untied articles Affiliated articles All linked articles -.5*** (.).54*** (.2).9*** (.) Top-2 University Authorships: All core collaborations.72*** (.) Citations to articles.5*** (.2) Firm Characteristics: NBF indicator -.78*** -.854*** -.8284*** (.243) (.282) (.272) -.3** (.) -.38*** (.) -.4*** (.2).292*** (.4).9*** (.2) -.3***.47***.7*** (.2).4** -.427*** (.) -.397*** (.3).74***.329*** (.).38*** -.34*** -.8798*** (.279) -.782*** (.3) -.898*** (.3) -.9272*** (.37) -.993*** (.37) Years in biotech.252*** (.34).87*** (.29).84*** (.3).7*** (.33).298*** (.5).223*** (.4).228*** (.5).29*** (.5) Recombinant DNA indicator.5273*** (.72).297*** (.29).224*** (.27).59*** (.229).5785*** (.25).39*** (.32).25*** (.3).288*** (.3) Cumulative venture capital funding as of 99.3*** (.).27***.22*** (.).25***.39***.37***.33***.3*** Log-likelihood -353.5-247.53-229.45-8. -888.99-794.87-7877.83-7394.32 Restricted log-likelihood -8.3-8.3-8.3-8.3-3775.47-3775.47-3775.47-3775.47 Sample size 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 342 Notes: All models were estimated as a Poisson process with standard errors (in parentheses) corrected following Wooldridge (99). Significance Levels: * #.5, ** #., *** #. 5
Figure A Top-Decile Biotech Firms Accounted for a Disproportionately Large Fraction of Total Innovation through 99 Top-Decile Firms All Other Firms 2 Counts of Innovation Measures 8 4 2 25 (57%) 47 (43%) Top-Decile Firms 7 (3%) 39 (4%) Top-Decile Firms 34 (8%) 53 (82%) Top-Decile Firms Biotech Patents Granted Human Therapies & Vaccines in Development Human Therapies & Vaccines on the Market