Triple helix selection in the regional innovation systems field. In memoriam: Loet Leydesdorff

My first academic collaboration with Loet was in 2002 when we had been invited to provide the guest editorial for a Special Issue of The Journal of Technology Transfer (JTT). The occasion for this was a conference held in San Sebastian-Donostia and was entitled ‘Technology Transfer in European Regions’—Leydesdorff et al. (J Technol Transf 27(1):5–13, 2002). The issue contained a number of case studies of ‘regional innovation systems’ within the European Union. Other papers elaborated on the pros and cons of the systemic approach to ‘technology transfer’ processes involved, or made comparisons across regions. In this introduction, we editors discussed the relations between regional policies, technology and innovation policies, and the integration of these different aspects into (potentially) regional systems of innovation. ‘Technology Transfer’ was less dated a concept than now, not least because technology ‘learning’ in those days was much more about getting hold of usable technology. Later it became, first, ‘knowledge transfer’ then by 2010 ‘knowledge management’ and after that, a whole new industry of ‘knowledge intensive business services’ (KIBS) had grown, subject by now to its own widespread critiques (Bogdanich and Forsythe in When McKinsey comes to town: the hidden influence of the world’s most powerful consulting firm, Bodley Head, London, 2022).