State of the Nation 2008

4. Digest of Key Indicators

4.2 Canada's Knowledge Development and Transfer Indicators

Scientific progress — from the emergence of agriculture, to the mapping of the human genome — marks human progress. As researchers learn more about the world, the pool of knowledge that is formally and informally shared expands. One researcher's discovery gives another a new idea on which to build. While the outputs of scientific research are notoriously difficult to quantify, it seems that innovative, successful and dynamic knowledge-based economies have at their core a complex web of interactions between industry, the local scientific community and the international scientific establishment. Canadian research benefits the Canadian economy by providing the foundation for future innovations, while at the same time contributing to the global state of science.

Basic, fundamental scientific research takes place mainly in universities. The role of universities is also evolving and many conduct later-stage applied and more immediately commercial relevant research. New economic research is also highlighting the important role of universities as knowledge hubs that act as points of informal research coordination between business, government and universities and between individual firms. University professors are often linked in to global networks of other research professionals. Internationally networked universities can act as conduits for the world's knowledge into the national economy.

Perimeter Institute: Space, Time, Matter and Information

Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) in Waterloo, Ontario is an independent, non-profit, scientific research and educational outreach organization where international scientists cluster to push the limits of our understanding of physical laws and develop new ideas about the very essence of space, time, matter and information. PI has attracted some of the best and brightest minds in the field of theoretical physics, including Stephen Hawking, just one of many international Distinguished Research Chairs. PI was founded in 1999 when Mike Lazaridis, founder and Co-CEO of Research In Motion (RIM) — maker of the successful BlackBerry™ — helped to foster research and innovation in Canada by donating $100 million of his own money to establish the institute. He has since contributed an additional $50 million. Over this time, all levels of government combined to provide an equivalent amount. In partnership with the governments of Ontario and Canada, the Perimeter Institute continues to be a successful example of private and public collaboration in science research and education.

In Canada, the share of total national R&D that is performed by universities is among the highest in the OECD and is well above G-7 averages. Around one third of all R&D in Canada in 2006 was performed by universities. Canadian university R&D performance is also quite high relative to the size of the Canadian economy. As Figure 14 shows, in 2006, Canadian university R&D as a share of GDP was second only to Sweden in the OECD, and was significantly above G-7 and OECD averages.57 Canadian public policy has made universities major performers of R&D and hubs of broader research networks. It should be noted that there are methodological differences in how the U.S. compiles higher education research and development data, which makes comparisons between the U.S. and other countries problematic.58

The results of scientific research, especially the basic-level scientific research usually carried out by universities, are often made public through papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Journal publications can be used as an indicator of a country's performance of new research at earlier pre-commercial stages. The rate of Canadian publication per researcher (including both social sciences and natural sciences and engineering) is on par with the G-7 average. Internationally comparable data are fairly sparse on university researchers in natural sciences and engineering, but from the available data, it seems Canadian researchers in these fields are relatively prolific publishers. Publications per Canadian natural sciences and engineering researcher are near the top of the pack of those countries for which data are available.59

Publications data can also be used to get a rough idea of the scientific specialization of a country.60 This is done by comparing the share of publications in a field produced by a given country to the share of publications in that field in a larger sample of countries. While research in some fields is more prone to publication than research in other areas, the ratio of a country's publication in a given field to this ratio for other countries gives an indicator of where a country's scientific research is concentrated.

Figure 15 shows that there is a strong relative concentration of published Canadian research in the biology and the earth and space fields. Each of these fields contains sub-fields. For example: agriculture and food science, dairy and animal science, and ecology are all sub-fields included in the biology field. The earth and space field includes the sub-fields geology and environmental science. These specializations could be seen to be a reflection of the economic importance of Canada's agricultural and resource sectors, and perhaps of a Canadian specialization in environmental and ecological S&T. Such specialization may suggest areas of basic research strength upon which Canadian innovation can build. It should also be noted that only the broader categories of scientific publications are captured in these data. Within these categories there are numerous Canadian specializations at the sub-field level. For example, while Canada has a negative relative specialization in the engineering and technology field, Canada actually has a strong specialization in the sub-field of civil engineering.

Metrics based on the number of publications (such as average publications per researcher and revealed scientific advantage), however, only give part of the story. While the peer-review process generally keeps unsubstantiated or trivial research from being published, there are nonetheless considerable variations in the quality of research that is published. To get an approximate measure of the quality of the scientific papers being produced, researchers often look at the number of times a given scientific paper is cited as a source. Like any measure this indicator is not perfect, but the times a paper is cited as a source of ideas in the research that follows, can be an indication of the degree of its impact on scientific advancement.

The Observatoire des sciences et technologies organization in Quebec produces an Average Relative Impact Factor (ARIF) metric, which measures the national rate of publication in highly cited journals relative to the average world rate of publication in these journals, by field.61 By this measure, Canadian research is of a very good quality, with an ARIF measure that is sixth among OECD countries. Figure 16 shows that for 2006, the fields in which Canadian research papers had the greatest impact (compared to the average of OECD countries) were clinical medicine, chemistry, biomedical research and physics, suggesting strong Canadian scientific competencies in these areas.

In recent years, the science communities in a number of industrializing countries have begun to make an impact. The rise of these nations is now being reflected in publications data. China and South Korea are now making significant contributions to the global total of published scientific literature. India's publications (always quite high for a developing country) have also grown quite quickly since the early 1990s. Growth in the number of scientific publications coming from Turkey, Taiwan, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico and Poland, to name a few, has also been quite strong. The emergence of these countries is far from a threat for Canadian science — rather, it is an opportunity. If Canadian researchers are well connected to these emerging sources of new knowledge, then Canadian researchers can build on this knowledge and further the possibilities for Canadian innovations. For this reason, it is important that Canadian research institutions and researchers network globally and not just regionally, to keep abreast of the latest scientific discoveries wherever they may occur.

Indicators that consider not just quantitative, but also qualitative and less tangible variables can be useful for evaluating the international standing of Canada's universities. Reputation matters, and having internationally recognized, first-rate research universities helps a country recruit and retain the best scientific researchers. A good reputation may also contribute to a university's ability to network, may improve opportunities for collaboration, and may attract research funding and funding for scholarships. If more Canadian universities were internationally recognized that would help cement the international reputation of our higher education sector. There are two commonly cited sources for measuring the quality of universities: the Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (GSE-SJTU) Academic Ranking of World Universities; and the Times Higher Education Supplement — Quacquarelli Symonds (THE-QS).

The GSE-SJTU Academic Ranking of World Universities evaluates universities on four criteria: quality of education, quality of faculty, research output and size of institution. These are all based on measured data such as awards per faculty member and citations. In 2008, according to GSE-SJTU, Canada had four universities in the top 100: University of Toronto (24th place), University of British Columbia (35th place), McGill University (60th place) and McMaster University (89th place).62

The THE-QS includes both quantitative measures (such as citations per faculty member) and qualitative (such as the opinion of surveyed academics) in its rankings. In the top 100 universities for 2008, the THE-QS included five Canadian universities: McGill University (20th place), University of British Columbia (34th place), University of Toronto (41st place), University of Alberta (74th place) and University of Montréal (91st place).63

The THE-QS, as well as producing overall rankings, produces rankings of universities in various categories. On individual categories, Canadian universities seem to fare better. In the field of natural sciences, Canada has seven universities in the top 100 (University of Toronto, 9th; University of British Columbia, 20th; McGill University, 22nd; University of Waterloo, 42nd; University of Alberta, 51st; McMaster University, 82nd; and Université de Montréal, 91st). In the field of technology, Canada has eight universities in the top 100 (University of Toronto, 10th; McGill University, 18th; University of British Columbia, 22nd; University of Waterloo, 30th; University of Alberta, 46th; McMaster University, 79th; Université de Montréal, 87th; and University of Calgary, 90th). In the field of life sciences and biomedicine, Canada has seven in the top 100 (McGill University, 10th; University of Toronto, 13th; University of British Columbia, 14th; University of Alberta, 45th; McMaster University, 52nd; Université de Montréal, 60th; and Dalhousie University, 90th).

There are a number of differences between the methodologies and data sources used in these two surveys, which account for the differences in how universities are ranked.64 For example, the THE-QS is based on prorated data, most often adjusted to consider the size of the institution being ranked. In many of the GSE-SJTU Academic Ranking of World Universities survey's categories, only gross numbers count — there is no accounting for size. Additionally, the GSE-SJTU ranking awards 40 percent of the indexed value to research, compared with 20 percent in the THE-QS. The GSE-SJTU ranking also awards 40 percent to faculty members having won Fields Medals and Nobel Prizes.65

While these rankings provide some insight into how Canadian universities are perceived internationally, and how individual Canadian universities perform on certain measures, the usefulness of these indices for broad international comparison is nonetheless limited. Germany, for example, has six universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities top 100, whereas Canada has four. Canada's top university rates higher than Germany's top university. Based on this, which country has a better system of universities? Finland, by contrast, has only one university in the top 100 rankings. But, since Canada's population is around six times larger than Finland's population, should this be interpreted that Finland's university system outperforms Canada's university system? Furthermore, as the OECD has recently pointed out, these indicators do not measure some other important aspects of university quality; for example, the quality of the teaching curricula or coursework.66

The World Economic Forum's survey of executives places the quality of Canadian scientific research institutions (including universities and government research labs) quite high. In the 2008-09 survey, these institutions were ranked fourth in the world, and ahead of every G-7 country but the U.S.67

While the overall picture is mixed, the balance of evidence suggests that many Canadian universities are first-rate scientific institutions. But in the context of the knowledge-based economy, it is not considered sufficient for a country's universities to produce groundbreaking scientific research in isolation. A growing body of research suggests that effective links between the three principal innovation funding/performing sectors are an important contributor to a successful national innovation system, especially as a mechanism for transfer of S&T into the commercial sphere.68, 69 When it comes to the networking of Canada's universities with other sectors of the Canadian economy, the picture of Canada's performance is somewhat ambiguous.

University of British Columbia and MIV Therapeutics: Cross-Border Teamwork to Fight Heart Disease

Many Canadian universities are establishing and solidifying their links to industry and cementing their role as networked research hubs and as 'entrepreneurial universities.' Just as these institutions are developing strong local and national networks, Canadian universities are also becoming internationally networked centres for education and research, and are harnessing cross-border collaboration to solve the scientific and technological problems of the day.

Joint research, supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the University of British Columbia (UBC) and Georgia-based MIV Therapeutics, led to the development of a new technology which allows doctors to surgically implant tiny devices to hold clogged arteries open, without triggering the body's natural immune system rejection of these devices. In 2008, MIV Therapeutics and researchers from UBC won the Frost & Sullivan North American Technology Innovation award in the field of interventional cardiology for this pioneering work.

The funding of higher education R&D by business (see Figure 17) has been used as a proxy for business-university R&D linkages.70 The share of Canadian university R&D that is financed by business is one of the highest shares in the world. R&D performed by Canadian universities, which is financed by business as a share of total business-financed R&D, is also quite high, relative to other OECD countries.71

The precise reasons underlying the relatively high level of this type of R&D cross-funding in Canada are not clear, as internationally comparable qualitative information on business funding of university R&D is scarce.72 Within Canada, however, there is some evidence about several factors that lead to business R&D collaboration with universities. The use of universities as research partners varies considerably by industry and by firm type in Canada. Companies in the pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing industry, for example, are more likely to report universities as an important source of knowledge than are companies in the plastics and rubber products manufacturing industry. Some Canadian researchers suggest that the firms most likely to partner with universities are also more likely to be larger firms, more dependent on technological innovation for their competitiveness.73 Other research notes that "…few firms have the necessary resources — be it knowledge, skills or costly equipment — to be self-sufficient in attaining their innovation goals…" suggesting cost savings as an important motivation for business-university R&D collaboration.74 For others, while cost is certainly an incentive to collaboration with universities, "the major incentive… is the access to research and critical competencies."75

The Conference Board of Canada notes that firms collaborate with universities and public research institutions for a number of reasons, including: the credibility of the collaborating partners (which is a valuable marketing asset); the opportunity to interface with globally networked researchers; improving the knowledge and abilities of their internal research staff through the cooperative endeavour; access to specialized university talent; and the opportunity to identify and hire promising research students.76 In addition to these perceived benefits of collaboration with universities, there is some evidence that firms collaborating with universities tend to produce innovations that are more original than non-collaborating firms.77 If Canadian universities and businesses do engage in a high rate of collaboration, then this should be a source of competitive advantage for Canada.

However, the picture here is mixed. While businesses spent a relatively high proportion of their R&D dollars in universities, the OECD placed Canada near the bottom of OECD countries in terms of the proportion of businesses collaborating with universities for R&D.78 In the World Economic Forum's survey of executives, a relatively low share of Canadian executives gave positive reviews of the state of university-business cooperation in Canada.79 These different findings suggest that a more in-depth look is needed, not only at the numbers of companies collaborating with universities, but also looking at companies' own perceptions of that collaboration. Collaboration between universities and firms on research projects is one way for the knowledge produced and embodied in universities to be transferred into the commercial business sphere, but it is not the only channel. Businesses may also purchase the licence to use intellectual property generated through university research. Another major channel of commercialization is the generation of small, research-intensive spinoff companies from university research.

Technology licences are a useful means of knowledge transfer between public research institutions and the private sector. The number of technology licences also helps measure the match between research conducted by research organizations/institutions and the needs of industry. Compared to the U.S., Canada's licensing income per dollar of sponsored research has seemingly remained low over the past ten years. While the U.S. economy is roughly ten times as large as Canada's, its total licensing income is more than 30 times greater.80

University spinoffs are small companies that are based on university research and usually headed, at least initially, by the university researchers responsible for a discovery. These spinoff companies are vehicles for the commercialization of university research. Simply put, they are a means through which the scientific research undertaken by universities directly enters the private sector. This research is then turned into marketable products and services, creating tangible economic value for an economy.

In 2003, the last year for which Statistics Canada data are available, 1350 university spinoffs were active in Canada.81 A 2005 analysis of Canadian spinoff performance indicated that, relative to the size of the economy, Canada had one of the world's highest levels of spinoff firms.82 Other research by Canada's Industrial Research Assistance Program has suggested that university spinoffs are likely to retain strong and productive R&D partnerships with universities as they grow.83

DALSA Corporation: Canadian Technology on Mars

DALSA Corporation was 'spun off' in 1980 as a consulting company with a specialization in the emerging field of photoelectric semiconductors. The initial research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the early support for the spinoff company came from business development services at its parent university, from the Government of Ontario and from private venture capital sources. The fundamental, NSERC-funded research was the basis of further R&D collaborations with the National Research Council Canada and other federal government agencies. The expertise of DALSA's researchers gained international recognition, and as DALSA provided research services on image sensor projects to various national and international companies, DALSA's reputation continued to grow, as did the company itself. In 2004, image sensor chips aboard the Mars Twin Rover, 'Spirit' and 'Opportunity,' and manufactured in DALSA's Bromont facilities, beamed back to earth the highest resolution colour images ever taken of another planet.

The annual Association of University Technology Managers survey of technology transfer for 2006 suggested that the rate of formation of university spinoffs in Canada has been in overall decline in recent years.84 If, as some Canadian research suggests, spinoffs are an important channel for the commercialization of Canadian university research, then further research into the apparent decline in Canadian university spinoff activity may be warranted.

Across the OECD, businesses and other non-governmental agents are increasingly funding university research, but government remains the primary source of R&D funds for universities. In Canada, government funding for university R&D has had particularly strong growth, and has increased as a share of GDP every year since 1997 (though business funding of university R&D has grown even faster). Universities receive the majority of Government of Canada R&D funding that goes to outside entities.

As a share of GDP, Government of Canada funding of university R&D is higher than the G-7 average, which is consistent with the generally large contribution to national R&D made by Canadian universities. Government funding for higher education R&D in Canada (including both direct and indirect funding) took off starting around 1997-98. From having the second lowest 1989-1997 growth rate in the G-7, government funding of Canadian university R&D (as a share of GDP) grew at the fastest rate in the G-7 from 1997 to 2005. This rapid growth in government funding to universities is the principal reason why Canada's universities figure so prominently in today's national innovation system. Direct funding for universities has grown to become the most important component of Government of Canada R&D funding, and accounted for almost 50 percent of total federal R&D expenditures in 2007. This total does not include indirect government funding for university R&D through general university funds. If such indirect government funding is included, total government transfers of R&D funding to universities are even larger.85

Even before the SR&ED tax credits are considered, about one-third of Canadian R&D is either performed or funded by government sources.86 This level is quite close to the G-7 average. Relative to the size of Canada's economy, however, the investment of the Canadian government in R&D, while close to the OECD average, is far lower than in the U.S., and is considerably behind the G-7 average. It also lags in the level of government investment in R&D of highly innovative countries like Sweden, Finland and South Korea.87

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technologies

The potential applications for hydrogen and fuel cells are countless — from running a wide variety of vehicles, to being used as sources of backup power, to powering cellular phones and laptops, to heating of hospitals and homes.

In 1997, fewer than 20 companies maintained hydrogen and fuel cell activities. Today, the Canadian hydrogen and fuel cell sector features over 100 stakeholders, including a number of core technology developers. Canadian capabilities in hydrogen and fuel cells extend across the country in Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montréal. Clusters of hydrogen and fuel cell companies, suppliers, infrastructure developers and service providers help accelerate commercialization by pooling talents and focusing efforts. Canadian hydrogen and fuel cell technologies are being sold today into product applications such as forklift trucks (U.S.), telecom backup power systems (U.S. and Germany), residential co-generation systems (Japan), and transit buses (Canada, U.S. and Europe).

 

Communications Research Centre Canada: An Internationally Networked Government Lab

Communications Research Centre Canada Emmy Award
CRC Emmy Award

The Communications Research Centre Canada (CRC) in Ottawa is the Government of Canada centre helping keep Canada at the forefront of communications technology. CRC supports government clients as they respond to priorities including national defence, public safety and space-based communications. CRC also provides advice for public policy purposes. Its contribution is felt nationally and internationally as its research informs the development of regulations and standards.

Helping to standardize the ATSC Digital Television System, which is replacing analog television, is a prime example of CRC's impact. Viewers in Canada will begin to enjoy a new era of digital television broadcasting as this country approaches the August 31, 2011 conversion deadline. Viewers in the U.S. will convert to digital in 2009. For its contribution to the development of the digital TV standard, CRC was recognized with an Emmy Award.

CRC collaborates with partners around the world. These collaborations have included working with India's Centre for Development of Telematics to construct a WiMAX-based cognitive radio system to bring wireless broadband to rural communities; and cooperating with the Republic of Korea's Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute in the area of 3-D video.

As well as funding research in outside entities, governments also fund and operate a variety of research laboratories. In Canada, government labs perform research to ensure regulatory compliance, which ensures the health of Canadians and assures consumers of the safety and reliability of new products. Government research labs also undertake basic and applied research in a variety of strategic areas. While the principal financial contribution of government to research in Canada comes in the form of funding for R&D, which is carried out by universities (and, to a lesser extent, businesses),88 in-house government research is an important feature of Canada's innovation landscape.

Figure 18 shows that compared to the G-7 countries, Canada's government labs receive relatively less funding as a share of GDP, and over time the gap between Canada and the G-7 average has been growing. In 1990, R&D carried out in Canadian government labs, as a share of GDP, was some 14 percent lower than the G-7 average. By 2006, this gap had grown to some 31 percent.89


57 OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2008/1.

58 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), Trends in Higher Education, Vol. 3, Finance, p. 46.

59 Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Publications 2008, 2008/9; OECD, R&D Personnel by Sector of Employment and Occupation, OECD.stat, downloaded October 2008.

60 M. Cincera, Brain Drain, Brain Gain and Brain Exchange: The Role of MNEs in a Small Open Economy. Beyond Borders: Internationalisation of R&D and Policy Implications for Small Open Economies. A. Stiphoven, and P. Teirlinck (eds), Brussels: Elsevier / Belgian Federal Science Policy. 2005. 179-206.

61 Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Publications 2008, 2008/9.

62 Graduate School of Education (formerly the Institute of Higher Education), Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Academic Ranking of World Universities2008, August 2008.

63 Times Higher Education Supplement, World University Rankings 2008, 2008/10.

64 The Shanghai ranks universities by several indicators of academic or research performance, including total number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, total number of highly cited researchers, total number of articles published in Nature and Science over the past five years, total articles indexed in major citation indices in the past year, and the per capita academic performance of an institution. For each indicator, the highest scoring institution is assigned a score of 100, and other institutions are calculated as a percentage of the top score. The distribution of data for each indicator is examined for any significant distorting effect; standard statistical techniques are used to adjust the indicator if necessary. The initial objective of the THE-QS World University Ranking was to develop a holistic evaluation of universities that enabled comparison of institutions across borders. In order to achieve this, four principal criteria were identified (Research Quality, Graduate Employability, International Outlook, and Teaching Quality). The indicators used to assess these criteria are academic peer review (weighted by region), recruiter review (weighted by region), student-faculty ratio, citations per faculty member over past 5 years (scaled according to institution size), proportion of international faculty, and proportion of international students. For each indicator, the highest scoring institution is assigned a score of 100, an other institutions are calculated as a percentage of the top score. The distribution of data for each indicator is examined for any significant distorting effect; standard statistical techniques are used to adjust the indicator if necessary. Scores for each indicator are weighted to arrive at a final overall score for an institution. The highest scoring institution is assigned a score of 100, and other institutions are calculated as a percentage of the top score.

65 OECD; Breaking Ranks, OECD Observer, No. 269, October 2008.

66 OECD; Breaking Ranks, OECD Observer, No. 269, October 2008.

67 World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, http://www.webforum.org/documents/gcr0809/page1.html.

68 P. Shapira and J. Youtie, Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development, Research Policy, Vol. 37, Issue 8 (2008), pp. 1188-1204.

69 A. Bramwell and D. Wolfe, Universities and Regional Economic Development: The Entrepreneurial University of Waterloo, Research Policy, 37, 2008, 1175-1187.

70 J. Rosa and P. Mohnen, Knowledge Transfers between Canadian Business Enterprises and Universities: Does Distance Matter?, CIRANO - Scientific Publication No. 2008s-09, March 2008.

71 OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2008/1; OECD, Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D by Sector of Performance and Source of Funds, OECD.stat, downloaded October 2008.

72 One suggested reason for the high level of private funding of university R&D in Canada may be extensive use of university research staff as consultants to Canadian industry, though the evidence is not conclusive. Cooper, D., The Facts on University Spin Offs. Presentation to Alliance for Commercialization of Canadian Technology, November 8, 2005.

73 P. Hanel and M. St-Pierre, Industry–University Collaboration by Canadian Manufacturing Firms, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, No. 4 (July 2006), pp. 485-499.

74 HAL Technology Management, Strategy and Economics. Review of Programs Supporting Collaborations between Higher Education and Industry. Prepared for Higher Education R&D Policy Directorate, Industry Canada, 2008.

75 P. Hanel and M. St-Pierre, Industry–University Collaboration by Canadian Manufacturing Firms, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, No. 4 (July 2006), p. 496.

76 Conference Board of Canada, Annual Innovation Report 2006; Lessons in Public-Private Research Collaboration: Improving Interactions Between Individuals (2006).

77 P. Hanel and M. St-Pierre, Industry-University Collaboration by Canadian Manufacturing Firms, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, No. 4 (July 2006).

78 OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, 2007 (2007).

79 World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009 (2008) accessed at,
http://www.webforum.org/documents/gcr0809/page1.html .

80 Association of University Technology Managers, AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey, FY 2006. 2007; Association of University Technology Managers, AUTM US Licensing Activity Survey, FY 2006 (2007).

81 M. Bordt and L. Earl, Public Sector Technology Transfer in Canada, 2003. Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 88F0006XIE — No. 018 (November 2004).

82 Cooper, D. University Spin Off Firms and High Growth Firms in Canada. APEC Newsletter, 3, June 2007.

83 NSERC. Research Means Business: A directory of companies built on NSERC-supported university research. NSERC, 2005. References an IRAP study, no citation.

84 Association of University Technology Managers, AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey, FY 2006 (2007).

85 OECD, Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and source of funds, OECD.stat, 2008/10.

86 This figure includes both federal and provincial government funding of government labs, government indirect funding of university R&D, government direct funding of university R&D, and government direct funding of business R&D.

87 It should be noted that in the U.S., defence R&D spending accounts for a considerable share of government R&D funding (some 58 percent of total U.S. Government Budgetary Appropriations for R&D in 2006). OECD, Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and source of funds, OECD.stat, 2008/10; OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2008/1.

88 Statistics Canada, CANSIM table 358-0001, Gross domestic expenditures on research and development, by science type and by funder and performer sector. 2008/10.

89 OECD, Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and source of funds, OECD.stat, 2008/10.