IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v47y2018i8p1505-1512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simultaneous pursuit of discovery and invention in the US Department of Energy

Author

Listed:
  • Goldstein, Anna P.
  • Narayanamurti, Venkatesh

Abstract

There is a sharp boundary between basic and applied research in the organizational structure of the US Department of Energy (DOE). In this work, we consider a branch of DOE that was designed to operate across this boundary: the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). We hypothesize that much of energy research cannot be neatly categorized as basic or applied and is more productive outside of the confines of the basic/applied dichotomy; ARPA-E gives us an opportunity to test that hypothesis. We construct a novel dataset of nearly 4000 extramural financial awards given by DOE in fiscal years 2010 through 2015, primarily to businesses and universities. We collect the early knowledge outputs of these awards from Web of Science and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Compared to similar awards from other parts of DOE, ARPA-E awards are significantly more likely to jointly produce both a publication and a patent. ARPA-E has been highly productive in creating new technology, while also contributing new scientific knowledge. This observation points to the productive overlap of science and technology in energy research and, more generally, for mission-oriented research funding organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Goldstein, Anna P. & Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, 2018. "Simultaneous pursuit of discovery and invention in the US Department of Energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1505-1512.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:8:p:1505-1512
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318301306
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    2. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    3. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    4. Luís M. A. Bettencourt & Javier Gonzales, 2016. "Science and Practice for Thriving Cities," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 11(1-2), pages 20-30, Winter-Sp.
    5. Laura Diaz Anadon & Kelly Sims Gallagher & John P. Holdren, 2017. "Rescue US energy innovation," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 760-763, October.
    6. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    7. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    8. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & William E. Griffiths & Adam B. Jaffe & Elizabeth Webster, 2021. "Low-Quality Patents in the Eye of the Beholder: Evidence from Multiple Examiners," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 607-636.
    9. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Barry Bozeman & Craig Boardman, 2004. "The NSF Engineering Research Centers and the University--Industry Research Revolution: A Brief History Featuring an Interview with Erich Bloch," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(3_4), pages 365-375, August.
    11. Richard Williams, 2012. "Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(2), pages 308-331, June.
    12. Fehder, Daniel C. & Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2014. "Intellectual property rights and the evolution of scientific journals as knowledge platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 83-94.
    13. Laura Diaz Anadon & Gabriel Chan & Amitai Y. Bin-Nun & Venkatesh Narayanamurti, 2016. "The pressing energy innovation challenge of the US National Laboratories," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(10), pages 1-8, October.
    14. Zuraimi Md. Rozdi & Che Nidzam Che Ahmad & Zulkifley Mohamed, 2016. "Competency Model of Science Teacher in 21st Century," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6(12), pages 33-38, December.
    15. Oecd, 2016. "How does PISA assess science literacy?," PISA in Focus 66, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    2. Watson, Anna, 2022. "Designing publicly funded organisations for accelerated low carbon innovation: A case study of the ETI, UK and ARPA-E, US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoît Weil, 2022. "Mécanismes de découvertes – inventions dans la recherche industrielle : aux origines de CRISPR-Cas9 dans l’industrie agroalimentaire," Post-Print hal-03727323, HAL.
    4. Jinhuan Tian & Yan Dong & Gianluca Vagnani & Peizhong Liu, 2023. "Green innovation and the stock market value of heavily polluting firms: The role of environmental compliance costs and technological collaboration," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4938-4953, November.
    5. Plantec, Quentin & Cabanes, Benjamin & le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoit, 2023. "Early-career academic engagement in university–industry collaborative PhDs: Research orientation and project performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    6. Jean-Alain Héraud & Nathalie Popiolek, 2022. "Research management models to promote breakthrough innovation: analyzing success case stories of simultaneous discovery-invention research processes," Working Papers of BETA 2022-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    7. Yu, Nannan & Dong, Yueyan & de Jong, Martin, 2022. "A helping hand from the government? How public research funding affects academic output in less-prestigious universities in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    8. Pierre Azoulay & Erica Fuchs & Anna P. Goldstein & Michael Kearney, 2018. "Funding Breakthrough Research: Promises and Challenges of the "ARPA Model"," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 19, pages 69-96, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2019. "The role of participating in user-driven research projects on scholar's academic performances: a model through C-K design theory," Post-Print hal-02165721, HAL.
    10. Goldstein, Anna P. & Kearney, Michael, 2020. "Know when to fold ‘em: An empirical description of risk management in public research funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    11. Quentin Plantec & Benjamin Cabanes & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Market-Pull Or Research Push? Effects Of Research Orientations On University-Industry Collaborative Ph.D. Projects' Performances," Post-Print halshs-03190142, HAL.
    12. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2019. "Inventions and Scientific Discoveries: Impact of Designers’ Collaborations on Creativity. An Analysis Towards Fixation Effects," Post-Print hal-02262242, HAL.
    13. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Another way to get the Nobel Prize: the role of the industry in the emergence of new scientific breakthroughs," Post-Print halshs-03278662, HAL.
    14. Hoppmann, Joern, 2021. "Hand in hand to Nowhereland? How the resource dependence of research institutes influences their co-evolution with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    15. Svetlana Klessova & Sebastian Engell & Catherine Thomas, 2022. "Dynamics of couplings and their implications in inter-organizational multi-actor research and innovation projects," Post-Print hal-03690108, HAL.
    16. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoît Weil, 2022. "Nobel laurates and the role of the industry in the emergence of new scientific breakthroughs," Post-Print hal-03727378, HAL.
    17. Doblinger, Claudia & Surana, Kavita & Anadon, Laura Diaz, 2019. "Governments as partners: The role of alliances in U.S. cleantech startup innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1458-1475.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    2. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    3. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    5. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Lim, Kwanghui & Soh, Pek-Hooi, 2013. "When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 595-612.
    6. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    7. He, Vivianna Fang & von Krogh, Georg & Sirén, Charlotta & Gersdorf, Thomas, 2021. "Asymmetries between partners and the success of university-industry research collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    8. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    10. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    11. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    12. Zhao, Shengchao & Zeng, Deming & Li, Jian & Feng, Ke & Wang, Yao, 2023. "Quantity or quality: The roles of technology and science convergence on firm innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    13. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    14. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Subramanian, Annapoornima M., 2014. "When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 807-821.
    15. Juranek, Steffen, 2018. "Investing in legal advice," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 28-46.
    16. Anupama Phene & Stephen Tallman, 2014. "Knowledge Spillovers and Alliance Formation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1058-1090, November.
    17. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    18. Sorenson, Olav & Fleming, Lee, 2004. "Science and the diffusion of knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1615-1634, December.
    19. Shen, Yung-Chi & Wang, Ming-Yeu & Yang, Ya-Chu, 2020. "Discovering the potential opportunities of scientific advancement and technological innovation: A case study of smart health monitoring technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    20. Jung, Hyun Ju & Lee, Jeongsik “Jay”, 2014. "The impacts of science and technology policy interventions on university research: Evidence from the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 74-91.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:8:p:1505-1512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.