基于三方演化博弈的政产学研协同创新机制研究

政产学研协同创新是实施创新驱动，推动国家和区域经济发展的重要动力，然而企业牵头、高校参与的协同创新机制存在弊端。鉴于此，本文构建了政府引导、高校牵头、企业参与的协同创新三方演化博弈模型，分析了政产学研三方在协同创新过程中的策略选择，并用仿真分析研究了政产学研协同创新策略选择的影响因素。结果表明：政府、企业和高校受彼此参与意愿的影响程度不同；政府不同的激励机制对企业和高校的影响存在差异；企业对惩罚力度和收益分配更加敏感。     

太仓政产学研合作模式及对策研究

本文针对太仓政产学研合作模式及政产学研合作中存在的问题进行分析,然后从政府层面、企业层面、高校及科研机构层面提出具体策略加强太仓政产学研合作,对促进太仓产业结构升级,实现经济又好又快发展具有重要的意义。     

产学研协同创新支持战略体系的构建研究

产学研协同创新作为一种科技创新发展的重要形式,是推动科技、教育与经济紧密结合的有效途径。构建完善的产学研协同创新支持战略体系,既是国家战略的顶层设计,也是多方联合行动的保障,尤其需要政府不断营造有利于协同创新健康发展的政策环境。本文分析了产学研协同创新支持战略体系的构建基础,据此构建了支持战略体系模型,详细阐述了技术创新战略、知识创新战略、制度创新战略的实现途径,以及其相互关系,并就其构建途径做了说明。     

协同创新的动态机制与激励政策——基于复杂系统理论视角

产学研体系是国家创新系统的核心,产学研体系的协同创新能力攸关国家竞争力。本文借鉴复杂系统理论中经典的"B—Z"反应模型,在实证研究产学研协同静态机制的基础上进一步构建了Logistic动态分析模型,探索产学研协同创新的动态演进机制,并仿真研究不同政策的激励效果。本研究发现,企业吸收能力是当前我国创新系统主导产学研协同创新的主导因素,在不同政策激烈条件下吸收能力的作用均举足轻重。本文的研究结果,将为破解产学研系统协同效率问题提供优化方向,并为丰富国家创新系统理论和创新政策理论做出理论贡献。     

完善产学研协同创新体系之建议

协同创新在2011年被提出后,全国各地政府、企业、高校纷纷构建协同创新联盟体系,各创新主体之间开展了深度合作,共同推动企业技术创新工作。到2013年,企业研发费用支出已占全社会总支出达76%以上,146家国家产业技术创新战略联盟聚集了5000多骨干企业、高校和科研院所,高校与企业、科研院所组建了14个协同创新中心,产学研协同创新体系的建设已卓有成效。但是,与国家科技经费投入平均每年12%增速的相比,产学研协同创新体系的完善与壮大还任重而道远。本文在分析了国家历年来科技投入、相关政策及承担主体的基础上,从完善科技成果及人员评价机制、改进科技成果转化机制及支持企业创新机制三方面就进一步完善协同创新体系提出了建议。     

推动南充市产学研一体化建设对策措施研究

产学研一体化建设要充分发挥高校科技创新作用，大力推动企业与高校建立深层次全面合作的运行机制，推进科技成果转化，用先进适用技术改造提升传统产业，加速高新技术产业化，建立起政府宏观调控、社会中介服务、政策体系支撑的产学研联合创新体系和良性互动的运行机制。     

提高自主创新能力需政府管理创新

在构建国家创新体系、推动企业自主创新过程中,各级政府纷纷行动起来,在产学研创新体系建设、营造良好的创新环境等方面做了大量的工作,也取得了很大的成效.但是,在政府管理创新方面还存在不少问题,这些问题的存在严重影响了创新效率.     

提高自主创新能力需政府管理创新

在构建国家创新体系、推动企业自主创新过程中,各级政府纷纷行动起来,在产学研创新体系建设、营造良好的创新环境等方面做了大量的工作,也取得了很大的成效。但是,在政府管理创新方面还存在不少问题,这些问题的存在严重影响了创新效率。     

创新是雄安新区的根本定位

创新驱动是雄安新区开发建设的根本所在。雄安新区建设创新驱动发展引领区的关键是营建创新生态系统。本文从培育壮大企业创新主体、补齐科教和人才资源短板、建立服务创新的金融体系、构建激励创新的体制机制、推进政产学研用资协同创新、培育鼓励创新创业的文化氛围等几个方面提出营建创新生态系统的政策建议。     

产学研融合促进中小制造企业高质量发展了吗?——中介效应与调节效应分析

构建产学研深度融合的技术创新体系成为当前推动我国中小制造企业转型升级迈向高质量发展的重要路径,引发了商业实践和理论层面的广泛关注。然而,中小制造企业如何有效发挥产学研融合价值进而实现企业高质量发展这一过程机制的“黑箱”目前仍未揭开。本文整合资源基础理论、资源管理理论和高阶梯队理论等,在明晰产学研融合内涵和特征基础上,构建了中小制造企业产学研融合推动高质量发展的过程机制模型,引入企业探索性创新行为作为中介变量来解释产学研融合对企业高质量发展的具体作用路径,并剖析高管团队异质性对这一作用路径的调节作用机理。通过选取中国中小板制造业上市公司作为研究对象,本文实证检验发现:产学研融合有利于促进中小制造企业开展探索性创新行为;中小制造企业的探索性创新行为促进了企业的高质量发展,并在产学研融合与企业高质量发展关系之间发挥显著的中介效应。而高管团队异质性不仅正向调节了产学研融合与企业探索性创新行为之间的关系,还进一步调节了企业探索性创新行为在产学研融合与企业高质量发展关系间的中介效应,即高管团队异质性较高时,产学研融合能够通过中小制造企业的探索性创新行为实现对资源更为有效的整合和利用,从而推动企业高...     

Stress, the press, the baby and the bathwater

The most important service rendered by the press is that of educating people to approach printed matter with distrust.

Samuel Butler, 1835-1902 English novelist and satirist     

Bacon, Boole, the EPA, and Scientific Standards

The scientific standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) include the use of retrospective meta-analysis. This analysis entails a use of the theory of probability that is only a simulation and cannot accurately measure the confidence that should be placed in the results. The uncertainty necessary for probability is, in a retrospective study, simulated rather than real. There are three logical forms for establishing a proposition. In the logic of the syllogism, a proposition is established by deduction from assumed propositions. In the logic of the physical sciences, a proposition is established by its ability to predict the outcomes of future experiments. In the logic of the courtroom, a proposition is established by its ability to explain past events. The logic of the courtroom operates under the handicap of working with nonrepeatable events. It is more subject to the preferences of the judge than the logic of the physical sciences or that of the syllogism. Because the logic of the courtroom is less reliable than either the logic of the physical sciences or that of the syllogism, it is the logic of last resort, i.e., it is used only when the other two are not applicable. Under the EPA scientific standards, the logic of the courtroom is accepted for establishing propositions about the physical world. As the logic of the courtroom is less reliable than that of the physical sciences, this practice increases the likelihood of errors.     

Coverage, technology assessment, and the courts

Coverage decisions by third-party payers are relying more and more heavily on the conclusions of technology assessment programs about the safety and effectiveness of technologies applied in specific clinical situations. Assessment programs vary markedly in the sophistication and rigor of their methodology. Payers differ as to how such assessment information is integrated into their decision-making processes. Finally, coverage decisions about a specific technology can vary widely across the country.     

Bioethics, medicine, and the moral ground

"Bioethics" and "biomedical ethics" are new expressions, conveying new ideas and new concerns. They entered the language in the 1960s. "Ethics," of course, is an ancient word meaning the study of applied moral philosophy. Bioethics is an interdisciplinary field of study that considers ethical issues in wellness and illness. Some would strongly argue that it even embraces our entire natural ecology. It certainly concerns the profession of medicine. Bioethics, like ethics itself, seeks to know and understand "goodness."     

Values,decision-making,and the rich life

Young people increasingly take only one value seriously in making decisions about careers, that of salary levels. They should understand that there are many values which need to be weighed in making decisions about employment. Given the present milieu, it may prove effective to use language which describes these other, nonmonetary values as contributors to the “rich lifer”     

Administration, Globalization, and the Arab States

Globalization involves risks and opportunities for the Arab world. Realistic knowledge of these possibilities is essential for adaptation of governance and reform of public administration to deal more effectively with the unfolding processes of globalization. To be participants rather than mere subjects, the Arab states have to recognize opportunities and limit potential negative consequences. Success requires good governance and professional public management. Public administration in the Arab world has to transform traditional methods of command and control and nepotism into a more collaborative management that relies on institutional capabilities and practicing managerial values of accountability, performance evaluation, transparency, and ethics.

Trust,Emotion, Sex,Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept risk and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach—one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.     

Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs

Within the risk literature there is an ongoing debate on whether trust is vulnerable or enduring. Previous research on nuclear energy by Slovic in 1993 has shown that negative events have much greater impact on self-reported trust than do positive events. Slovic attributes this to the asymmetry principle: specifically, that trust is much easier to destroy than to create. In a questionnaire survey concerning genetically modified (GM) food in Britain (n= 396) we similarly find that negative events have a greater impact on trust than positive events. Because public opinion in Britain is skewed in the direction of opposition toward GM food, the pattern of results could either be caused by the fact that negative information is more informative than positive information (a negativity bias) or reflect the influence of people's prior attitudes toward the issue (a confirmatory bias). The results were largely in line with the confirmatory bias hypothesis: participants with clear positive or negative beliefs interpreted events in line with their existing attitude position. However, for participants with intermediate attitudes, negative items still had greater impact than the positive. This latter finding suggests that, congruent with the negativity bias hypothesis, negative information may still be more informative than positive information for undecided people. The study also identified the labeling of GM products, consulting the public, making biotechnology companies liable for any damage, and making a test available to detect GM produce as being particularly important preconditions for maintaining trust in the regulation of agricultural biotechnology.