supplemental material matter.pdf · references r 305 references 1. grimaldi r, kenney m, siegel ds,...

Supplemental material

S

303


Chapter 5Available online at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zph.12352S5.1. List of participants. S5.2. Search syntax literature study.S5.3. Reference list literature studyS5.4. Sources of innovation barriers.

Chapter 6-IIAvailable online at: https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2016.64S6.1. Exclusion criteriaS6.2. Unmet need category classification

Chapter 7Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006387S7.1. List of research needsS7.2. Priority groups corrected for unequal group sizes

Chapter 8Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phanu.2018.02.001S8.1. Interview topic list

Chapter 9Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phanu.2018.02.001S9.A. Number of universities per country in sample and in surveyS9.B. Kruskal-Wallis test on percentages attributed for different activities

Chapter 10Available upon requestS10.1. Search syntax for motivational driversS10.2. Literature researchS10.3. Articles included in literature reviewS10.4. Independent variables: motivational driversS10.5. Dependent variables: performance indicatorsS10.6. Correlations between the variablesS10.7. Model coefficients for the mediating effect of effort on the relation between motivation

and performance


S

304

Chapter 11Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195885S11.1. Model of email used to contact participants.S11.2. Description of the research on the COMPARE website.S11.3. Interview guide.S11.4. Coding guide.

Chapter 13Available online at: https: // doi. org/ 10. 1016/ j. vaccine. 2018. 10. 061S13.1. Expertise of interviewee respondentsS13.2. Demographic characteristics of survey respondentsS13.3. External criteria and sub-criteria for gatesS13.4. Internal criteria and sub-criteria for defined gatesS13.5. Internal criteria and sub-criteria for undefined gatesS13.6. Internal criteria and sub-criteria for monitoring gates

References

R

305

References

1. Grimaldi R, Kenney M, Siegel DS, Wright M. 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy. 2011;40(8):1045-57.

2. Grimpe C, Hussinger K. Formal and Informal Knowledge and Technology Transfer from Academia to Industry: Complementarity Effects and Innovation Performance. Industry & Innovation. 2013;20(8):683-700.

3. Wissema JG. Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009.

4. McClellan JE. Science reorganized: Scientific societies in the eighteenth century: Columbia University Press; 1985.

5. Guston DH. Retiring the social contract for science. Issues in Science and Technology. 2000;16(4):32-6.6. Bush V. Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-). 1945;48(3):231-

64.7. Arrow KJ. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. Readings in Industrial Economics:

Springer; 1972. p. 219-36.8. Nelson RR. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of political economy. 1959;67(3):297-

306.9. Lubchenco J. Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science. Science.

1998;279(5350):491.10. Braun D, Guston DH. Principal-agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and Public Policy.

2003;30(5):302-8.11. Geuna A. The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended

Consequences? Journal of Economic Issues. 2001;35(3):607-32.12. Vavakova B. The new social contract between governments, universities and society: has the old one failed?

Minerva. 1998;36(3):209-28.13. Ziman J. The continuing need for disinterested research. Science and engineering ethics. 2002;8(3):397-9.14. Martin BR. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. Science and

innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. 2003:7-29.15. Demeritt D. The new social contract for science: accountability, relevance, and value in US and UK science

and research policy. Antipode. 2000;32(3):308-29.16. Laredo P. Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university

activities? Higher education policy. 2007;20(4):441-56.17. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities:

an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research policy. 2001;30(1):99-119.18. Mowery DC, Sampat BN. University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925–1980. Industrial and

corporate change. 2001;10(3):781-814.19. Keeling R. The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European Commission’s expanding role

in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education. 2006;41(2):203-23.20. Geuna A, Muscio A. The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature.

Minerva. 2009;47(1):93-114.21. Faasse P. Profiel van een faculteit: De Utrechtse bètawetenschappen 1815-2011: Uitgeverij Verloren; 2012.22. Sivertsen G. Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international

perspective. Palgrave Communications. 2017;3:17078.23. Bozeman B. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy.

2000;29(4):627-55.24. Roessner J. Technology transfer. Science and technology policy in the US A time of change Longman, London.

2000.25. Slaughter S, Leslie LL. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university: ERIC; 1997.26. Mars MM, Rios-Aguilar C. Academic entrepreneurship (re)defined: significance and implications for the

scholarship of higher education. Higher Education. 2010;59(4):441-60.27. Benneworth P, Jongbloed BW. Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts

and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education. 2010;59(5):567-88.28. De Jong S. Engaging scientists: organising valorisation in the Netherlands2015.

References

R

306

29. Hladchenko M. Knowledge valorisation: A route of knowledge that ends in surplus value (an example of the Netherlands). International Journal of Educational Management. 2016;30(5):668-78.

30. Van Geenhuizen M. Valorisation of knowledge: preliminary results on valorisation paths and obstacles in bringing university knowledge to market. 2010.

31. Olmos-Peñuela J, Castro-Martínez E, D’Este P. Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy. 2014;43(4):696-706.

32. Bernell S, Howard SW. Use Your Words Carefully: What Is a Chronic Disease? Frontiers in Public Health. 2016;4:159.

33. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2011;104(12):510-20.

34. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Sussex J, Towse A. The R&D cost of a new medicine. Monographs. 2012.35. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs.

Journal of Health Economics. 2003;22(2):151-85.36. Adams CP, Brantner VV. Estimating The Cost Of New Drug Development: Is It Really $802 Million? Health

Affairs. 2006;25(2):420-8.37. Pronker E, Weenen T, Commandeur H, Osterhaus A, Claassen H. The gold industry standard for risk and

cost of drug and vaccine development revisited. Vaccine. 2011;29(35):5846-9.38. Williams M. Productivity Shortfalls in Drug Discovery: Contributions from the Preclinical Sciences? Journal

of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2011;336(1):3.39. Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency.

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2012;11:191.40. Arrowsmith J. Phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2011;10:328.41. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, et al. How to improve R&D

productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2010;9:203.42. DeRuiter J, Holston PL. Drug patent expirations and the “patent cliff”. US Pharm. 2012;37(6):12-20.43. Fernald KDS, Weenen TC, Sibley KJ, Claassen E. Limits of Biotechnological Innovation. Technology and

Investment. 2013;04(03):168-78.44. Tollman P, Morieux Y, Murphy JK, Schulze U. Identifying R&D outliers. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

2011;10:653.45. Stevens AJ, Jensen JJ, Wyller K, Kilgore PC, Chatterjee S, Rohrbaugh ML. The Role of Public-Sector Research

in the Discovery of Drugs and Vaccines. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;364(6):535-41.46. Kneller R. The importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs. Nature

Reviews Drug Discovery. 2010;9(11):867.47. Meoli M, Paleari S, Vismara S. Completing the technology transfer process: M&As of science-based IPOs.

Small Business Economics. 2013;40(2):227-48.48. Fernald KD, Pennings HP, van den Bosch JF, Commandeur HR, Claassen E. The moderating role of

absorptive capacity and the differential effects of acquisitions and alliances on Big Pharma firms’ innovation performance. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172488.

49. Frearson J, Wyatt P. Drug discovery in academia: the third way? Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery. 2010;5(10):909-19.

50. Rafols I, Hopkins MM, Hoekman J, Siepel J, O’Hare A, Perianes-Rodríguez A, et al. Big Pharma, little science?: A bibliometric perspective on Big Pharma’s R&D decline. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2014;81:22-38.

51. Huryn DM. Drug Discovery in an Academic Setting: Playing to the Strengths. ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters. 2013;4(3):313-5.

52. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ntzani EE, Ioannidis JPA. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. The American Journal of Medicine. 2003;114(6):477-84.

53. Wang L, Plump A, Ringel M. Racing to define pharmaceutical R&D external innovation models. Drug Discovery Today. 2015;20(3):361-70.

54. Said M, Zerhouni E. The role of public–private partnerships in addressing the biomedical innovation challenge. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2014;13:789.

55. Sung NS, Crowley, Jr WF, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. Jama. 2003;289(10):1278-87.

References

R

307

56. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;348(26):2635-45.

57. Tollman P, Panier V, Dosik D, Biondi P, Cuss F. Organizational effectiveness: a key to R&D productivity. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2016;15:441.

58. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research—“blue highways” on the nih roadmap. Jama. 2007;297(4):403-6.

59. Sarewitz D. Saving science. The New Atlantis. 2016;49:4-40.60. Frye S, Crosby M, Edwards T, Juliano R. US academic drug discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

2011;10:409.61. Vallance P. Industry–Academic Relationship in a New Era of Drug Discovery. Journal of Clinical Oncology.

2016;34(29):3570-5.62. Markham SK. Moving Technologies from Lab To Market. Research-Technology Management. 2002;45(6):31-

42.63. Ungar T, Marcus M. The innovation forager: stimulating academic innovation. Academic Medicine.

2014;89(2):194.64. Goodman M. Pharmaceutical industry financial performance. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2009;8:927.65. Kessel M. The problems with today’s pharmaceutical business—an outsider’s view. Nature biotechnology.

2011;29:27.66. Arora A, Belenzon S, Patacconi A. Killing the golden goose? The decline of science in corporate R&D. National

Bureau of Economic Research; 2015.67. Teece DJ. Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: the role of enterprise-level knowledge,

complementarities, and (dynamic) capabilities. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. 1: Elsevier; 2010. p. 679-730.

68. Geuna A, Nesta LJ. University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research policy. 2006;35(6):790-807.

69. Dosi G, Llerena P, Labini MS. The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy. 2006;35(10):1450-64.

70. Sam C, van der Sijde P. Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education. 2014;68(6):891-908.

71. Freedman S, Mullane K. The academic–industrial complex: navigating the translational and cultural divide. Drug Discovery Today. 2017;22(7):976-93.

72. Bruneel J, D’Este P, Salter A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy. 2010;39(7):858-68.

73. Janero D. Positioning for Success in University-Industry Drug-Discovery Collaborations: Initiatives towards Effective Trans-Constituency Team Science. Int J Drug Dev & Res. 2015;7(4):60-5.

74. Volk H-D, Stevens MM, Mooney DJ, Grainger DW, Duda GN. Key elements for nourishing the translational research environment. Science Translational Medicine. 2015;7(282):282cm2.

75. Guns P-J, Joossens J. Intellectual property management in academic drug discovery: what are the challenges? Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst. 2016;5(2):83-5.

76. Dahlin JL, Inglese J, Walters MA. Mitigating risk in academic preclinical drug discovery. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2015;14(4):279-94.

77. Everett JR. Academic drug discovery: current status and prospects. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery. 2015;10(9):937-44.

78. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531.

79. Horrobin DF. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2003;2:151.

80. Cuatrecasas P. Drug discovery in jeopardy. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2006;116(11):2837-42.81. Arrowsmith J. A decade of change. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2012;11:17.82. Godin B. The Linear model of innovation the historical construction of an analytical framework. Science,

Technology & Human Values. 2006;31(6):639-67.83. Balconi M, Brusoni S, Orsenigo L. In defence of the linear model: An essay. Research Policy. 2010;39(1):1-13.84. Stokes DE. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation: Brookings Institution Press;

1997.

References

R

308

85. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy. 1997;24(1):2-5.

86. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management. 2009;46(3-4):201-34.

87. Bunders JFG, Broerse JEW, Zweekhorst MBM. The Triple Helix Enriched with the User Perspective: A View from Bangladesh. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 1999;24(2):235-46.

88. Ahmadpoor M, Jones BF. The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science. 2017;357(6351):583.

89. Lazonick W, Mazzucato M. The risk-reward nexus in the innovation-inequality relationship: who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards? Industrial and Corporate Change. 2013;22(4):1093-128.

90. van den Nieuwboer M, van de Burgwal LHM, Claassen E. A quantitative key-opinion-leader analysis of innovation barriers in probiotic research and development: Valorisation and improving the tech transfer cycle. PharmaNutrition. 2016;4(1):9-18.

91. Rizzo U, Barbieri N, Ramaciotti L, Iannantuono D. The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions. SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies; 2017.

92. Audretsch DB, Keilbach M. Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy. 2008;37(10):1697-705.

93. Etzkowitz H. The new visible hand: An assisted linear model of science and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy. 2006;33(5):310-20.

94. Kok MO, Gyapong JO, Wolffers I, Ofori-Adjei D, Ruitenberg J. Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases. Health research policy and systems / BioMed Central. 2016;14(1):36.

95. Kline SJ. Innovation is not a linear process Research management. 1985;28(4):36-45.96. Schoenmakers W, Duysters G. The technological origins of radical inventions. Research Policy. 2010;39(8):1051-

9.97. Mendling J, Reijers HA, Cardoso J. What makes process models understandable? Business Process

Management: Springer; 2007. p. 48-63.98. Soete L, Verspagen B, ter Weel B. Chapter 27 - Systems of Innovation. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg N, editors.

Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. 2: North-Holland; 2010. p. 1159-80.99. Jefferson R. Comment: Turning science into social outcomes. Nature. 2017;548:S8.100. Jongbloed B, Enders J, Salerno C. Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies

and a research agenda. Higher Education. 2008;56(3):303-24.101. Matthiessen L, Lång H, Klimathianaki M, Hanrahan F, Kerstiëns B, Martini A, et al. European strategy for

vaccine development against infectious diseases. Vaccine. 2017;35:A20-A3.102. Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM. Functions of innovation systems: A new

approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2007;74(4):413-32.

103. Kaufmann A, Tödtling F. Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy. 2001;30(5):791-804.

104. Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research policy. 2000;29(2):313-30.

105. Pronker ES. Innovation Paradox in Vaccine Target Selection. Rotterdam: ERIM - Research in Management; 2013 11 April 2013. 129 p.

106. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. University ot ‘Chicago Press, Chicago. 1970.107. Claassen E. Valorisation at the EUR. In: Bergeijk PAGv, Johnson L, editors. Social impact @ sciences: The end

of the ivory tower? Den Haag: ISS; 2014. p. 30-9.108. Claassen E. Valorization at the EUR. In: van Bergeijk PAG, Johnson L, editors. Social impact @ sciences: the

end of the ivory tower? The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies (ISS); 2014.109. Garud R. On the distinction between know-how, know-what, and know-why. Advances in strategic

management. 1997;14:81-102.110. Khurana A, Rosenthal Stephen R. Towards Holistic “Front Ends” In New Product Development. Journal of

Product Innovation Management. 2003;15(1):57-74.111. Eling K, Herstatt C. Managing the Front End of Innovation-Less Fuzzy, Yet Still Not Fully Understood.

Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2017;34(6):864-74.

References

R

309

112. Park S, LiPuma JA, Prange C. Venture capitalist and entrepreneur knowledge of new venture internationalization: A review of knowledge components. International Small Business Journal. 2015;33(8):901-28.

113. Ambos Tina C, Mäkelä K, Birkinshaw J, D’Este P. When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions. Journal of Management Studies. 2008;45(8):1424-47.

114. Miller K, McAdam R, McAdam M. A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R&D Management. 2016;48(1):7-24.

115. Baxter P, Jack S. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report. 2008;13(4):544-59.

116. Regeer BJ, Hoes A-C, van Amstel-van Saane M, Caron-Flinterman FF, Bunders JF. Six guiding principles for evaluating mode-2 strategies for sustainable development. American Journal of Evaluation. 2009;30(4):515-37.

117. Yin RK. Case study research design and methods. Applied social research methods series. 2003;5.118. Eisenhardt KM. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review.

1989;14(4):532-50.119. McNamee LM, Ledley FD. Patterns of technological innovation in biotech. Nature biotechnology. 2012;30:937.120. Weenen TC, Fernald K, Pronker ES, Commandeur H, Claassen E. Bridging a Pharma-Like Innovation Gap in

Medical Nutrition. Pharma-Nutrition: Springer; 2014. p. 29-52.121. Mansfield E. Technical change and the rate of imitation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society.

1961:741-66.122. Bloom DE. The value of vaccination. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2011;697:1-8.123. Rappuoli R, Medaglini D. ADITEC: Joining Forces for Next-Generation Vaccines. Science Translational

Medicine. 2012;4(128):128cm4-cm4.124. Ramezanpour B, Riemens T, Van de Burgwal L, Claassen E. An interdisciplinary analysis of genetically

modified vaccines: from clinical trials to market. International Journal of Clinical Trials. 2015;2(4):64-74.125. Mariner JC, House JA, Mebus CA, Sollod AE, Chibeu D, Jones BA, et al. Rinderpest Eradication: Appropriate

Technology and Social Intervention. Science. 2012;337(6100):1309-12.126. Hicks DJ, Fooks AR, Johnson N. Developments in rabies vaccines. Clinical & Experimental Immunology.

2012;169(3):199-204.127. Wu X, Smith TG, Rupprecht CE. From brain passage to cell adaptation- the road of human rabies vaccine

development. Expert Review Vaccines. 2011;10(11).128. World Health Organization. WHO Expert Consultation on Rabies: second report. World Health Organ Tech

Rep Ser. 2013;982:1-139.129. Lembo T, Hampson K, Kaare MT, Ernest E, Knobel D, Kazwala RR, et al. The Feasibility of Canine Rabies

Elimination in Africa: Dispelling Doubts with Data. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2010;4(2):e626.130. Kim BI, Blanton JD, Gilbert A, Castrodale L, Hueffer K, Slate D, et al. A Conceptual Model for the Impact of

Climate Change on Fox Rabies in Alaska, 1980-2010. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014;61(1):72-80.131. Foligné B, Daniel C, Pot B. Probiotics from research to market: the possibilities, risks and challenges. Current

Opinion in Microbiology. 2013;16(3):284-92.132. Sanders ME, Guarner F, Guerrant R, Holt PR, Quigley EMM, Sartor RB, et al. An update on the use and

investigation of probiotics in health and disease. Gut. 2013;62(5):787.133. Hoffmann DE, Fraser CM, Palumbo FB, Ravel J, Rothenberg K, Rowthorn V, et al. Probiotics: Finding the

Right Regulatory Balance. Science. 2013;342(6156):314.134. Bornkessel S, Bröring S, Omta SWF. Analysing indicators of industry convergence in four probiotics

innovation value chains. Journal on Chain and Network Science. 2014;14(3):213-29.135. Sane J, Edelstein M. Overcoming barriers to data sharing in public health. A global perspective Chatham

House. 2015.136. Strauss S. Ebola research fueled by bioterrorism threat. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal =

journal de l’Association medicale canadienne. 2014;186(16):1206.137. Grepin KA. International donations to the Ebola virus outbreak: too little, too late? Bmj. 2015;350:h376.138. Krogstie J, Sindre G, Jørgensen H. Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality

framework. European Journal of Information Systems. 2006;15(1):91-102.139. Nelson HJ, Poels G, Genero M, Piattini M. A conceptual modeling quality framework. Software Quality

Journal. 2012;20(1):201-28.

References

R

310

140. Moody DL. Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering. 2005;55(3):243-76.

141. Delcambre L, Kop C, Mayr HC, Mylopoulos J, Pastor O, editors. Conceptual Modeling-ER. 24th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, ; 2005; Klagenfurt, Austria. : Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

142. Kesari M, Chang S, Seddon PB. A content-analytic study of the advantages and disadvantages of process modelling. ACIS 2003 Proceedings. 2003:2.

143. Lindsay A, Downs D, Lunn K. Business processes—attempts to find a definition. Information and software technology. 2003;45(15):1015-9.

144. Luo W, Alex Tung Y. A framework for selecting business process modeling methods. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 1999;99(7):312-9.

145. Ould MA. Business Processes: Modelling and analysis for re-engineering and improvement: Wiley Chichester; 1995.

146. de Oca IM-M, Snoeck M, Reijers HA, Rodríguez-Morffi A. A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Information and Software Technology. 2015;58:187-205.

147. Ranjan J, Gera R. Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. International Journal of Educational Management. 2012;26(3):252-73.

148. Aken JEv. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field‐tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of management studies. 2004;41(2):219-46.

149. Flagg JL, Lane JP, Lockett MM. Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model: an evidence-based framework for generating technological innovations with socio-economic impacts. Implementation Science 81 (2013): 21. 2013;8(21).

150. Hussler C, Picard F, Tang MF. Taking the ivory from the tower to coat the economic world: Regional strategies to make science useful. Technovation. 2010;30(9-10):508-18.

151. Riege AM. Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 2003;6(2):75-86.

152. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11(8):506-14.

153. Caselli M, Cassol F, Calò G, Holton J, Zuliani G, Gasbarrini A. Actual concept of “probiotics”: Is it more functional to science or business? World journal of gastroenterology: WJG. 2013;19(10):1527.

154. Floch MH. Recommendations for probiotic use in humans—a 2014 update. Pharmaceuticals. 2014;7(10):999-1007.

155. Sanders ME, Klaenhammer TR, Ouwehand AC, Pot B, Johansen E, Heimbach JT, et al. Effects of genetic, processing, or product formulation changes on efficacy and safety of probiotics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2014;1309(1):1-18.

156. Begun JW, Zimmerman B, Dooley K. Health care organizations as complex adaptive systems. Advances in health care organization theory. 2003;253:288.

157. West MA. The social psychology of innovation in groups. 1990.158. Länsisalmi H, Kivimäki M, Aalto P, Ruoranen R. Innovation in healthcare: a systematic review of recent

research. Nursing science quarterly. 2006;19(1):66-72.159. Guandalini S. Probiotics for prevention and treatment of diarrhea. Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

2011;45:S149-S53.160. AlFaleh K, Anabrees J. Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants. Evidence‐

Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. 2014;9(3):584-671.161. Guarner F, Sanders ME, Gibson G, Klaenhammer T, Cabana M, Scott K, et al. Probiotic and prebiotic claims

in Europe: seeking a clear roadmap. British Journal of Nutrition. 2011;106(11):1765-7.162. Glanville J, King S, Guarner F, Hill C, Sanders ME. A review of the systematic review process and its

applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union. Nutrition journal. 2015;14(1):16.

163. Weenen TC, Pronker ES, Commandeur HR, Claassen E. Barriers to innovation in the medical nutrition industry: A quantitative key opinion leader analysis. PharmaNutrition. 2013;1(3):79-85.

164. Hadjimanolis A. The barrier approach to innovation. In: Shavinina LV, editor. The International Handbook on Innovation. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2003. p. 559-73.

165. Dehzad F, Hilhorst C, de Bie C, Claassen E. Adopting Health Apps, What’s Hindering Doctors and Patients? Health. 2014;06(16):2204-17.

166. Hadjimanolis A. Barriers to innovation for SMEs in a small less developed country (Cyprus). Technovation. 1999;19(9):561-70.

References

R

311

167. Verschuren P, Doorewaard H, Mellion M. Designing a research project: Eleven International Publishing House; 2010.

168. Van Baarlen P, Troost FJ, van Hemert S, van der Meer C, de Vos WM, de Groot PJ, et al. Differential NF-κB pathways induction by Lactobacillus plantarum in the duodenum of healthy humans correlating with immune tolerance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009:pnas. 0809919106.

169. Hibberd PL, Davidson L. Probiotic foods and drugs: impact of US regulatory status on design of clinical trials. Clinical infectious diseases. 2008;46(Supplement_2):S137-S40.

170. Katan M. Why the European Food Safety Authority was right to reject health claims for probiotics. Beneficial microbes. 2012;3(2):85-9.

171. Arumugam M, Raes J, Pelletier E, Le Paslier D, Yamada T, Mende DR, et al. Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. nature. 2011;473(7346):174.

172. Lozupone CA, Stombaugh JI, Gordon JI, Jansson JK, Knight R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature. 2012;489(7415):220.

173. Flynn A. Scientific substantiation of health claims in the EU. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2012;71(1):120-6.

174. Arora M, Baldi A. Regulatory categories of probiotics across the globe: a review representing existing and recommended categorization. Indian journal of medical microbiology. 2015;33(5):2.

175. Bove P, Russo P, Capozzi V, Gallone A, Spano G, Fiocco D. Lactobacillus plantarum passage through an oro-gastro-intestinal tract simulator: carrier matrix effect and transcriptional analysis of genes associated to stress and probiosis. Microbiological research. 2013;168(6):351-9.

176. Herody C, Soyeux Y, Hansen EB, Gillies K. The legal status of microbial food cultures in the European Union: an overview. European Food and Feed Law Review. 2010:258-69.

177. Bandura A. The primacy of self‐regulation in health promotion. Applied Psychology. 2005;54(2):245-54.178. Carr J, Ibrahim SA. Viability of bifidobacteria in commercial yogurt products in North Carolina.

Milchwissenschaft. 2005;60(4):414-6.179. Mellentin J. Failures in Functional Foods: 10 Key Case Studies & 10 Key Lessons: New Nutrition Business;

2007.180. Van den Nieuwboer M, Brummer RJ, Guarner F, Morelli L, Cabana M, Claasen E. The administration of

probiotics and synbiotics in immune compromised adults: is it safe? Benef Microbes. 2015;6(1):3-17.181. Van den Nieuwboer M, Claassen E, Morelli L, Guarner F, Brummer R. Probiotic and synbiotic safety in

infants under two years of age. Beneficial microbes. 2014;5(1):45-60.182. Park S, Bae J-H. Probiotics for weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition Research.

2015;35(7):566-75.183. EFSA. Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition - Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims

related to live yoghurt cultures and improved lactose digestion (ID 1143, 2976) pursuant to Article 13 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal. 2010;8(10):1763.

184. Health Canada. Retrieved from: http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/nhpid-bdipsn/atReq.do?atid=probio&lang=eng2012 [

185. Salminen S, Van Loveren H. Probiotics and prebiotics: health claim substantiation. Microbial ecology in health and disease. 2012;23(1):18568.

186. Miquel S, Beaumont M, Martín R, Langella P, Braesco V, Thomas M. A proposed framework for an appropriate evaluation scheme for microorganisms as novel foods with a health claim in Europe. Microbial cell factories. 2015;14(1):48.

187. Schnell MJ, McGettigan JP, Wirblich C, Papaneri A. The cell biology of rabies virus: using stealth to reach the brain. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2010;8:51-61.

188. Knobel DL, Cleaveland S, Elizabeth M, Miranda G, Coleman PG, Shaw A, et al. Reevaluating the burden of rabies in Africa and Asia.pdf>. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(5):360-8.

189. Hampson K, Dobson A, Kaare M, Dushoff J, Magoto M, Sindoya E, et al. Rabies Exposures, Post-Exposure Prophylaxis and Deaths in a Region of Endemic Canine Rabies. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2008;2(11):e339.

190. Hampson K, Coudeville L, Lembo T, Sambo M, Kieffer A, Attlan M, et al. Estimating the Global Burden of Endemic Canine Rabies. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2015;9(4):e0003709.

191. Rebelo H, Tarroso P, Jones G. Predicted impact of climate change on European bats in relation to their biogeographic patterns. Global Change Biology. 2010;16(2):561-76.

References

R

312

192. World Health Organization. Rabies vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2010;85(309-320).193. Levine MM. “IDEAL” vaccines for resource poor settings. Vaccine. 2011;29:D116-D25.194. Kappagoda S, Ioannidis JPA. Neglected tropical diseases: survey and geometry of randomised evidence. Bmj.

2012;345(oct22 2):e6512-e.195. Bourhy H, Dautry-Varsat A, Hotez PJ, Salomon J. Rabies, still neglected after 125 years of vaccination. PLoS

Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(11):e839.196. Tidd J, Bessant J. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. 4th

ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2009.197. van Ark G, Klasen EC. Maatschappelijke Impact van Gezondheidsonderzoek. TSG. 2007;85(5):259-61.198. Corbin J, Strauss A. The grounded theory approach: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative

Sociology. 1990;13(1).199. Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organ Res Meth.

2013;16(1):15-31.200. Ertl HCJ. Novel Vaccines to Human Rabies. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2009;3(9):e515.201. GAVI. Rabies Vaccine Investment Strategy: Background Document 4. 2013.202. Frew SE, Liu VY, Singer PA. A Business Plan To Help The ‘Global South’ In Its Fight Against Neglected

Diseases. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(6):1760-73.203. Reperant LA, van de Burgwal LHM, Claassen E, Osterhaus AD. Ebola: public-private partnerships. Science.

2014;346(6208):433-4.204. Taylor L. Eliminating canine rabies: The role of public–private partnerships. Antiviral research. 2013;98(2):314-

8.205. Warrell MJ, Riddell A, Yu L-M, Phipps J, Diggle L, Bourhy H, et al. A Simplified 4-Site Economical Intradermal

Post-Exposure Rabies Vaccine Regimen: A Randomised Controlled Comparison with Standard Methods. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2008;2(4):e224.

206. Pronker ES. Innovation Paradox in Vaccine Target Selection. Rotterdam: ERIM - Research in Management; 2013 11 April 2013. 129 p.

207. Lee DN, Papeş M, Van Den Bussche RA. Present and Potential Future Distribution of Common Vampire Bats in the Americas and the Associated Risk to Cattle. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42466.

208. Cleaveland a, Lankester F, Townsend S, Lembo T, Hampson K. Rabies control and elimination: a test case for One Health. Veterinary Record. 2014;175(8):188-93.

209. Bogel K, Meslin FX. Economics of human and canine rabies elimination: guidelines for programme orientation. Bull World Health Organ. 1990;68:281-91.

210. Zinsstag J, Durr S, Penny MA, Mindekem R, Roth F, Gonzalez SM, et al. Transmission dynamics and economics of rabies control in dogs and humans in an African city. PNAS. 2009;106(35):14996-5001.

211. Abbas SS, Kakkar M, Rogawski ET. Costs Analysis of a Population Level Rabies Control Programme in Tamil Nadu, India. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2014;8(2):e2721.

212. Markandya A, Taylor T, Longo A, Murty MN, Murty S, Dhavala K. Counting the cost of vulture decline—An appraisal of the human health and other benefits of vultures in India. Ecological Economics. 2008;67(2):194-204.

213. Maenhoudt C, Santos NR, Fontbonne A. Suppression of Fertility in Adult Dogs. Reproduction in Domestic Animals. 2014;49(Suppl 2):58-63.

214. Evans JS, Horton DL, Easton AJ, Fooks AR, Banyard AC. Rabies virus vaccines: Is there a need for a pan-lyssavirus vaccine? Vaccine. 2012;30(52):7447-54.

215. Braun W. The system archetypes. The Systems Modeling Workbook2002.216. WHO. Barriers to rapid containment of the Ebola outbreak. 2014 11 August 2014.217. WHO. Ethical considerations for use of unregistered interventions for Ebola virus disease (EVD). 2014 12

August 2014.218. Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation. FDA modifies Tekmira’s TKM-Ebola clinical hold to partial hold. 7

August 2014.219. Reperant LA, Van de Burgwal LHM, Claassen E, Osterhaus ADME. Ebola: Public-private partnerships. Science.

2014;346(6208):433-4.220. Osterholm MT, Moore KA, Gostin LO. Public health in the age of ebola in West Africa. JAMA internal medicine.

2015;175(1):7-8.221. Siedner MJ, Gostin LO, Cranmer HH, Kraemer JD. Strengthening the Detection of and Early Response to Public

Health Emergencies: Lessons from the West African Ebola Epidemic. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001804.

References

R

313

222. Philips M, Markham Á. Ebola: a failure of international collective action. The Lancet. 2014;384(9949):1181.223. Larson C. China ramps up efforts to combat Ebola. ScienceInsider. 2014 3 November 2014.224. Burkle FM. Global health security demands a strong international health regulations treaty and leadership

from a highly resourced World Health Organization. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness. 2015:1-13.

225. Huggett B. Profiting from Pandemics. Nature biotechnology. 2009;27(6):491.226. Hampson K, Coudeville L, Lembo T, Sambo M, Kieffer A, Attlan M, et al. Estimating the global burden of

endemic canine rabies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(4):e0003709.227. Knobel DL, Cleaveland S, Elizabeth M, Miranda G, Coleman PG, Shaw A, et al. Reevaluating the burden of

rabies in Africa and Asia. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(5):360-8.228. Lembo T, Hampson K, Kaare MT, Ernest E, Knobel D, Kazwala RR, et al. The feasibility of canine rabies

elimination in Africa: dispelling doubts with data. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(2):e626.229. Belotto A, Leanes LF, Schneider MC, Tamayo H, Correa E. Overview of rabies in the Americas. Virus Research.

2005;111(1):5-12.230. Cleaveland S, Kaare M, Knobel D, Laurenson MK. Canine vaccination—Providing broader benefits for disease

control. Veterinary Microbiology. 2006;117(1):43-50.231. Zinsstag J, Durr S, Penny MA, Mindekem R, Roth F, Menendez Gonzalez S, et al. Transmission dynamics and

economics of rabies control in dogs and humans in an African city. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(35):14996-5001.

232. Hampson K, Dushoff J, Cleaveland S, Haydon DT, Kaare M, Packer C, et al. Transmission dynamics and prospects for the elimination of canine rabies. PLoS Biol. 2009;7(3):e53.

233. Davlin SL, VonVille HM. Canine rabies vaccination and domestic dog population characteristics in the developing world: A systematic review. Vaccine. 2012;30(24):3492-502.

234. Frieden TR. A Framework for Public Health Action: The Health Impact Pyramid. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(4):590-5.

235. World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia. Priority Areas for Research in Communicable Diseases. New Delhi; 2009.

236. World Health Organization. Research priorities for Zoonoses and Marginalized Infections. 2012.237. World Health Organization. Investing to overcome the global impact of neglected tropical diseases: third WHO

report on neglected tropical diseases. 2015.238. Balabanova Y, Gilsdorf A, Buda S, Burger R, Eckmanns T, Gartner B, et al. Communicable diseases prioritized

for surveillance and epidemiological research: results of a standardized prioritization procedure in Germany, 2011. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25691.

239. van den Nieuwboer M, Browne PD, Claassen E. Patient needs and research priorities in probiotics: A quantitative KOL prioritization analysis with emphasis on infants and children. PharmaNutrition. 2016;4(1):19-28.

240. Weenen TC, Jentink A, Pronker ES, Commandeur HR, Claassen E, Boirie Y, et al. Patient needs and research priorities in the enteral nutrition market - a quantitative prioritization analysis. Clinical nutrition. 2014;33(5):793-801.

241. Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2010;8(36).

242. Jenkins CD. Principles of Community Health Intervention. Building better health: A Handbook of Behavioral Change. Washington D. C.: Pan American Health Organisation; 2003.

243. Scholthof KBG. The disease triangle: pathogens, the environment and society. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2007;5:152-6.

244. Saldaña J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3th ed. Seaman J, editor. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2015.

245. De Benedictis P, Minola A, Rota Nodari E, Aiello R, Zecchin B, Salomoni A, et al. Development of broad-spectrum human monoclonal antibodies for rabies post-exposure prophylaxis. EMBO Mol Med. 2016;8(4):407-21.

246. Terryn S, Francart A, Rommelaere H, Stortelers C, Van Gucht S. Post-exposure Treatment with Anti-rabies VHH and Vaccine Significantly Improves Protection of Mice from Lethal Rabies Infection. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016;10(8):e0004902.

247. Muthiani Y, Traore A, Mauti S, Zinsstag J, Hattendorf J. Low coverage of central point vaccination against dog rabies in Bamako, Mali. Prev Vet Med. 2015;120(2):203-9.

References

R

314

248. Léchenne M, Oussiguere A, Naissengar K, Mindekem R, Mosimann L, Rives G, et al. Operational performance and analysis of two rabies vaccination campaigns in N’Djamena, Chad. Vaccine. 2016;34(4):571-7.

249. Castillo-Neyra R, Brown J, Borrini K, Arevalo C, Levy MZ, Buttenheim A, et al. Barriers to dog rabies vaccination during an urban rabies outbreak: Qualitative findings from Arequipa, Peru. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2017;11(3):e0005460.

250. Wijaya L, Tham CYL, Chan YFZ, Wong AWL, Li LT, Wang L-F, et al. An accelerated rabies vaccine schedule based on toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3) agonist PIKA adjuvant augments rabies virus specific antibody and T cell response in healthy adult volunteers. Vaccine. 2017;35(8):1175-83.

251. Levine MM. “IDEAL” vaccines for resource poor settings. Vaccine. 2011;29 Suppl 4:D116-25.252. Coffey PS, Metzler M, Islam Z, Koehlmoos TP. Willingness to pay for a 4% chlorhexidine (7.1% chlorhexidine

digluconate) product for umbilical cord care in rural Bangladesh: a contingency valuation study. BMC International Health and Human Rights. 2013;13(44).

253. Nelson JC, Bittner RC, Bounds L, Zhao S, Baggs J, Donahue JG, et al. Compliance with multiple-dose vaccine schedules among older children, adolescents, and adults: results from a vaccine safety datalink study. Am J Public Health. 2009;99 Suppl 2:S389-97.

254. Balaram D, Taylor LH, Doyle KAS, Davidson E, Nel LH. World Rabies Day – a decade of raising awareness. Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines. 2016;2(1):19.

255. Baum SE, Machalaba C, Daszak P, Salerno RH, Karesh WB. Evaluating one health: Are we demonstrating effectiveness? One Health. 2017;3:5-10.

256. van de Burgwal LH, Neevel AM, Pittens CA, Osterhaus AD, Rupprecht CE, Claassen E. Barriers to innovation in human rabies prophylaxis and treatment: A causal analysis of insights from key opinion leaders and literature. Zoonoses Public Health. 2017;64(8):599-611..

257. Martin BR. The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation. 2011;20(3):247-54.

258. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotech. 2014;32(1):40-51.

259. Pronker E, Weenen T, Commandeur H, Claassen E, Osterhaus ADME. Scratching the surface: Exploratory analysis of key opinion leaders on rate limiting factors in novel adjuvanted-vaccine development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2015;90(Part B):420-32.

260. Cukierman E, Pankov R, Stevens DR, Yamada KM. Taking cell-matrix adhesions to the third dimension. Science. 2001;294(5547):1708-12.

261. Fitzgerald KA, Malhotra M, Curtin CM, O’Brien FJ, O’Driscoll CM. Life in 3D is never flat: 3D models to optimise drug delivery. Journal of Controlled Release. 2015;215:39-54.

262. Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. Jama. 2006;296(14):1727-32.

263. Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. Bmj. 2007;334(7586):197.

264. Stirland DL, Nichols JW, Miura S, Bae YH. Mind the gap: a survey of how cancer drug carriers are susceptible to the gap between research and practice. Journal of controlled release. 2013;172(3):1045-64.

265. Van den Nieuwboer M, Van de Burgwal L, Claassen E. A quantitative key-opinion-leader analysis of innovation barriers in probiotic research and development: valorisation and improving the tech transfer cycle. PharmaNutrition. 2016;4(1):9-18.

266. Weenen T, Ramezanpour B, Pronker ES, Commandeur H, Claassen E. Food-Pharma Convergence in Medical Nutrition–Best of Both Worlds? PloS one. 2013;8(12):e82609.

267. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, et al. Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies? PLOS Medicine. 2010;7(3):e1000245.

268. Mullane K, Williams M. Animal models of asthma: reprise or reboot? Biochemical pharmacology. 2014;87(1):131-9.

269. Webb DR. Animal models of human disease: Inflammation. Biochemical Pharmacology. 2014;87(1):121-30.270. McGonigle P. Animal models of CNS disorders. Biochemical Pharmacology. 2014;87(1):140-9.271. Kim HJ, Li H, Collins JJ, Ingber DE. Contributions of microbiome and mechanical deformation to intestinal

bacterial overgrowth and inflammation in a human gut-on-a-chip. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(1):E7-E15.

272. Vergeres G, Bogicevic B, Buri C, Carrara S, Chollet M, Corbino-Giunta L, et al. The NutriChip project–translating technology into nutritional knowledge. British journal of nutrition. 2012;108(5):762-8.

References

R

315

273. de Vos WM, Castenmiller JJM, Hamer RJ, Brummer RJM. Nutridynamics – studying the dynamics of food components in products and in the consumer. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2006;17(2):217-25.

274. Farnworth ER. The evidence to support health claims for probiotics. The Journal of Nutrition. 2008;138(6):1250S-4S.

275. Shah P, Fritz JV, Glaab E, Desai MS, Greenhalgh K, Frachet A, et al. A microfluidics-based in vitro model of the gastrointestinal human–microbe interface. Nature communications. 2016;7.

276. Sung JH, Kam C, Shuler ML. A microfluidic device for a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK–PD) model on a chip. Lab on a Chip. 2010;10(4):446-55.

277. Maschmeyer I, Lorenz AK, Schimek K, Hasenberg T, Ramme AP, Hübner J, et al. A four-organ-chip for interconnected long-term co-culture of human intestine, liver, skin and kidney equivalents. Lab on a Chip. 2015;15(12):2688-99.

278. Huh D, Hamilton GA, Ingber DE. From 3D cell culture to organs-on-chips. Trends in cell biology. 2011;21(12):745-54.

279. Liu Y, Gill E, Huang YYS. Microfluidic on-chip biomimicry for 3D cell culture: a fit-for-purpose investigation from the end user standpoint. Future Science OA [Internet]. 2017; 3(2). Available from: https://www.future-science.com/doi/full/10.4155/fsoa-2016-0084.

280. Esch EW, Bahinski A, Huh D. Organs-on-chips at the frontiers of drug discovery. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2015;14(4):248-60.

281. Sakolish CM, Esch MB, Hickman JJ, Shuler ML, Mahler GJ. Modeling barrier tissues in vitro: methods, achievements, and challenges. EBioMedicine. 2016;5:30-9.

282. Dehne E-M, Hasenberg T, Marx U. The ascendance of microphysiological systems to solve the drug testing dilemma. 2017.

283. Organ-On-Chip Market Analysis & Trends. Accuray Research LLP; 2016 October.284. Zhang B, Radisic M. Organ-on-a-Chip devices advance to market. Lab on a Chip. 2017.285. Williamson A, Singh S, Fernekorn U, Schober A. The future of the patient-specific Body-on-a-chip. Lab Chip.

2013;13(18):3471-80.286. Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence

from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin‐off companies. Industrial and corporate change. 2002;11(3):529-55.287. Zott C, Amit R. Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long range planning. 2010;43(2):216-26.288. Osterwalder A. The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach. [Dissertation]. In

press 2004.289. Martinez V, Bastl M, Kingston J, Evans S. Challenges in transforming manufacturing organisations into

product-service providers. Journal of manufacturing technology management. 2010;21(4):449-69.290. Neely A, editor The servitization of manufacturing: an analysis of global trends. 14th European Operations

Management Association Conference; 2007: Turkey Ankara.291. Vandermerwe S, Rada J. Servitization of business: Adding value by adding services. European Management

Journal. 1988;6(4):314-24.292. Manzini E, Vezzoli C. A strategic design approach to develop sustainable product service systems: examples

taken from the ‘environmentally friendly innovation’Italian prize. Journal of cleaner production. 2003;11(8):851-7.

293. Tukker A. Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Business strategy and the environment. 2004;13(4):246-60.

294. Tukker A, Tischner U. Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of cleaner production. 2006;14(17):1552-6.

295. Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y. Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.

296. Montecchi T, Russo D, Liu Y. Searching in Cooperative Patent Classification: Comparison between keyword and concept-based search. Advanced Engineering Informatics. 2013;27(3):335-45.

297. Weenen T, Pronker E, Commandeur H, Claassen E. Barriers to innovation in the medical nutrition industry: A quantitative key opinion leader analysis. PharmaNutrition. 2013;1(3):79-85.

298. van de Burgwal LHM, Neevel AMG, Pittens C, Osterhaus A, Rupprecht CE, Claassen E. Barriers to innovation in human rabies prophylaxis and treatment: A causal analysis of insights from key opinion leaders and literature. Zoonoses Public Health. 2017;64(8):599-611.

299. Linder J, Cantrell S. Changing business models: Surveying the landscape. 2000.300. Chesbrough H. Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & leadership.

2007;35(6):12-7.

References

R

316

301. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research. 2005;15(9):1277-88.

302. Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human relations. 2008;61(8):1139-60.

303. Teece DJ. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning. 2010;43(2):172-94.304. Skardal A, Shupe T, Atala A. Organoid-on-a-chip and body-on-a-chip systems for drug screening and disease

modeling. Drug discovery today. 2016;21(9):1399-411.305. van de Stolpe A, den Toonder J. Workshop meeting report Organs-on-Chips: human disease models. Lab on a

chip. 2013;13(18):3449-70.306. Fong ELS, Toh TB, Yu H, Chow EK-H. 3D culture as a clinically relevant model for personalized medicine. SLAS

TECHNOLOGY: Translating Life Sciences Innovation. 2017;22(3):245-53.307. Hu H, Mosmuller W. Growth against the tide: the Netherlands Life Sciences Sector Report. Biopartner; 2003.308. Willemstein L, van der Valk T, Meeus MTH. Dynamics in business models: An empirical analysis of medical

biotechnology firms in the Netherlands. Technovation. 2007;27(4):221-32.309. Rogers Everett M. Diffusion of innovations. New York. 1995;12.310. Garavand A, Samadbeik M, Kafashi M, Abhari S. Acceptance of Health Information Technologies, Acceptance

of Mobile Health: A Review Article. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://www.jbpe.ir/Journal_OJS/JBPE/index.php/jbpe/article/view/416/297.

311. Lu J, Yu C-S, Liu C. Facilitating conditions, wireless trust and adoption intention. Journal of Computer Information Systems. 2005;46(1):17-24.

312. Meier H, Roy R, Seliger G. Industrial product-service systems—IPS 2. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology. 2010;59(2):607-27.

313. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 2003:425-78.

314. Zhou T, editor Exploring mobile user acceptance based on UTAUT and contextual offering. Electronic Commerce and Security, 2008 International Symposium on; 2008: IEEE.

315. DiVito L. Institutional entrepreneurship in constructing alternative paths: A comparison of biotech hybrids. Research Policy. 2012;41(5):884-96.

316. Lowe NJ, Gertler MS. Building on diversity: Institutional foundations of hybrid strategies in Toronto’s life sciences complex. Regional Studies. 2009;43(4):589-603.

317. Cohen MA, Agrawal N, Agrawal V. Winning in the aftermarket. Harvard business review. 2006;84(5):129.318. Reinartz W, Ulaga W. How to sell services more profitably. Harvard business review. 2008;86(5):90.319. Piachaud BS. Outsourcing in the pharmaceutical manufacturing process: an examination of the CRO

experience. Technovation. 2002;22(2):81-90.320. Broekhuizen TLJ, Alsem KJ. Success factors for mass customization: a conceptual model. Journal of Market-

Focused Management. 2002;5(4):309-30.321. Heiskala M, Paloheimo K-S, Tiihonen J. Mass customization of services: benefits and challenges of configurable

services. Frontiers of e-Business Research (FeBR 2005), Tampere, Finland. 2005:206-21.322. Liu, Tian C, Yan M, Zhao L, Ma C, Li T, et al. Heterotypic 3D tumor culture in a reusable platform using

pneumatic microfluidics. Lab on a Chip. 2016;16(21):4106-20.323. Johnson MW, Christensen CM, Kagermann H. Reinventing your business model. Harvard business review.

2008;86(12):57-68.324. Reardon S. ‘Organs-on-chips’ go mainstream: drug companies put in vitro systems through their paces. Nature.

2015;523(7560):266-7.325. Middelkamp HH, van der Meer AD, Hummel JM, Stamatialis DF, Mummery CL, Passier R, et al. Organs-on-

Chips in Drug Development: The Importance of Involving Stakeholders in Early Health Technology Assessment. Applied in vitro toxicology. 2016;2(2):74-81.

326. Balijepalli A, Sivaramakrishan V. Organs-on-chips: research and commercial perspectives. Drug Discovery Today. 2017;22(2):397-403.

327. van de Burgwal L, van der Waal M, Claassen E. Leveraging academic knowledge in the innovation ecosystem: Stichting Maatschappij en Onderneming (SMO); 2018 Feb.

328. IJzerman MJ, Koffijberg H, Fenwick E, Krahn M. Emerging use of early health technology assessment in medical product development: a scoping review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(7):727-40.

329. Jackson EL, Lu H. Three-dimensional models for studying development and disease: moving on from organisms to organs-on-a-chip and organoids. Integrative Biology. 2016;8(6):672-83.

References

R

317

330. Van der Meer AD, Van den Berg A. Organs-on-chips: breaking the in vitro impasse. Integrative Biology. 2012;4(5):461-70.

331. Takebe T, Zhang B, Radisic M. Synergistic Engineering: Organoids Meet Organs-on-a-Chip. Cell Stem Cell. 2017;21(3):297-300.

332. Dale R. Constructing Universities’ Responses to Europe’s Lisbon Agenda: the Roles of the European Commission in Creating the Europe of Knowledge. LLAKES Research Paper. 2010(19).

333. Vilarinho PM. COTEC’s Technology Commercialization Accelerator (Act®). Competitive Strategies for Academic Entrepreneurship: Commercialization of Research-Based Products. 2015:188.

334. Van Vught F. The EU innovation agenda: Challenges for European higher education and research. Higher Education Management and Policy. 2009;21(2):1-22.

335. Abreu M, Grinevich V. The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy. 2013;42(2):408-22.

336. Audretsch D, Aldridge T. Transnational social capital and scientist entrepreneurship. Journal of Management & Governance. 2012;16(3):369-76.

337. Olmos-Penuela J, Benneworth P, Castro-Martinez E. What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an ‘Openness’ Approach. Minerva. 2015;53(4):381-410.

338. Swamidass PM, Vulasa V. Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2008;34(4):343-63.

339. D’Este P, Perkmann M. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2011;36(3):316-39.

340. De Jong S, Smit J, Van Drooge L. Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox. Science and public policy. 2016;43(1):102-14.

341. Pinto H, Fernández-Esquinas M. What do stakeholders think about knowledge transfer offices? The perspective of firms and research groups in a regional innovation system. Industry and Innovation. 2016:1-28.

342. Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN. Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 2003;14(1):111-33.

343. Baldini N, Grimaldi R, Sobrero M. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics. 2007;70(2):333-54.

344. Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH, Balkin DB. Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy. 2005;34(7):1058-75.

345. Eisenhardt KM. Agency-and institutional-theory explanations: The case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management journal. 1988;31(3):488-511.

346. Lam A. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy. 2011;40(10):1354-68.

347. Göktepe-Hulten D, Mahagaonkar P. Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2010;35(4):401-23.

348. Debackere K, Veugelers R. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy. 2005;34(3):321-42.

349. Derrick GE, Bryant C. The role of research incentives in medical research organisations. R & D Management. 2013;43(1):75-86.

350. Galán-Muros V, van der Sijde P, Groenewegen P, Baaken T. Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business? The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2015.

351. Belenzon S, Schankerman M. University knowledge transfer: private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. Journal of Law and Economics. 2009;52(1):111-44.

352. Väänänen L. Human capital and incentives in the creation of inventions: a study of Finnish inventors: Helsinki School of Economics; 2010.

353. Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D. Incentives in university technology transfers. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2010;28(4):362-7.

354. Di Gregorio D, Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research policy. 2003;32(2):209-27.

355. Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH, Balkin DB. Entrepreneurship from the Ivory tower: do incentive systems matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2004;29(3-4):353-64.

356. Baldini N. Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy. Technovation. 2010;30(2):109-16.

References

R

318

357. Lach S, Schankerman M. Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association. 2004;2(2‐3):252-64.

358. Friedman J, Silberman J. University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter? Journal of Technology Transfer. 2003;28:17-30.

359. Arqué-Castells P, Cartaxo RM, García-Quevedo J, Godinho MM. Royalty sharing, effort and invention in universities: Evidence from Portugal and Spain. Research Policy. 2016.

360. Walter T, Ihl C, Mauer R, Brettel M. Grace, gold, or glory? Exploring incentives for invention disclosure in the university context. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2013.

361. Jensen R, Thursby M. Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. 2003;165:639-60.

362. Baldini N. University patenting: patterns of faculty motivations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2011;23(2):103-21.

363. Barjak F, Es-Sadki N, Arundel A, editors. Knowledge and technology transfer performance of European universities and research institutions: assessing the influence of institutional by-laws and practices. 18th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators; 2013.

364. González-Pernía JL, Kuechle G, Peña-Legazkue I. An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Economic Development Quarterly. 2013:0891242412471847.

365. Lach S, Schankerman M. Incentives and invention in universities. The RAND Journal of Economics. 2008;39(2):403-33.

366. Link AN, Siegel DS. Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. The European Journal of Finance. 2005;11(3):169-81.

367. Caldera A, Debande O. Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy. 2010;39(9):1160-73.

368. Gazzard J, Brown SA. Revenue Sharing: An Assessment of Current Policies at UK Universities. Industry and Higher Education. 2012;26(1):21-9.

369. Muscio A, Quaglione D, Ramaciotti L. The effects of university rules on spinoff creation: The case of academia in Italy. Research Policy. 2016;45(7):1386-96.

370. Davey T, Baaken T, Galan Muros V, Meerman A. The State of European University-Business Cooperation. Part of the DG Education and Culture Study on the cooperation between higher education institutions and public and private organisations in Europe. 2011.

371. Hakala J, Ylijoki O-H. Research for whom? Research orientations in three academic cultures. Organization. 2001;8(2):373-80.

372. Mostert SP, Ellenbroek SP, Meijer I, van Ark G, Klasen EC. Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups. Health research policy and systems / BioMed Central. 2010;8:30.

373. van Ark G, Klasen EC. Maatschappelijke impact van gezondheidsonderzoek. TSG. 2007;85(5):259-61.374. Gray DE. Doing research in the real world: Sage; 2013.375. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys

(CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34.376. Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: mid-p and asymptotic

are better than exact conditional. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13:91-.377. Sharpe D. Your Chi-Square Test is Statistically Significant: Now What? Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation. 2015;20(8):2.378. Renault CS. Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. The Journal of

Technology Transfer. 2006;31(2):227-39.379. Thornton PH, Ocasio W. Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism.

2008;840:99-128.380. Sauermann H, Stephan P. Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science.

Organization Science. 2013;24(3):889-909.381. Korff N, van der Sijde P, Groenewegen P, Davey T. Supporting university–industry linkages: A case study of the

relationship between the organizational and individual levels. Industry and Higher Education. 2014;28(4):281-300.

382. Besley JC. What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy. 2015;42(2):201-14.

383. Frey BS, Neckermann S. Academics appreciate awards-a new aspect of incentives in research. CESifo Working Paper Series 2008;2531(Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1319323).

References

R

319

384. Prendergast C. The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of economic literature. 1999;37(1):7-63.385. Fehr E, Schmidt KM. Fairness and Incentives in a Multi‐task Principal–Agent Model. The Scandinavian Journal

of Economics. 2004;106(3):453-74.386. Fini R, Grimaldi R, Sobrero M. Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an assessment of Italian

founders’ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2009;34(4):380-402.387. Arvanitis S, Kubli U, Woerter M. University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What

university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy. 2008;37(10):1865-83.388. Crespi GA, Geuna A, Nesta L. The mobility of university inventors in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer.

2006;32(3):195-215.389. Hayter CS. Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among

academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2015;40(6):1003-15.390. Markman GD, Siegel DS, Wright M. Research and Technology Commercialization. Journal of Management

Studies. 2008;45(8):1401-23.391. Philpott K, Dooley L, O’Reilly C, Lupton G. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic

tensions. Technovation. 2011;31(4):161-70.392. Kalar B, Antoncic B. The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer

in four European countries. Technovation. 2015;36:1-11.393. Andersen LB, Pallesen T. “Not Just for the Money?” How Financial Incentives Affect the Number of Publications

at Danish Research Institutions. International Public Management Journal. 2008;11(1):28-47.394. Rasmussen E, Rice MP. A framework for government support mechanisms aimed at enhancing university

technology transfer: the Norwegian case. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation. 2011;11(1-2):1-25.

395. Baycan T, Stough RR. Bridging knowledge to commercialization: the good, the bad, and the challenging. The Annals of Regional Science. 2013;50(2):367-405.

396. Perkmann M, Tartari V, McKelvey M, Autio E, Broström A, D’Este P, et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy. 2013;42(2):423-42.

397. Jacobsson S, Perez Vico E. Towards a systemic framework for capturing and explaining the effects of academic R&D. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2010;22(7):765-87.

398. Kochenkova A, Grimaldi R, Munari F. Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2016;41(3):407-29.

399. Davis L, Larsen MT, Lotz P. Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2009;36(1):14-37.

400. van de Burgwal LHM, Dias A, Claassen E. Incentives for knowledge valorisation: a European benchmark. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2017:1-20.

401. Radas S, Vehovec M. Industry-science collaboration in Croatia: Academics’ view. Drustvena Istrazivanja. 2006;15(3):345-69.

402. Harvey G, Marshall RJ, Jordan Z, Kitson AL. Exploring the Hidden Barriers in Knowledge Translation. Qualitative Health Research. 2015;25(11):1506-17.

403. Miranda FJ, Chamorro-Mera A, Rubio S. Academic entrepreneurship in Spanish universities: An analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intention. European Research on Management and Business Economics. 2017;23(2):113-22.

404. Dermentzi E, Papagiannidis S, Osorio Toro C, Yannopoulou N. Academic engagement: Differences between intention to adopt Social Networking Sites and other online technologies. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;61:321-32.

405. Guerrero M, Urbano D. Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: an individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics. 2013;43(1):57-74.

406. Goethner M, Obschonka M, Silbereisen RK, Cantner U. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2012;33(3):628-41.

407. Beyhan B, Rickne A. Motivations of academics to interact with industry: the case of nanoscience. International Journal of Technology Management. 2015;68(3-4):159-75.

408. Ramos-Vielba I, Sánchez-Barrioluengo M, Woolley R. Scientific research groups’ cooperation with firms and government agencies: motivations and barriers. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2015;41(3):558-85.

409. Iorio R, Labory S, Rentocchini F. The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists. Research Policy. 2017;46(2):497-509.

References

R

320

410. Dijkstra AM, Roefs MM, Drossaert CHC. The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship. Jcom-Journal of Science Communication. 2015;14(2).

411. Bonner SE, Sprinkle GB. The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2002;27(4):303-45.

412. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1986;51(6):1173.

413. Landry R, Amara N, Ouimet M. Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2006;32(6):561-92.

414. Göktepe-Hultén D. University-industry technology transfer: who needs TTOs? International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation. 2010;9(1-2):40-52.

415. Boardman CP, Ponomariov BL. University researchers working with private companies. Technovation. 2009;29(2):142-53.

416. Rizzo U. Why do scientists create academic spin-offs? The influence of the context. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2015;40(2):198-226.

417. Goodman S, Jaffer T, Keresztesi M, Mamdani F, Mokgatle D, Musariri M, et al. An investigation of the relationship between students’ motivation and academic performance as mediated by effort. South African Journal of Psychology. 2011;41(3):373-85.

418. De Silva PUK, Vance CK. Measuring the Impact of Scientific Research. 2017:101-15.419. Budd JM. Faculty Publications and Citations: A Longitudinal Examination. College & Research Libraries.

2017;78(1):80-9.420. van Dalen HP, Henkens K. Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide

survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012;63(7):1282-93.421. Nelson AJ. Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion

at Stanford. Research Policy. 2012;41(4):678-91.422. Oortwijn WJ, Hanney SR, Ligtvoet A, Hoorens S, Wooding S, Grant J, et al. Assessing the impact of health

technology assessment in The Netherlands. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2008;24(3):259-69.

423. Peters HP. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(Supplement 3):14102-9.

424. Loikkanen T, Ahlqvist T, Pellinen P. The role of the technology barometer in assessing the performance of the national innovation system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2009;76(9):1177-86.

425. Ranger M, Bultitude K. ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science. 2016;25(3):361-78.

426. Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics. 2014;8(4):895-903.

427. van Dongen P, Winnink J, Tijssen R. Academic inventions and patents in the Netherlands: A case study on business sector exploitation. World Patent Information. 2014.

428. Flipse SM, van der Sanden MCA, Osseweijer P. Improving industrial R&D practices with social and ethical aspects: Aligning key performance indicators with social and ethical aspects in food technology R&D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2014;85:185-97.

429. Makkonen T, Inkinen T. Innovation quality in knowledge cities: Empirical evidence of innovation award competitions in Finland. Expert Systems with Applications. 2014;41(12):5597-604.

430. Wright M, Clarysse B, Lockett A, Knockaert M. Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy. 2008;37(8):1205-23.

431. Link AN, Siegel DS, Bozeman B. An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2007;16(4):641-55.

432. Tijssen RJW. Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy. 2006;35(10):1569-85.

433. Langford CH, Hall J, Josty P, Matos S, Jacobson A. Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy. 2006;35(10):1586-98.

434. Lenihan H. Enterprise policy evaluation: Is there a ‘new’ way of doing it? Evaluation and Program Planning. 2011;34(4):323-32.

435. Hall CM, Page SJ. Following the impact factor: Utilitarianism or academic compliance? Tourism Management. 2015;51:309-12.

References

R

321

436. Hicks V. Developing a CIHR Framework to Measure the Impact of Health Research http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MR21-65-2005E.pdf2005 [

437. Dicke W, Bastiaansen S, Stenudd K, Lutz M, Duterloo S, Sayago D, et al. Mid-term review Horizon 2020. IDEA League [Internet]. 2016 August 3, 2017.

438. Vallas SP, Kleinman DL. Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: the confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review. 2008;6(2):283-311.

439. Janger J, Nowotny K. Job choice in academia. Research Policy. 2016;45(8):1672-83.440. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys.

Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2000;60(6):821-36.441. Martin BR. The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein

monster? Research Evaluation. 2011;20(3):247-54.442. Davis L, Larsen MT, Lotz P. Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct

of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2011;36(1):14-37.443. Stuart T, xa, E, Ding W, xa, W. When Do Scientists Become Entrepreneurs? The Social Structural Antecedents

of Commercial Activity in the Academic Life Sciences. American Journal of Sociology. 2006;112(1):97-144.444. Perkmann M, Walsh K. University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda.

International Journal of Management Reviews. 2007;9(4):259-80.445. Giuliani E, Morrison A, Pietrobelli C, Rabellotti R. Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry?

An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy. 2010;39(6):748-61.446. Arzensek A, Kosmrlj K, Sirca NT. Slovenian young researchers’ motivation for knowledge transfer. Higher

Education. 2014;68(2):185-206.447. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin. 1955;52(4):281.448. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education. 2011;2:53.449. Matell MS, Jacoby J. Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study I: Reliability and

Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1971;31(3):657-74.450. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based

approach: Guilford Press; 2013.451. Kline P. Handbook of psychological testing: Routledge; 2013.452. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-

SEM). 2014.453. Ballabeni A, Boggio A, Hemenway D. Policies to increase the social value of science and the scientist satisfaction.

An exploratory survey among Harvard bioscientists. F1000Research. 2014;3:20-.454. Closs L, Ferreira G, Brasil V, Sampaio C, Perin M. What Motivates Brazilian Academic Researchers to Transfer

Technology? Journal of technology management & innovation. 2013;8(4):79-90.455. Locke EA, Shaw KN, Saari LM, Latham GP. Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological

Bulletin. 1981;90(1):125-52.456. Hayter CS. In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent

academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2011;36(3):340-52.457. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical

review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879-903.458. Azoulay P, Ding W, Stuart T. The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public)

research output. The Journal of Industrial Economics. 2009;57(4):637-76.459. Jain S, George G, Maltarich M. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of

university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy. 2009;38(6):922-35.460. Gulbrandsen M. “ But Peter’s in it for the money”--the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists. VEST: Journal of

Science & Technology Studies. 2005;18.461. Göktepe-Hulten D, Mahagaonkar P. Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of

money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2009;35(4):401-23.462. Landry R, Saïhi M, Amara N, Ouimet M. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge

transfer activities. Research Policy. 2010;39(10):1387-403.463. Li D, Azoulay P, Sampat BN. The applied value of public investments in biomedical research. Science.

2017;356(6333):78-81.464. D’Este P, Llopis O, Yegros A. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and

awareness about the social impact of research. CWTS Working Paper Series [Internet]. 2013 August 3, 2017.

References

R

322

465. Tartari V, Salter A. The engagement gap. Research Policy. 2015;44(6):1176-91.466. Azoulay P, Ding W, Stuart T. The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities?

Journal of economic behavior & organization. 2007;63(4):599-623.467. Murray F, Graham L. Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial

science. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2007;16(4):657-89.468. Bekkers R, Bodas Freitas IM. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To

what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy. 2008;37(10):1837-53.469. Haeussler C, Colyvas JA. Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and

Germany. Research Policy. 2011;40(1):41-54.470. Bentley P, Kyvik S. Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13

countries. Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20(1):48-63.471. Large D, Belinko K, Kalligatsi K. Building Successful Technology Commercialization Teams: Pilot Empirical

Support for the Theory of Cascading Commitment. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2000;25(2):169-80.472. Ponomariov BL. Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: an

exploratory assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2008;33(5):485-503.473. Tartari V, Breschi S. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry

research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2012;21(5):1117-47.474. Owen-Smith J. From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private

science at Research One universities. Research Policy. 2003;32(6):1081-104.475. Berggren E. Researchers as enablers of commercialization at an entrepreneurial university. Journal of

Management Development. 2017;36(2):217-32.476. Zhang J, Chiodini R, Badr A, Zhang G. The impact of next-generation sequencing on genomics. Journal of

genetics and genomics. 2011;38(3):95-109.477. Kaye J, Heeney C, Hawkins N, De Vries J, Boddington P. Data sharing in genomics–re-shaping scientific

practice. Nature reviews Genetics. 2009;10(5):331.478. Yozwiak NL, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC. Make outbreak research open access. Nature. 2015;518(7540):477.479. Aarestrup FM, Koopmans MG. Sharing data for global infectious disease surveillance and outbreak detection.

Trends in microbiology. 2016;24(4):241-5.480. Dudas G, Carvalho LM, Bedford T, Tatem AJ, Baele G, Faria N, et al. Virus genomes reveal the factors that spread

and sustained the West African Ebola epidemic. bioRxiv. 2016:071779.481. BBC News. Ebola global response was ‘too slow’, say health experts. . [newspaper on the Internet]. 2018 2018 Jan

16.482. The Convention on Biological Diversity, editor Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and

equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal; 2011.

483. Reichman JH, Uhlir PF, Dedeurwaerdere T. Governing digitally integrated genetic resources, data, and literature: Global intellectual property strategies for a redesigned microbial research commons: Cambridge University Press; 2016.

484. Dedeurwaerdere T. Global microbial commons: institutional challenges for the global exchange and distribution of microorganisms in the life sciences. Research in microbiology. 2010;161(6):414-21.

485. Dedeurwaerdere T, Melindi-Ghidi P, Broggiato A. Global scientific research commons under the Nagoya Protocol: Towards a collaborative economy model for the sharing of basic research assets. Environmental Science & Policy. 2016;55:1-10.

486. Aarestrup FM, Brown EW, Detter C, Gerner-Smidt P, Gilmour MW, Harmsen D, et al. Integrating genome-based informatics to modernize global disease monitoring, information sharing, and response. Emerging infectious diseases. 2012;18(11):e1.

487. Gostin LO. Who owns human genes?: Is DNA patentable? Jama. 2013;310(8):791-2.488. Hope J. Biobazaar: the open source revolution and biotechnology: Harvard University Press; 2009.489. Pálsson G, Prainsack B. Genomic stuff: Governing the (im) matter of life. International Journal of the Commons.

2011;5(2).490. Swanson T, Göschl T. Property rights issues involving plant genetic resources: implications of ownership for

economic efficiency. Ecological Economics. 2000;32(1):75-92.491. Fennell LA. Ostrom’s law: Property rights in the commons. 2011.492. Dedeurwaerdere T. The institutional economics of sharing biological information. International Social Science

Journal. 2006;58(188):351-68.

References

R

323

493. Gibbs EPJ. The evolution of One Health: a decade of progress and challenges for the future. Veterinary Record. 2014;174(4):85-91.

494. Tietze F, Pieper T, Herstatt C. To own or not to own: How ownership impacts user innovation–An empirical study. Technovation. 2015;38:50-63.

495. Article 2. Use of Terms, (1992).496. WHO. Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework 2011 [Available from: http://www.who.int/influenza/

pip/en/.497. Carroll MW. Sharing research data and intellectual property law: a primer. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(8):e1002235.498. Halewood M. Governing the management and use of pooled microbial genetic resources: Lessons from the

global crop commons. International Journal of the Commons. 2010;4(1).499. World Health Organization. International Health Regulations (2005): World Health Organization; 2008.500. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of

natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, (2016).

501. Noy C. Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of social research methodology. 2008;11(4):327-44.

502. Wet Medisch-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek met Mensen, (1998).503. Chatham House. Principles for Sharing the Data and Benefits of Public Health Surveillance [Available from:

https://datasharing.chathamhouse.org/guide/.504. Moret M, Reuzel R, Van Der Wilt GJ, Grin J. Validity and reliability of qualitative data analysis: Interobserver

agreement in reconstructing interpretative frames. Field Methods. 2007;19(1):24-39.505. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The qualitative researcher’s

companion. 2002;573(2002):305-29.506. Palaiologou I, Needham D, Male T. Doing Research in Education: Theory and Practice: SAGE; 2015.507. Bierer BE, Crosas M, Pierce HH. Data Authorship as an Incentive to Data Sharing. Mass Medical Soc; 2017.508. Simpson CL, Goldenberg AJ, Culverhouse R, Daley D, Igo RP, Jarvik GP, et al. Practical barriers and ethical

challenges in genetic data sharing. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2014;11(8):8383-98.

509. Rump B, Cornelis C, Woonink F, Van Steenbergen J, Verweij M, Hulscher M. Using typing techniques in a specific outbreak: the ethical reflection of public health professionals. Epidemiology & Infection. 2017;145(7):1431-6.

510. Millar M. Moral permissibility and responsibility for infection. Public Health Ethics. 2012;5(3):314-7.511. Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G, Casey K, Laaksonen L, et al. Promoting access to public

research data for scientific, economic, and social development. Data Science Journal. 2004;3:135-52.512. Block F, Keller M. Where Do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the US National Innovation

System 1970-2006: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation; 2008 [513. Siegel DS, Wright M. Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink? British Journal of Management.

2015;26(4):582-95.514. Stone VI, Lane JP. Modeling technology innovation: How science, engineering, and industry methods can

combine to generate beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Implementation Science. 2012;7(44).515. Cusumano MA, Elenkov D. Linking international technology transfer with strategy and management: a

literature commentary. Research policy. 1994;23(2):195-215.516. Ramanathan K. An overview of technology transfer and technology transfer models. International

Conference on South-South Cooperation for Technology Transfer and Development of Small and Medium Enterprises2008.

517. Xie Z, Hall J, McCarthy IP, Skitmore M, Shen L. Standardization efforts: The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes. Technovation. 2016;48–49:69-78.

518. Berkhout G, Hartmann D, Trott P. Connecting technological capabilities with market needs using a cyclic innovation model R&D Management. 2010;40(5):474-90.

519. Lane JP. At the Confluence of Academic Research and Business Development-Merging Technology Transfer with Knowledge Translation to Deliver Value. Assistive Technology Outcomes & Benefits (ATOB). 2010;6(1).

520. Nelson HJ, Poels G, Genero M, Piattini M. A conceptual modeling quality framework. Software Quality Journal. 2011;20(1):201-28.

521. Leydesdorff L. The knowledge‐based economy and the triple helix model. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2010;44(1):365-417.

References

R

324

522. Rothwell R. Towards the Fifth‐generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review. 1994;11(1):7-31.

523. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2006;26(1):13-24.

524. Lehmann EE, Menter M. University–industry collaboration and regional wealth. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2015.

525. Schumpeter JA. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle: Transaction publishers; 1934.

526. Hanney SR, Grant J, Wooding S, Buxton MJ. Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK’s ‘Arthritis Research Campaign’. Health research policy and systems / BioMed Central. 2004;2(1):4.

527. Lal JA, Schulte In den Baumen T, Morre SA, Brand A. Public health and valorization of genome-based technologies: a new model. J Transl Med. 2011;9:207.

528. Punter T, Krikhaar RL, Bril RJ. Software engineering technology innovation – Turning research results into industrial success. Journal of Systems and Software. 2009;82(6):993-1003.

529. Johnson WHA. Managing university technology development using organizational control theory. Research Policy. 2011;40(6):842-52.

530. Van de Burgwal LH, Reperant LA, Osterhaus AD, Iancu SC, Pronker ES, Claassen E. Self-Centric and Altruistic Unmet Needs for Ebola: Barriers to International Preparedness. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2016;10(4):644-8.

531. Rosenberg N. Exploring the black box: Technology, economics, and history: Cambridge University Press; 1994.

532. Sarewitz D, Pielke RA. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy. 2007;10(1):5-16.

533. Strandburg KJ. Curiosity-driven research and university technology transfer. University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Process, design, and intellectual property. 2005:93-123.

534. Ho MH-C, Liu JS, Lu W-M, Huang C-C. A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2013;39(2):247-75.

535. Matsumoto M, Yokota S, Naito K, Itoh J. Development of a model to estimate the economic impacts of R&D output of public research institutes. R&D Management. 2010;40(1):91-100.

536. OECD. Commercialising Public Research: New Trends and Strategies. 2013.537. Shohet S, Prevezer M. UK biotechnology: institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of

intermediaries. R&D Management. 1996;26(3):283-98.538. Berbegal‐Mirabent J, Sabaté F, Cañabate A. Brokering knowledge from universities to the marketplace.

Management Decision. 2012;50(7):1285-307.539. Wood MS. A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons. 2011;54(2):153-61.540. Garbade PJP, Omta SWF, Fortuin FTJM, Hall R, Leone G. The Impact of the Product Generation Life Cycle

on Knowledge Valorization at the Public Private Research Partnership, the Centre for BioSystems Genomics. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2013;67:1-10.

541. Liyanage C, Elhag T, Ballal T, Li Q. Knowledge communication and translation – a knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2009;13(3):118-31.

542. Goldhor RS, Lund RT. University-to-industry advanced technology transfer: a case study. Research Policy. 1983;12(3):121-52.

543. Simpson DD. A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22:171-82.

544. Fontes M. The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs. Technovation. 2005;25(4):339-47.

545. Elpida S, Galanakis K, Bakouros I, Platias S. The spin-off chain. Journal of technology management & innovation. 2010;5(3):51-68.

546. O’Shea RP, Chugh H, Allen TJ. Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2008;33(6):653-66.

547. Rasmussen E. Understanding academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the emergence of university spin-off ventures using process theories. International Small Business Journal. 2011;29(5):448-71.

548. Ndonzuau FN, Pirnay F, Surlemont B. A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation. 2002;22(5):281-9.

References

R

325

549. Roberts EB, Malonet DE. Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations’. R&D Management. 1996;26(1):17-48.

550. Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy. 2004;33(1):147-75.

551. Chrisman JJ, Hynes T, Fraser S. Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing. 1995;10(4):267-81.

552. Boehm DN, Hogan T. ‘A jack of all trades’: the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2012;39(1):134-49.

553. Lester R. Universities, innovation, and the competitiveness of local economies. A summary Report from the Local Innovation Systems Project: Phase I. . 2005.

554. Kaplinsky R, Morris M. A handbook for value chain research: IDRC Ottawa; 2001.555. Pronker E, Weenen T, Commandeur H, Claassen E, Osterhaus ADME. Scratching the surface: Exploratory

analysis of key opinion leaders on rate limiting factors in novel adjuvanted-vaccine development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2014.

556. Splinter M, Roos E, Claassen E, Van de Burgwal LH. Stage-gates and barries in the integrated photonics innovation process.

557. Muzumdar JM, Cline RR. Vaccine supply, demand, and policy: a primer. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 2009;49(4):e87-e99.

558. Salo H, Kilpi T, Sintonen H, Linna M, Peltola V, Heikkinen T. Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination of healthy children. Vaccine. 2006;24(23):4934-41.

559. Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, et al. Economic evaluation of the 7-vaccine routine childhood immunization schedule in the United States, 2001. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 2005;159(12):1136-44.

560. Saul A, O’Brien KL. Prioritizing vaccines for developing world diseases. Vaccine. 2017;35:A16-A9.561. Organization WH. Does Polio Still Exist? Is It Curable? : October; 2014.562. Orsenigo L, Dosi G, Mazzucato M. The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability

in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues. Knowledge Accumulation and Industry Evolution: The Case of Pharma-Biotech. 2006:402-31.

563. Pronker E. Innovation paradox in vaccine target selection2013.564. WHO. Guidance for the development of evidence-based vaccination-related recommendations 2017

[updated 31 January 2017. Version 8:[565. van de Burgwal L, van der Waal M, Claassen E. Leveraging academic knowledge in the innovation ecosystem.

2018.566. Jefferson R. Comment: Turning science into social outcomes. Nature. 2017;548(7666):S8-S.567. Satchell J, Stark A. Experimental evidence to support a patent application: are in silico data enough? Future

medicinal chemistry. 2011;3(9):1089-92.568. Vannice K, Giersing B, Kaslow D, Griffiths E, Meyer H, Barrett A, et al. Meeting Report: WHO consultation on

considerations for regulatory expectations of Zika virus vaccines for use during an emergency. Vaccine. 2016.569. Burns DL. Licensure of vaccines using the Animal Rule. Current opinion in virology. 2012;2(3):353-6.570. Sciences CfIOoM. Definition and application of terms for vaccine pharmacovigilance. Report of CIOMS/

WHO Working Group on Vaccine Pharmacovigilance. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. 2012.

571. Chang J. Best practices for venture philanthropy collaborations between disease-focused foundations and for-profit life science companies by Joanne Chang: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2010.

572. Pronker ES, Weenen TC, Commandeur H, Claassen EH, Osterhaus AD. Risk in vaccine research and development quantified. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57755.

573. Almond J, Medaglini D. The role of the vaccines industry in Mission Grand Convergence. Vaccine. 2017;35:A24-A8.

574. Medaglini D, De Azero MR, Leroy O, Bietrix F, Denoel P. Innovation Partnership for a Roadmap on Vaccines in Europe (IPROVE): A vision for the vaccines of tomorrow. Vaccine. 2018.

575. Frost LJ, Reich MR. Creating access to health technologies in poor countries. Health Affairs. 2009;28(4):962-73.

576. Kola I. The state of innovation in drug development. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2008;83(2):227-30.

577. Birkett AJ. Building an effective malaria vaccine pipeline to address global needs. Vaccine. 2015;33(52):7538-43.

References

R

326

578. Serdobova I, Kieny M-P. Assembling a global vaccine development pipeline for infectious diseases in the developing world. American journal of public health. 2006;96(9):1554-9.

579. Rappuoli R, Medaglini D. Big science for vaccine development. Vaccine. 2014;32(37):4705-7.580. Cohen J. New vaccine coalition aims to ward off epidemics. Science. 2016.581. Plotkin S, Robinson JM, Cunningham G, Iqbal R, Larsen S. The complexity and cost of vaccine manufacturing

– An overview. Vaccine. 2017;35(33):4064-71.582. Stone VI, Lane JP. Modeling technology innovation: How science, engineering, and industry methods can

combine to generate beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Implementation Science. 2012;7(1):44.583. Buckland BC. The process development challenge for a new vaccine. Nature Medicine. 2005;11:S16.584. Wagner JA, Dahlem AM, Hudson LD, Terry SF, Altman RB, Gilliland CT, et al. Application of a Dynamic

Map for Learning, Communicating, Navigating, and Improving Therapeutic Development. Clinical and translational science. 2018;11(2):166-74.

585. Huzair F, Sturdy S. Biotechnology and the transformation of vaccine innovation: The case of the hepatitis B vaccines 1968–2000. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 2017;64:11-21.

586. Krogstie J, Sindre G, Jørgensen H. Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems. 2017;15(1):91-102.

587. Ribeiro CdS, van Roode MY, Haringhuizen GB, Koopmans MP, Claassen E, van de Burgwal LHM. How ownership rights over microorganisms affect infectious disease control and innovation: A root-cause analysis of barriers to data sharing as experienced by key stakeholders. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(5).

588. Cooper RG. The stage-gate idea-to-launch process–update, what’s new and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2008;25(3):213-32.

589. Cooper RG. What’s Next?: After Stage-Gate. Research-Technology Management. 2015;57(1):20-31.590. Guarte JM, Barrios EB. Estimation under purposive sampling. Communications in Statistics—Simulation

and Computation®. 2006;35(2):277-84.591. Reijers HA, Mendling J, Recker J. Business process quality management. Handbook on Business Process

Management 1: Springer; 2010. p. 167-85.592. Smith J, Lipsitch M, Almond JW. Vaccine production, distribution, access, and uptake. The Lancet.

2011;378(9789):428-38.593. Robinson JM. Chapter 5 - Vaccine Production: Main Steps and Considerations A2 - Bloom, Barry R. In:

Lambert P-H, editor. The Vaccine Book (Second Edition): Academic Press; 2016. p. 77-96.594. Stevens H, Debackere K, Goldman M, Mahoney RT, Stevens P, Huys I. Vaccines: Accelerating Innovation and

Access. Glob Challenges Report Geneva: WIPO. 2017.595. Cunningham AL, Garçon N, Leo O, Friedland LR, Strugnell R, Laupèze B, et al. Vaccine development: From

concept to early clinical testing. Vaccine. 2016;34(52):6655-64.596. Preiss S, Garçon N, Cunningham AL, Strugnell R, Friedland LR. Vaccine provision: Delivering sustained &

widespread use. Vaccine. 2016;34(52):6665-71.597. Hardt K, Bonanni P, King S, Santos JI, El-Hodhod M, Zimet GD, et al. Vaccine strategies: Optimising outcomes.

Vaccine. 2016;34(52):6691-9.598. Johnson WH. Managing university technology development using organizational control theory. Research

Policy. 2011;40(6):842-52.599. Van de Burgwal LHM, Reperant LA, Osterhaus ADME, Iancu SC, Pronker ES, Claassen E. Self-centric and

altruistic unmet needs for Ebola: barriers to international preparedness. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness. 2016;In Press.

600. Gerdil C. The annual production cycle for influenza vaccine. Vaccine. 2003;21(16):1776-9.601. Ford AQ, Touchette N, Fenton Hall B, Hwang A, Hombach J. Meeting report: Global vaccine and immunization

research forum. Vaccine. 2018;36(7):915-20.602. Widdus R. Vaccine innovation done differently. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2010;88(12):880-.603. Neevel A, Hemrika T, Claassen E, van de Burgwal LH. A research agenda to reinforce rabies control: a

qualitative and quantitative prioritization. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;Accepted.604. Butel MJ. Probiotics, gut microbiota and health. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses. 2014;44(1):1-8.605. Siró I, Kápolna E, Kápolna B, Lugasi A. Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer

acceptance—A review. Appetite. 2008;51(3):456-67.606. Menrad K. Innovations in the food industry in Germany. Research Policy. 2004;33(6):845-78.607. Bornkessel S, Broring S, Omta S. Cross-industry collaborations in the convergence area of functional foods.

International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 2016;19(2):75-98.

References

R

327

608. Bigliardi B, Galati F. Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of functional foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2013;31(2):118-29.

609. Khoo CS, Knorr D. Grand Challenges in Nutrition and Food Science Technology. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2014;1:4.

610. Khedkar S, Carraresi L, Bröring S. Food or pharmaceuticals? Consumers’ perception of health-related borderline products. PharmaNutrition. 2017;5(4):133-40.

611. Ciliberti S, Carraresi L, Broring S. Drivers of innovation in Italy: food versus pharmaceutical industry. British Food Journal. 2016;118(6):1292-316.

612. Lefebvre VM, De Steur H, Gellynck X. External sources for innovation in food SMEs. British Food Journal. 2015;117(1):412-30.

613. Weenen TC, Ramezanpour B, Pronker ES, Commandeur H, Claassen E. Food-Pharma Convergence in Medical Nutrition– Best of Both Worlds? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e82609.

614. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P, Jongen WMF. Consumer-oriented functional food development: how well do functional disciplines reflect the ‘voice of the consumer’? Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2002;13(3):93-101.

615. Bimbo F, Bonanno A, Nocella G, Viscecchia R, Nardone G, De Devitiis B, et al. Consumers’ acceptance and preferences for nutrition-modified and functional dairy products: A systematic review. Appetite. 2017;113:141-54.

616. Mark-Herbert C. Development and marketing strategies for functional foods. 2003;6:1-2.617. Khan RS, Grigor J, Winger R, Win A. Functional food product development – Opportunities and challenges for

food manufacturers. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2013;30(1):27-37.618. Gassmann O, Enkel E, Chesbrough H. The future of open innovation. R&D Management. 2010;40(3):213-21.619. Sukhada K, Stefano C, Stefanie B. The EU health claims regulation: implications for innovation in the EU food

sector. British Food Journal. 2016;118(11):2647-65.620. Traill WB, Meulenberg M. Innovation in the food industry. Agribusiness. 2002;18(1):1-21.621. Saguy IS, Sirotinskaya V. Challenges in exploiting open innovation’s full potential in the food industry with a

focus on small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2014;38(2):136-48.622. Omta O, Fortuin F, Dijkman N. Comparing Open Innovation of Innovative Food SMEs with SMEs in the Seed

and High-Tech Industries—An Analysis of 15 SMEs in the Netherlands. Open Innovation And Knowledge Management in Small And Medium Enterprises: World Scientific; 2018. p. 140-62.

623. Caloghirou Y, Kastelli I, Tsakanikas A. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation. 2004;24(1):29-39.

624. Tether BS, Tajar A. Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy. 2008;37(6):1079-95.

625. O’Connor EM. Clinical trials for foods and supplements: Guidance for industry symposium report. Nutrition Bulletin. 2013;38(2):262-8.

626. Sarkar S, Costa AIA. Dynamics of open innovation in the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2008;19(11):574-80.

627. Davenport TH, Short JE. The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. 1990.

628. Bröring S, Cloutier LM. Value‐creation in new product development within converging value chains: An analysis in the functional foods and nutraceutical industry. British Food Journal. 2008;110(1):76-97.

629. van den Nieuwboer M, Browne P, Claassen E. Patient needs and research priorities in probiotics: A quantitative KOL prioritization analysis with emphasis on infants and children. PharmaNutrition. 2016;4(1):19-28.

630. Larsen OFA, van den Nieuwboer M, Koks M, Flach J, Claassen H. Probiotics for healthy ageing: Innovation barriers and opportunities for bowel habit improvement in nursing homes. Agro FOOD Industry Hi Tech. 2017;28(5):12-5.

631. Granato D, Nazzaro F, Pimentel TC, Esmerino EA, Gomes da Cruz A. Probiotic Food Development: An Updated Review Based on Technological Advancement. Reference Module in Food Science: Elsevier; 2018.

632. Flach J, Dias ASM, Rademaker SHM, van der Waal MB, Claassen E, Larsen OFA. Medical doctors’ perceptions on probiotics: Lack of efficacy data hampers innovation. PharmaNutrition. 2017;5(3):103-8.

633. Muscio A, Nardone G, Dottore A. Understanding demand for innovation in the food industry. Measuring Business Excellence. 2010;14(4):35-48.

634. Oliver AL. Biotechnology entrepreneurial scientists and their collaborations. Research Policy. 2004;33(4):583-97.

635. Chiesa V, Toletti G. Network of Collaborations for Innovation: The Case of Biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2004;16(1):73-96.

References

R

328

636. Matthyssens P, Vandenbempt K, Berghman L. Value innovation in the functional foods industry: Deviations from the industry recipe. British Food Journal. 2008;110(1):144-55.

637. Mark-Herbert C. Innovation of a new product category — functional foods. Technovation. 2004;24(9):713-9.638. Saguy SI. Paradigm shifts in academia and the food industry required to meet innovation challenges. Trends

in Food Science & Technology. 2011;22(9):467-75.639. Henchion M, Kelly D, O’Reilly P, editors. Technology Transfer in the Irish Food Industry: Researcher

Perspectives. 110th EAAE Seminar ‘System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks’ Innsbruck-Igls, Austria; 2008.

640. Paradkar A, Knight J, Hansen P. Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the void or ideas devoid of resources and capabilities? Technovation. 2015;41-42:1-10.

641. Weenen TC, Jentink A, Pronker ES, Commandeur HR, Claassen E. A decision framework to evaluate intellectual property strategies in the medical nutrition market. PharmaNutrition. 2013;1(2):65-72.

642. Acosta M, Coronado D, Toribio MR. The use of scientific knowledge by Spanish agrifood firms. Food Policy. 2011;36(4):507-16.

643. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Chapter 3 - Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation*. Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2000. p. 39-67.

644. Avermaete T, Viaene J, Morgan EJ, Pitts E, Crawford N, Mahon D. Determinants of product and process innovation in small food manufacturing1The content of the paper is the responsibility of the first three authors. firms1. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2004;15(10):474-83.

645. Muscio A, Nardone G. The determinants of university–industry collaboration in food science in Italy. Food Policy. 2012;37(6):710-8.

646. Granato D, Branco GF, Nazzaro F, Cruz AG, Faria JAF. Functional Foods and Nondairy Probiotic Food Development: Trends, Concepts, and Products. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2010;9(3):292-302.

647. Sanders ME, Akkermans LMA, Haller D, Hammerman C, Heimbach JT, Hörmannsperger G, et al. Safety assessment of probiotics for human use. Gut Microbes. 2010;1(3):164-85.

648. Trinchieri V, Laghi L, Vitali B, Parolin C, Giusti I, Capobianco D, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a Multistrain Probiotic Formulation Depends from Manufacturing. Frontiers in Immunology. 2017;8(1474).

649. Sanders ME, Merenstein DJ, Ouwehand AC, Reid G, Salminen S, Cabana MD, et al. Probiotic use in at-risk populations. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 2016;56(6):680-6.

650. Champagne CP, Gomes da Cruz A, Daga M. Strategies to improve the functionality of probiotics in supplements and foods. Current Opinion in Food Science. 2018;22:160-6.

651. Amitrano CC, Coppola M, Tregua M, Bifulco F. Knowledge Sharing in Innovation Ecosystems: A Focus on Functional Food Industry. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management. 2017;14(05):1750030.

652. Del Giudice T, Pascucci S. The Role of Consumer Acceptance in the Food Innovation Process&58; Young Consumer Perception of Functional Foods in Italy. International Journal on Food System Dynamics. 2010;1(2):111-22.

653. Ray K. A strategic analysis of new product entry into the nutraceuticals, functional foods, and vitamins and supplements market. . Unpublished masters, University of Victoria, 1992, Victoria. 2004.

654. Annunziata A, Vecchio R. Consumer perception of functional foods: A conjoint analysis with probiotics. Food Quality and Preference. 2013;28(1):348-55.

655. Weenen TC, Pronker ES, Commandeur HR, Claassen E. Patenting in the European medical nutrition industry: Trends, opportunities and strategies. PharmaNutrition. 2013;1(1):13-21.

656. Garcia R, Calantone R. A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2002;19(2):110-32.

657. Da Silva MF. The EU regulation on nutrition and health claims: Current and future trends. NABC; 2010.658. Banterle A, Cavaliere A, Carraresi L, Stranieri S. Innovativeness in food small business: What is its

relationship with marketing? Agric Econ. 2011;57(10):474-83.659. Siedlok F, Smart P, Gupta A. Convergence and reorientation via open innovation: the emergence of

nutraceuticals. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2010;22(5):571-92.660. Foster RN. Innovation: The attacker’s advantage: Summit books; 1988.661. Nunes P, Breene T. Jumping the S-curve; how to beat the growth cycle, get on top, and stay there.: Harvard

Bus. School Press; 2011 2011. 270 p.662. Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology review. 1978;80(7):40-7.

References

R

329

663. Moore GA. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers (Collins Business Essentials). HarperBusiness, New York Google Scholar. 1991.

664. Berg JM. The primal mark: How the beginning shapes the end in the development of creative ideas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2014;125(1):1-17.

665. Salazar M, Lant T, Pleasantville N. Facilitating Innovation in Interdisciplinary Teams: The Role of Leaders and Integrative Communication. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline. 2018;21:157-78.

666. Hoes A-C, Regeer BJ, Bunders JF. TransFormers in knowledge production: Building science–practice collaborations. Action Learning: Research and Practice. 2008;5(3):207-20.

667. Regeer B, Bunders J. The epistemology of transdisciplinary research: from knowledge integration to communities of practice. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review. 2003;5(2):98-118.

668. Weenen TC, Jentink A, Pronker ES, Commandeur HR, Claassen E, Boirie Y, et al. Patient needs and research priorities in the enteral nutrition market - A quantitative prioritization analysis. Clinical nutrition. 2013.

669. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva. 2003;41:179-94.

670. Regeer BJ, Bunders JF. Knowledge co-creation: Interaction between science and society. A Transdisciplinary Approach to Complex Societal Issues Den Haag: Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment/Consultative Committee of Sector Councils in the Netherlands [RMNO/COS]. 2009.

671. Geerling-Eiff FA, Hoes A-C, Dijkshoorn-Dekker MW. Triple helix networks matching knowledge demand and supply in seven Dutch horticulture Greenport regions. Studies in Agricultural Economics. 2017;119(1):34-40.

672. Carlile PR. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization science. 2002;13(4):442-55.

673. Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J. Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work. Organization Science. 2011;23(5):1448-66.

674. Dijstelbloem H, Huisman F, Miedema F, Mijnhardt W. Why science does not work as it should. And what to do about it. URL: http://www. scienceintransition. nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Science-in-Transition-Position-Paper-final. pdf (retrieved March, 25, 2015); 2014.

675. Jensen MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, Lundvall BA. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy. 2007;36:680-93.

676. Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Carlsson B, Lindmark S, Rickne A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy. 2008;37(3):407-29.

677. Plewa C, Korff N, Baaken T, Macpherson G. University–industry linkage evolution: an empirical investigation of relational success factors. R&D Management. 2013;43(4):365-80.

678. Reichardt K, Negro SO, Rogge KS, Hekkert MP. Analyzing interdependencies between policy mixes and technological innovation systems: The case of offshore wind in Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016;106:11-21.

679. Markard J, Wirth S, Truffer B. Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy. 2016;45(1):330-44.

680. Kusunoki K. Incapability of Technological Capability: A Case Study on Product Innovation in the Japanese Facsimile Machine Industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2003;14(5):368-82.

681. Godin B, Lane JP. Pushes and Pulls: Hi(S)tory of the Demand Pull Model of Innovation. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2013;38(5):621-54.

682. Viehbeck SM, Petticrew M, Cummins S. Old Myths, New Myths: Challenging Myths in Public Health. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(4):665-9.

683. Nelson RR. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The journal of Technology transfer. 2001;26(1):13-9.

684. Van Looy B, Ranga M, Callaert J, Debackere K, Zimmermann E. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy. 2004;33(3):425-41.

685. Jonkers K, Sachwald F. The dual impact of ‘excellent’ research on science and innovation: the case of Europe†. Science and Public Policy. 2018;45(2):159-74.

686. European Commission. Green Paper on Innovation: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1995.

687. Rodríguez-Navarro A, Narin F. European Paradox or Delusion—Are European Science and Economy Outdated? Science and Public Policy. 2017.

References

R

330

688. Follesdal A. The European Research Council @ 10: Whither hopes and fears? European Political Science. 2018.689. Zacharewicz T, Lepori B, Reale E, Jonkers K. Performance-based research funding in EU Member States—a

comparative assessment. Science and Public Policy. 2018:scy041-scy.

Summary

S

331

Summary

Universities play an essential role in the knowledge-based economy since their interactions with societal stakeholders are a driving force for innovation and economic development. This role is generally described by the term knowledge valorisation: the creation of societal value from knowledge by translating research findings into innovative products, services, processes and/or business activities. Knowledge valorisation, however, is not an easy process and many barriers are described that hamper academics and societal stakeholder in collaborating to deliver societal value. This thesis aims to contribute to addressing these barriers by studying how valorisation processes can be improved. It focuses on the life sciences, a field that intrinsically combines a societal (e.g prevention and treatment of diseases) and an economic (e.g. health care costs, competitiveness of firms and economic welfare) impact of knowledge.

The research builds upon a weak interpretation of the linear model which is aligned with a systems of innovation perspective. The weak interpretation of the linear model serves to understand the different phases of innovation and how they relate to each other. The systems of innovation perspective highlights that a wide variety of actors is involved, with each actor operating within the boundaries of institutions that are dependent on their own norms and values. The combination leads to the development of the valorisation cycle, which forms the basis of the research conducted in this thesis.

The thesis is subdivided into four sections, with each section looking into a specific sub question. The first section of this thesis uses the valorisation cycle to obtain a more in-depth understanding of barriers to knowledge valorisation, including the causal factors that contribute to these barriers. Chapter 4 studies these barriers in the context of the microbiota industry and Chapter 5 looks into innovation barriers for rabies prophylaxis and treatment. An important finding of these chapters is that innovation barriers that occur in one domain often have their root cause in another domain, obviating the need a model that considers these barriers comprehensively. Additionally, it finds that individual barriers are highly dependent on the innovation growth phase and market dynamics of the specific field in which valorisation occurs. On a deeper level, fragmentation across disciplinary and domain boundaries play an important role in establishing and maintaining these barriers. To effectively design interventions that can address such barriers, a comprehensive analysis of barriers across disciplines and domains is therefore essential.

To contribute to improved valorisation processes, three subsequent research questions are addressed that each study how improved knowledge among practitioners can contribute to innovation processes. In the second section, the ‘know-what’ dimension is explored, which focuses on the specific innovation configurations that are desired by different stakeholders. This know-what dimension informs researchers who aim to conduct use-inspired scientific research and stakeholders who are involved in the ‘fuzzy front end of innovation’, which occurs between the realization of research outcomes and the development of knowledge in the proof-of-concept and/or prototyping phase. In Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 the articulation of joint problems and projects in different phases of knowledge valorisation is explored, whereas Chapter 8 studies how alignment with unmet needs can benefit companies in an emerging market. It finds that

Summary

S

332

synchronization with unmet societal needs – including the need for curiosity-driven research – can improve the societal impact of academic research. In articulating such unmet needs, stakeholders from different domains should be included to prevent mismatches and ensure institutional concordance. Moreover, these chapters show that articulation of such unmet need may either align or exacerbate differing expectations between stakeholders and further research on the effect of existing collaborations on the alignment between stakeholders is warranted.

In the third section, the “know-why” dimension of knowledge valorisation is explored by looking into incentives and disincentives for collaborative activities. Chapter 9 studies the incentives that are put in place in universities across Europe, Chapter 10 studies how different outputs of academic research are influenced by academics having different motivational drivers and Chapter 11 investigates which barriers may hamper engagement of stakeholders in data sharing. The studies find that next to the often mentioned personal, professional and pecuniary drivers, academic researchers engage in valorisation because of moral drivers as well. These chapters additionally reveal the dual nature of the implementation of knowledge valorisation at universities, with both incentives and disincentives being implemented simultaneously. As a result, opportunity costs for engaging in knowledge valorisation are placed primarily at the individual level. Acknowledging a wide variety of knowledge valorisation activities in career progression decisions is recommended to improve researcher engagement.

Finally, the fourth section looks into the “know-how” that stakeholders have gathered on effective engagement knowledge valorisation processes. Chapter 12 looks into pre-existing valorisation models, Chapter 13 studies know-how gathered in the field of vaccine innovation and Chapter 14 synthesizes gathered know-how from the microbiota field. These chapters find that an inductively derived conceptual model can be used as a framework to describe and understand valorisation processes in general. Exact activities will remain contingent on contextual heterogeneities dependent on specific fields and innovation projects, and such a model therefore primarily serves a heuristic purpose to facilitate knowledge sharing. By contextualizing the developed model to the vaccine and microbiota industries, Chapter 13 and Chapter 14 show how this framework can aid innovation stakeholders in shaping and accelerating progress across the value cycle.

Combining the systems of innovation perspective with a weak interpretation of the linear model of innovation facilitated understanding of innovation dynamics and resulted in the Societal Impact Value Cycle (SIVC) as a conceptual model for knowledge valorisation. The SIVC provides insight into the iterative and parallel nature of innovation processes, conceptualizes the distinction between radical and incremental innovation, describes the function of unmet need identification and demand articulation and emphasizes the importance of use-inspired basic research. This model does not only inform policy makers on the nature of innovation barriers, but simultaneously provides stakeholders with an understanding of how they can contribute to improved innovation effectiveness themselves. To this purpose, the thesis concludes with ten key lessons on how knowledge valorisation processes in the life sciences can be improved.

About the author

A

333

About the author

Linda van de Burgwal was born on October 2nd 1986 in Utrecht, the Netherlands. She obtained her Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree in Biomedical Sciences in 2007 and her Master of Science (MSc) degree (cum laude) in Management, Policy Analysis and Entrepreneurship in the Health and Life Sciences in 2009, both at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

As an academic entrepreneur, she combines consultancy with academic research. Since 2009 she has been active as a an entrepreneur and consulted biotech initiatives on strategic financing and development. In this capacity she developed strategic business plans and synthesized both early and late-stage investment propositions for various profit and non-profit organisations.

In 2014, she joined the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam as a researcher and lecturer. Since then she has been involved in numerous research projects focusing on innovation, entrepreneurship and the societal impact of knowledge in the life sciences. Her research skills include qualitative research methods such as document analysis, interviews and surveys. In addition, she taught a variety of master courses and has supervised over 50 master students with their theses.

Linda works at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research interests are innovation, entrepreneurship and the societal impact of knowledge in the life sciences and her research specifically focuses on how to assist researchers, universities and companies in achieving this impact in the field of life sciences.

List of publications

P

334


2009

1. Counotte DS, Spijker S, Van de Burgwal LH, Hogenboom F, Schoffelmeer AN, De Vries TJ, et al. Long-lasting cognitive deficits resulting from adolescent nicotine exposure in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34(2):299-306.

2010

2. Van de Burgwal LH, De Boer P, Van de Grootevheen J. Succesvol innoveren, zo financier je dat... PW Magazine. 2010;45.

2014

3. Kreijtz J, Ramezanpour B, Fernald K, Van de Burgwal LH. GM Vaccines: From bench to bedside. Bilthoven: COGEM; 2014.

4. Reperant LA, van de Burgwal LHM, Claassen E, Osterhaus AD. Ebola: public-private partnerships. Science. 2014;346(6208):433-4.

2015

5. Ramezanpour B, Riemens T, Van de Burgwal L, Claassen E. An interdisciplinary analysis of genetically modified vaccines: from clinical trials to market. International Journal of Clinical Trials. 2015;2(4):64-74.

2016

6. Van de Burgwal LH, Reperant LA, Osterhaus AD, Iancu SC, Pronker ES, Claassen E. Self-Centric and Altruistic Unmet Needs for Ebola: Barriers to International Preparedness. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2016;10(4):644-8.

7. Van de Burgwal LHM, Neevel AMG, Pittens C, Osterhaus A, Rupprecht CE, Claassen E. Barriers to innovation in human rabies prophylaxis and treatment: A causal analysis of insights from key opinion leaders and literature. Zoonoses Public Health. 2017;64(8):599-611.

8. van den Nieuwboer M, van de Burgwal LHM, Claassen E. A quantitative key-opinion-leader analysis of innovation barriers in probiotic research and development: Valorisation and improving the tech transfer cycle. PharmaNutrition. 2016;4(1):9-18.

2017

9. Van de Burgwal LHM, Dias A, Claassen E. Incentives for knowledge valorisation: a European benchmark. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2017:1-20.

10. Witjas-Paalberends ER, van Laarhoven LPM, van de Burgwal LHM, Feilzer J, de Swart J, Claassen E, et al. Challenges and best practices for big data-driven healthcare innovations conducted by profit–non-profit partnerships – a quantitative prioritization. International Journal of Healthcare Management. 2017:1-11.


P

335

2018

11. Neevel AMG, Hemrika T, Claassen E, van de Burgwal LHM. A research agenda to reinforce rabies control: A qualitative and quantitative prioritization. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2018;12(5):e0006387.

12. Ribeiro CdS, van Roode MY, Haringhuizen GB, Koopmans MP, Claassen E, van de Burgwal LHM. How ownership rights over microorganisms affect infectious disease control and innovation: A root-cause analysis of barriers to data sharing as experienced by key stakeholders. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(5):e0195885.

13. Van de Burgwal L, van der Waal M, Claassen E. Leveraging academic knowledge in the innovation ecosystem: Stichting Maatschappij en Onderneming (SMO); 2018 Feb.

14. Van de Burgwal LH, van Dorst P, Viëtor H, Luttge R, Claassen E. Hybrid business models for ‘Organ-on-a-Chip’technology: The best of both worlds. PharmaNutrition. 2018;6(2):55-63.

15. Van de Burgwal, LHM, Van der Waal, MB, Claassen, E. Accelerating microbiota product development: The Societal Impact Value Cycle as a conceptual model to shape and improve public-private valorization processes. PharmaNutrition. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phanu.2018.07.002.

16. Van de Burgwal LH, Ribeiro CdS, Van der Waal MB, Claasen E. Towards improved process efficiency in vaccine innovation: The Vaccine Innovation Cycle as a validated, conceptual stage-gate model. Vaccine. 2018; https://doi.org/10. 1016/ j. vaccine. 2018. 10. 061

Under review / Submitted

17. Van de Burgwal LHM, Hendrikse R, Claassen E (Under review). Aiming for impact: the differential effect of motivational drivers on effort and performance in knowledge valorisation.

18. van der Waal MB, Ma M, Osterhaus AD, Claassen E, van de Burgwal LHM (Under review). Novel blockchain technology can accelerate global response to infectious disease outbreaks.

19. Ribeiro CdS, Van de Burgwal LH, Regeer BJ (Under review). Overcoming challenges for designing and implementing the One Health approach: A systematic review of the literature.

20. Neevel, AMG, Urias EMP, Claassen E, Van de Burgwal, LHM (Submitted). Quantity versus quality of innovations in the field of rabies: an assessment of the current pipeline.

21. Van der Waal MB, Flach J, Browne P, Besseling-van der Vaart I, Claassen E, Van de Burgwal LHM (Under review). Probiotics for improving Quality of Life in Ulcerative Colitis: Exploring the patient perspective.

22. Van der Waal RX, Van der Waal MB, Claassen E, Van de Burgwal, LHM (Submitted). Intangible value drivers in the Medical Nutrition industry: A managerial framework to operationalize your hidden organizational resources.

23. Neevel, AMG, Claassen E, Van de Burgwal, LHM (Submitted). Relative innovation efforts – towards consensus on what constitutes a neglected tropical disease.

24. Van der Waal MB, Mekkes J, Claassen E, Van de Burgwal LHM (Submitted). How do organizational intangibles differ across converging industries? A value analysis of the Food and Pharma industry spectrum.

Acknowledgements

A

336

Acknowledgements

This thesis is the result of an incredible journey that started before I even imagined doing a PhD and that I hope will continue long after this PhD is finished. To thank everyone who has contributed to this journey would be impossible, but here, I would like to thank a few people who have played a special role in my academic and professional career up to this point.

To my earliest supervisors and teachers: thank you for shaping my research skills, for sharpening my thought processes and for broadening my mind to consider alternative explanations, ideas and perspectives. A special thanks to Roy Kloet, Mariette van Amstel, Barbara Regeer, Tjard de Cock Buning and Joske Bunders.

To the ones who have inspired me to study knowledge valorisation: thank you for opening up this intriguing field of practice and for sharing your experiences with me. A special thanks to the team at TTO VU&VUmc who sparked my interest in this field during my master’s internship: Steef Blok, Bart Klijsen, Robert Al, Oskar Uzun and Koen Verhoef.

To my fellow PhD candidates and the ever growing PhD team: thank you for the fruitful collaborations, the energizing brainstorm sessions and the continued inspiration with novel ideas for research. A special thanks to: Mark van der Waal, Peter van Dongen, Maurits van den Nieuwboer, Kenneth Fernald, Esther Pronker, Bahar Ramezanpour, Tamar Weenen, Carolina dos Santos Ribeiro, Marga Janse, Joost Flach, Raymond van der Waal, Pamela Browne, Martine van Roode and Yves Prevoo.

To my (former) colleagues at the VU who have been there as sparring partners: thank you for listening to me and for inspiring me with your own struggles and success stories. A special thanks to: Marlous Arentshorst, Maikel Kishna, Violet Petit-Steeghs, Anne-Floor Schölvinck, Wieke Betten, Nienke van Veelen, Eva Maassen and Eduardo Urias.

To my colleagues at FFUND, Sovalacc, Artemis and Wageningen Bioveterinary Research: thank you for challenging me with your questions and your practical perspectives. A special thanks to Henk Viëtor, Judith Smit, Rob Posthumus, Byron Martina, Stephanie Lim, Jeroen Roose, Monice van Dongen, Gerrit Keizer and Ludo Hellebrekers.

To all the students I have taught and supervised: thank you for reminding me to look with a beginner’s mind and for enabling me to sharpen my own ideas through that. A special thanks to the students whose work directly contributed to the work in this thesis: Ana Dias, Rana Hendrikse, Tommy Riemens, Pim Kamphuis, Tessa Hemrika, Matthijs van der Linde, Marjolijn van der Waals, Marloes van Laarhoven and Pim van Dorst.

To the co-authors on my articles: thank you for complementing this research with your knowledge and expertise. A special thanks to Ab Osterhaus, Joost Kreijtz, Leslie Reperant, Sorana Iancu, Carina Pittens, Charles Rupprecht, George Haringhuizen, Marion Koopmans and Regina Luttge.

To my friends and family: thank you for letting me discuss my research struggles and milestones with you – even if you didn’t exactly understand what I was doing or why I was doing it, your support has been very valuable to me. A special thanks to Mayonne who was there at the very

Acknowledgements

A

337

beginning of my studies and who I am now happy to call my paranymph. And to my parents who taught me the value of working hard.

To my promotor Eric: thank you for starting this journey with me and for sharing your key lessons along the way. They have made me a better researcher, a more compassionate teacher and a more flexible entrepreneur. But most importantly, thank you for sharing your key lessons in life. I look forward to continuing this journey with you.

To Paul: thank you for all your love and support. Wij team.

supplemental material matter.pdf · references r 305 references 1. grimaldi r, kenney m, siegel ds,...

Documents