When examining the two communities perceived disadvantages of university-industry research collaborations there is a much greater disparity. In general both groups perceived substantial advantages. However, the research partners held significantly different perspectives on 8 of 10 of the disadvantages. Scores for all the items were low when compared to scores on the advantage items, but the disparity between the groups is substantial. The greatest perceived disadvantage is the potential for conflicts of interest, followed by restriction of communication, inhibiting material transfer, and a de-emphasis of non-proprietary research. Other disadvantages such as potential lawsuits over intellectual property, limiting of student and faculty publishing, a de-emphasis of basic science and undermining of university scientists’ credibility were seen as only moderately characteristic of UIRs . The open-ended questions provided more details and specific information to complement the Likert scale instruments and confirmed the perception of the continuing existence of the two cultures despite increased collaborations. Most notable was the different reasons the two communities gave for working with each other. University scientists indicated they collaborated with industry for funding, equipment, materials, expertise, access to proprietary information and databases, technology and opportunities to place graduate students. In contrast, industry scientists and managers reported they sought university collaborations for access to university scientists and graduates students who could be future employees, to increase the credibility and legitimacy of their work, to enhance receiving regulatory approval for their new products, and strengthening then marketing possibilities, and to leverage resources, increase research efficiency and lower infrastructure costs. While the perceived advantages are viewed as more strongly characteristic of UIRs than the disadvantages, particularly among the industry respondents, there are numerous concerns and perceived disadvantages that are viewed by several respondents. For example, university scientists noted, “there may be more constraints than what a university scientist is used to; we’re used to open access, discussing your research results at meetings, publishing, talking with others about it [depending on the research]….”

A company can tell you, “no, you can’t go to this meeting, you can’t disclosed any of this information….” Another university respondent said, “in some instances, you run the risk of faculty becoming too jaded by the money that industry might throw at them,vertical faming equipment by the prestige they might get by working in the industry.” One university administrator observed, “the university wants to patent, big time. It has almost become more important than publications…. It’s status for the university…. I think more and more universities are being judged on how many patents they .” At the same time, many industry scientists also expressed concern that the complementary roles of the two cultures may be eroding and contributing to negative consequences of the UIRs. Some of the most insightful observations of the appropriate division of labor between the two cultures surfaced in the debate about the effect of the Bayle-Dole Act. One industry scientist observed that what we typically find is that less and less of the basic research is being done and we find we’re competing against university labs for the same technologies, so it’s like funding your own competition. And Bayh-Doyle has caused some changes in the way that universities protect intellectual property and some of them are very, very aggressive, so you’ve got to be careful. Another industry respondent noted that, “I think if universities want to get into the intellectual property and commercialization game, then they need to get in with both feet and follow all the rules. If they don’t want to do that, which I think they should because it’s going to inhibit the academic freedom…. Then I think they should get out of it. I think it puts faculty in…a position where you are supposed to be an entrepreneur but you’re not…, if you really want to be an entrepreneur then you really should get out of the university and start your own company. ” There are, however, a number of diverse opinions about the Bayh-Dole Act and its effects on university research. Because some companies have been so successful in leveraging university research, one industry manager stated that “The Bayh-Dole act was the greatest encouragement for university industry collaborations that I’ve ever seen”. Another industry respondent recognized the mixed results with the insightful comment, “Bayh-Dole has a lot of impacts. The positive impacts are that there’s generally now more emphasis placed on protecting intellectual property as opposed to publication…, where it has caused issues is in conflicts with the mission of the university, especially land-grant universities…. Their goal is to ensure that these technologies are protected, but commercialized for the public good. Nowhere in the mission does it say for as much revenue as we can possibly generate…. There are all kinds of ways [to transfer technology]; it’s not purely for revenue. But they’re focused now on revenue.” Finally, one industry interviewee was particularly negative about the Bayh-Dole impacts. He stated, “My industrialist view? Bayh-Dole screwed us.

It was easier to do business before Bayh-Dole. That’s probably too extreme a statement, but still, it conflicts with the mission of the university. It moves away from education and the public good.” These comments from industry participants indicate that even though they generally see research collaborations to have many advantages, they also recognize shortcomings. Creater sustainability has become one of the primary goals of agricultural and natural resource policy in California and worldwide. Although there is certainly no consensus on the meaning of sustainability, most definitions include three principles: environmental health, economic viability and social equity.The goal is to reduce the potential negative environmental impacts of agricultural production while maintaining economic viability and considering the diversity of agricultural communities. Non-point-source pollution in storm-water runoff and irrigation return flows is the cumulative result of individual decisions made by all producers in a watershed. Therefore, reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture illustrates what we believe is a central challenge in sustainability: understanding attitude change and encouraging cooperation among large numbers of individual resource users. This same challenge is seen in other sustainability issues, such as urban water conservation and global warming, where solutions will require large-scale collective action. We focus on the environmental aspect of sustainability, in the context of agricultural water-quality management in California’s Sacramento River Valley. Our central thesis is that local “diffusion networks” — involving producers, local public agricultural agencies and private agricultural organizations — offer three potential pathways for achieving sustainability. These networks provide information about innovations in agricultural practices, act as a repository of social capital for solving collective dilemmas and facilitate cultural change. Classic diffusion networks are defined as members of a social system that communicate information about agricultural practices and issues through formal and informal connections and interactions . Diffusion networks enable adoption decisions by spreading awareness about the costs and benefits of innovations. Recent studies focus on how the different structural characteristics of diffusion networks affect the rate and pattern of information flow . Diffusion processes were an important aspect of the post–World War II “Green Revolution,” which featured the widespread, international adoption of new technologies to increase agricultural productivity . In the United States, diffusion networks have been evolving since the late 19th century in the form of local special districts, commodity organizations and government-supported education and outreach programs. Among the earliest examples are land-grant universities and their associated networks of county Cooperative Extension offices, which help deliver scientific research and knowledge to agricultural stakeholders. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 established Cooperative Extension, roughly in conjunction with the California Farm Bureau Federation . Some agricultural practices contributing to the Green Revolution — such as pesticide use for improved crop protection, fertilizer applications for enhanced plant nutrition, and irrigation for more reliable crop performance — are now considered partial contributors to agricultural non-point-source pollution. To effectively address agricultural impacts on the environment and still maintain economically viable operations, greater sustainability will entail the adoption of more environmentally friendly, yet agronomically sound, best management practices.

Diffusion networks are playing a key role in delivering information about environmental issues and BMPs in an era when sustainability is increasingly emphasized.Diffusion networks are also an investment in social capital, which consists of interconnections within a community, norms of reciprocity and social trust . Social capital is a critical resource for solving collective-action problems in which the costs and benefits of agricultural practices are influenced by the decisions of numerous producers. For example, one producer’s water-quality management efforts will achieve only an incremental reduction in non-point source pollution. However,how to set up a vertical farm if producers who share a common interest in a watershed work cooperatively to implement BMPs, the collective benefits to water quality will be greater. These collective action problems are further complicated when some producers decline adoption and may be perceived to benefit from the participation of others. Diffusion networks help agricultural stakeholders overcome these collective dilemmas to the extent that they serve as reservoirs of social capital and trust. Finally, diffusion networks can also be pathways for cultural change and, more broadly, cultural evolution . Theories of cultural evolution hypothesize that social learning from other people is a key mechanism of cultural change. Social learning occurs when one member of the social system makes decisions on the basis of the behavior of his or her peers. For example, some producers may observe and then follow the practices of the most successful operations in their community. Social learning may also involve processes of persuasion, where people in the group who have specific expertise in BMP development and water-quality management may actually change the preferences of other individuals. Importantly, diffusion networks provide information not only about a particular innovation, but also about the expertise and socioeconomic characteristics of other actors in the network. Viewing diffusion networks as pathways to cultural change is particularly important in the case of water-quality management, where mitigating any identifiable non-point-source pollution depends on changes in the behaviors, attitudes and beliefs of the relevant agricultural community. Part of this change involves various government policies that reward preferred actions or penalize behavior that is defined as “unsustainable.” But significant cultural change is more likely to occur when accompanied by the acceptance of new behaviors and norms throughout a community. Theories of cultural evolution emphasize the role of social learning and diffusion networks in gaining the acceptance of principles and policies of sustainability in agriculture . This article provides empirical evidence for the important role of diffusion networks in sustainable agriculture by describing how local agencies have facilitated participation in water-quality management. We focus specifically on the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition , which emerged in response to new regulatory requirements passed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board . Using data from a survey of over 1,200 Sacramento River Valley producers, we show how diffusion networks have increased satisfaction with coalition policies, participation in coalition activities and the implementation of environmental BMPs. The Sacramento River Valley supports about 2,145,000 acres of irrigated land across 250 different drainage areas. About 85% of the irrigated land is on the valley floor and about 15% is in nearby foothills and mountain valleys; about 65,100 acres are seasonal and permanent wetlands. More than 60 different crops are grown in the valley, primarily rice, orchards and irrigated pasture. Agricultural water-quality constituents of concern include pesticides, pathogens, sediment and nutrients, and physical parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and dissolved organic carbon. A total maximum daily load is in effect for diazinon insecticide on the Feather River from below Oroville Dam to the confluence of the Sacramento River. Additional TMDLs are being developed in the Delta and other Central Valley watersheds, targeting both urban and agricultural pollutants. Recent agricultural water-quality monitoring has indicated relatively good surface water quality throughout the Sacramento River Valley with isolated areas of concern that may also be influenced by non-agricultural land uses. Agricultural water-quality management has recently become a controversial topic in the Central Valley because of the so-called Conditional Waiver program, first adopted by the Region 5 board on Jan. 1, 2003, and recently revised and extended into 2011.The waiver regulates non-point-source pollution by requiring irrigated agricultural producers to choose one of three options: join a watershed management coalition, an organized group of producers who work together to conduct water quality monitoring and implement best management practices when problems associated with irrigated agriculture are found; as an individual, request coverage under the Conditional Waiver apart from a coalition; or as an individual, submit a Request for Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Board and then operate under a permit.