University research parks have become an increasingly popular model for scientific endeavour, particularly in the United States and Canada. These purpose-built environments foster industrial and academic collaborations and aim to create jobs, generate i ntellectual property and prepare researchers for careers in both business and academia.
The concept seems to be working. A survey by the US Association of University Research Parks (AURP), published last month, confirms that research parks help invigorate business and the local economy (http://www.aurp.net). Across North America, such parks employ a total of some 125,000 scientists working in research and development, with around one-fifth of these active in the drugs and diagnostics sector. And business seems to be booming: some 750 companies have been established at 59 parks over the past 5 years.
But it isn't all good news. The AURP acknowledges that research parks still face important challenges, most notably in commercializing technology, diversifying the companies taking part and making significant profits. Indeed, of the 750 start-up companies, 13% have since failed.
Perhaps more worrying is the effect that research parks might have on universities. Richard Florida, a professor of business at the University of Toronto in Canada, has criticized parks for promoting the view that universities are little more than engines that pump out new ideas to be translated into products and regional growth. The kind of industry–academia collaborations so central to the parks could influence research at universities, increasing the number of projects in applied science at the expense of other work. Far more important, Florida argues, is the role of universities in knowledge creation and nurturing talent.
Participating scientists should be aware of the consequences of the rise of the research park, good and bad. And universities should be careful to ensure that they keep basic research among their top priorities — no matter how big their research parks become.