organizations. Traditionally incubator was not seen as a part of educational facilities of the university where its role shifts from educating an individual to the group (Etzkowitz 2001). Automatically university’s educational role requires generation and development of new organizations under its incubator facilities and sending them out to society and this activity occurs outside the classroom. There are a few bottlenecks of university incubator facilities outlined below:
Universities not only train students but also organizations. This incubation facility combines an expert from different fields, say one is a specialist in molecular biology and the other is an expert from software. Further incubation facilities from the single university should be networked with incubation facilities of other universities. In developing countries where universities provide incubator facilities to firms typically lack the ability to assist their firms to reach partners and market in other countries. As far as university incubator facilities are concerned worldwide, university incubator facilities are more in Brazil and the USA. Incubation facilities are also increasing in China and in other Asian countries (Etzkowitz 2001).
Bell (1973) argues that knowledge has displaced property as the central preoccupation in the postindustrial society. Soon role of science and technology for regional development increases and with this growth the number of players/actors to get involved also increases. Traditionally universities were not much involved in applied research but recently they are becoming more applied research-oriented and often receive funds from the state and local governments as they realize the importance of technology and research.
developmental research concerns the adaptation of applied research directly to real-world scenarios (Muller and Pursell 2012). In other words, basic research may have little market orientation and may expand its focus towards the development of public goods such as public health and safety, environmental protection, etc. These areas require attention of public research investment.
Let us look at the changing conceptions of relations between basic (pure or academic) research and applied (industrial) research and the resulting implications for agricultural biotechnology in general. Let us discuss the historical roots of differentiation between basic and applied science. Traditionally, the relationship between basic science and applied science has been conceptualized in terms of hierarchical relations.
Basic research was considered the act of knowing (episteme) and hence superior.
Applied research was considered an act of doing or manipulation (techne), hence inferior (Haribabu 2000). The distinction between basic and applied sciences is historically constructed in the sense that today’s basic science will be tomorrow’s applied science.
According to (Ziman 1996), “Academic science has been undergoing a cultural revolution. It is giving way to ‘post-academic’ science, which may be different sociologically and philosophically that it will produce a new type of knowledge.” Public knowledge is being transformed into ‘intellectual property’ (Haribabu 2000). Basic research network includes several research groups with direct industrial interests. As the distinction between science and technology is getting blurred, the distinction between basic and applied science has become opaque. Scientific research is ‘applied’ to the extent that it has the capacity to generate immediate useful results. According to Maienschein (1993), it is impossible to operationally define a distinction between basic and applied research as one is output and the other is the process. Generally speaking, if we want to make a distinction between basic and applied research basic research may be
called original as an advancement of knowledge which does not have specific commercial objectives, whereas applied research is directed towards practical application of knowledge and has the specific commercial objective with regard to its product or processes though a clear distinction between the two cannot be made by the respondents included in the present study. State and industry are the principal sources of funding for scientific research. The new form of biotechnology has been encouraged for their apparent potential for reducing chemical connection to modern, industrial agriculture (Kloppenburg, Jr. 1988).
The utilitarian considerations have begun to influence basic research in molecular biology. Strategic research aims to generate knowledge about, and solutions to, current problems of crucial importance. Such research necessarily questions the boundary between basic and applied science. Strategic research may be organized into two different ways. The purpose can be to achieve either a supply-push model or a demand- pull model of technology. Frame and Carpenter (1979) contend that rise in international institutional collaboration has been influenced by the growth of basic research – more international in nature than applied research - and relative scientific capacity - scientist in developing countries look abroad for collaboration and funding opportunities. In developing countries, where research capacity lags behind the developed countries, international inter-institutional collaborative networking is seen as an opportunity (Mallick 2016).
Since the 1990s, biotechnology has developed under the auspices of private corporate enterprises most of which are multinational or transnational corporations. It may be characterized as supply-push technology (Singh and Pal 2015). But what is needed on the other hand is a demand-pull model of technology development, one that basically involves client driven research and development. Interaction between
technology developers and end-users is important as this will educate and inform, for example farmers about the precautionary and safety measures to be taken while using a particular technology, for example Bt cotton. Many farmers do not know the precautionary and safety measures which should be taken while growing Bt cotton, which often produced adverse results (Singh and Pal 2015).
This is in contrast to traditional linear models that tend to assume that interests and world views are shared in common by technology developers and end-users.
Knowledge acquired on the basis of interdisciplinary exchange would help us understand the interconnections between complex problems and evolving solutions (Guston 2001).
Efforts should be made to ensure accountability and improve efficiency. Competitive funding mechanisms achieve synergy through collaboration and networking, and help strengthen other institutional reforms.