This generally sounds like a great idea. Knowledge institutions and companies should get closer to each other, learn more about each other’s ways of working, collaborate more and more intensively, and clarify their mutual value propositions better. At this moment there are already many formats of academic-industry collaborations. For example, in The Netherlands there are many ‘triple helix’ partnerships in which -besides academia and industry- also central or local governments participate, public-private partnerships such as Top Sectors, and traditional bilateral alliances. But is this sufficient to create the necessary cross-fertilisation and stimulate innovation?

Closing the gap between science and business is crucial. This holds even within single companies in which the commercial enterprise is R&D driven, where it all too often happens that marketeers are not interested in what scientists can deliver and scientists cannot deliver what marketeers want. But it definitely holds for the economy as whole, where knowledge supply and demand ideally should somehow be brought together. However difficult that is, it is of utmost importance that it happens, for the benefit of the knowledge economy that so desperately needs support.

Industry-driven academic research is an instrument that can help to make it happen. Several European countries are working on ways to implement this idea. In Denmark so-called Industrial Doctorates (iPhDs) have been common practice now for over 40 years. The program seems to be a success, at least measured by employment rates and income of iPhDs following their education (http://ufm.dk/en/publications/2013/the-effect-of-the-industrial-phd-programme-on-employment-and-income).

Expectedly, there are lots of preconceptions on the idea of industrial promotions. Opponents argue that science is less independent, iPhDs are not able to carry out their research freely and their data are incomplete or even not to be trusted. Other prejudice is that the scientific agenda is governed by commercial considerations and only applied research is done. A often heard argument is that public resources should not be spent on company research.

It is easy to discard all these statements by referring to the often observed Pavlov response of academics getting cold feet whenever it comes to exploitation of their knowledge. One should however listen to these arguments, build trust, and create conditions under which excellent science can flourish. That is the best recipe for a true partnership in which value creation is not a curse but a bless. Under such circumstances industrial doctorates can provide huge mutual benefit for partners and do not threaten scientific independency. The parties mentioned above who are in favour of iPhDs acknowledge this, but also the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) sees little reason for worry (http://contentviewer.adobe.com/s/Opinieblad%20Forum/1c30ca6c82344a20a1a9ca6230775ec2/nl.vnoncw.forum.150312/5633.html#page_1).

As always, it’s also about money. In the Danish model subsidy money flows to companies. That should not be necessary. If industry is serious about innovation and scientific underpinning of their processes and products, they can and should pick up the tab. And, just to be clear, the judgement whether the industry-sponsored study has met scientific standards should remain with the university.

Altogether, it seems that making academic degrees from industry-driven research possible is a good idea, provided the implementation is done carefully and with respect for each party’s viewpoints.