|WikiProject Science||(Rated C-class)|
Science Parks will I think soon be rebreanded Living Labs
although not the same I think the overlap is very strong. So some good writing for an expert on these 2 would be good. I am sure this needs to happen as I am writing an article showing the difference for publication. But I don't have the more backward American perspective as here in Europe and China too seem more advanced re the Labs v Parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of this information is blatantly copied from the Battelle report, available at , which is why the language sounds inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The Battelle report mentioned can not be found. It is mentioned as "soon-to be-released". This means that the information can not be verified at this point. This backfires and down grades the value of the work at Battelle. Several of the science parks mentioned have been studied or evaluated from a Cabral-Dahab perspective. These references should be entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The new editions appear to be advertisement for a particular science park, Centennial Campus at North Carolina State University. The strategically planned mixed-use campus expansions are not at all new. In fact many science parks have this. Maybe this information should be placed in a page about the Centennial Campus. THere is also no reference to the new information.
. An act of vandalism was carried out by user 18.104.22.168. The page was reverted to its earlier version.
Yes, I think they should be merged. They all seem to be the same thing with a few minor differences. We need someone who can explain the differences if there are any between research parks, technology parks, science parks, biomedical parks, etc. Is the term "research park" a category in which all the others fit? Do universities have authority or influence over some of these parks? How are these parks formed and is zoning involved? Who or what controls these parks? These are questions that should be answered in the article with any references that you can find. Also, the categories: Category:Technology parks and Category:Research parks should be intertwined or split depending on the results of the previous questions. I don't know that much about them, so I can't do much. --TinMan 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
The categories parks, technology parks, science parks, biomedical parks, business parks, etc, are technically speaking different. But as some of these entities have had funding problems, they have expanded their field of actions and a blurring of boundaires have occured. For instance, the 'Cabral Dahab Science Park Paradigm' has been used to evaluate all these categories, as well as incubators. The key issue for planners and managers is what "sell" better in their local setting. If they can attract more funding by calling it Science Park, they will do it. If it is biomedical park, they will do it. But the bluring of identity can create problems. A biomedical parks hould not have a software company that develop 3-d games in its premisses, for instance. In general terms, one expect a "research park" to have predominantly research units of companies or research firms. A science park, a technology park etc, may have this, but the key aim is product development. None of these parks should "technically speaking" have large production units. An industrial park is a place for this. Regis Cabral
I believe merging the term technopolis with science parks is a bit problematic since there is a science park operator in Finland by the name of Technopolis PLC. In fact, it is by far the largest in Finland, and by the number of companies in its facilities (800 companies) also one of the largest in Europe and it has aspirations to become more and more international. --Karri Oikarinen 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- [Following comment is copied from Research park discussion.] I'm in favour of common terminology and against a merger. That's because the three existing articles seem to have three separate functions: science park is the main text; research park is a list; and technopolis needs to be disambiguation. At least one of the relevant international organisations, International Association of Science Parks , confirms the usage that Science Park/Technology Park/Research Park/Technopole are interchangeable. So I suggest we redirect the synonyms to the existing Science Park article. Similarly I'd suggest moving articles into the main Category:Science parks until it's clearer whether different categories for articles would be distinct enough to add value. --Mereda 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Imagine the power unleashed when the science being created inside a university and the know-how inside a high tech business meet up. Imagine a place where knowledge workers and entrepreneurs have access to critical resources such as shared instruments and laboratories, science libraries, educational programs and other entrepreneurs with whom to work. Add in access to venture capitalists. This is the rich mixture that forms the pay dirt known as a university research park. University research parks provide the path on which innovation moves from the lab into the marketplace. And as university research parks harness the power of education and research, the result is new jobs, new industries, and solutions to the age-old problems of mankind. With companies outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to various parts of the globe, the innovation and collaboration taking place in our university research parks provides the key to maintaining our economic competitiveness. The world’s first university research park started in the early 1950’s, and foreshadowed the community known today as Silicon Valley. Another pioneering university research park set out to stop the “brain drain” from a rural, agricultural region which was then dependent on the tobacco industry. Today Research Triangle Park and the area around Raleigh and Durham, North Carolina is home to many of the world’s most advanced high technology businesses. These businesses employ over 40,000 people. University research parks provide the landing pad that startup companies need when they are “spun out” from a university. Park-provided training in such areas as intellectual property law and business planning help the fledgling businesses to succeed. Universities, in turn, benefit by exposure to the business world, and the “spin in” of the cutting-edge research being conducted outside their walls in industry. Students benefit by learning and networking with companies in university research parks, while at the same time the companies benefit from access to interns and graduates. At Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, New York, students took advantage of the support provided by the RPI incubator and research park to start MapInfo Corporation, the first major desktop GIS software company. From their start as a project team in a Technological Entrepreneurship class, the RPI students seized the opportunity to propel MapInfo into a $150 million business. Today MapInfo employs over 900 people worldwide. Venture capitalists are often intrigued by the investment opportunities that become available in parks, and they work to maintain close connections. These connections can result in startups finding their first “angel” investor. Frequently the investors are well-versed in management, which is skill that the new entrepreneurs need. This managerial guidance helps them navigate the complex world of technology transfer and venture funding, and can make the difference between success and failure. Supplying an environment of innovation where a company can move when the time comes to outgrow the garage can be of enormous benefit, not just to the company, but to the economic development of its community as well. The Purdue Research Park in West Lafayette, Indiana, was there when a Purdue chemistry professor decided to make the move from his garage. 32 years ago, Professor Peter Kissinger started Bioanalytical Systems, now known as BASi, a company which currently has annual revenues of over $42 million. The company has helped develop drugs that treat such illnesses as depression, migraine headaches, cancer, pain, HIV and central nervous system diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, while in the process providing jobs for over 380 people throughout the world. University research parks present opportunities for joint public and private innovation and investment, and our nation’s university research park companies today provide over 313,000 Americans with high value employment in areas such as high technology and life sciences. In such environments of innovation, startup businesses are provided the resources they need to flourish, forming new jobs and industries. More mature companies find university research partnerships, and easy access to startup companies and suppliers with which to work. As a means of creating sustainable prosperity for our country, university research parks are an important element of America's competitiveness: shelter in the gathering storm."