The increasing emphasis on academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and research commercialisation within UK universities is predicated on basic research being developed by academics into commercial entities such as university spin-off companies or licensing arrangements. However, this process is fraught with challenges and risks, given the degree of uncertainty regarding future returns. In an attempt to minimise such risks, the Proof-of-Concept (PoC) process has been developed within University Science Park Incubators (USIs) to test the technological, business and market potential of embryonic technology. The key or the pivotal stakeholder within the PoC is the Principal Investigator (PI), who is usually the lead academic responsible for the embryonic technology. Within the current literature, there appears to be a lack of research pertaining to the role of the PI in the PoC process. Moreover, Absorptive Capacity (ACAP) has emerged within the literature as a theoretical framework or lens for exploring the development and application of new knowledge and technology, where the USI is the organisation considered in the current study. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the role and influence of the PI in the PoC process within a USI setting using an ACAP perspective. The research involved a multiple case analysis of PoC applications within a UK university USI. The results demonstrate the role of the PI in developing practices and routines within the PoC process. These practices and processes were initially tacit and informal in nature but became more explicit and formal over time so that knowledge was retained within the USI after the PIs had completed the PoC process.2.
Context
Poison baits are often used to control both foxes and feral cats but success varies considerably.
Aims
This study investigated the influence of bait type, placement and lures on bait uptake by the feral cat, red fox and non-target species to improve baiting success and reduce non-target uptake.
Methods
Six short field trials were implemented during autumn and winter over a five-year period in northern South Australia.
Key results
Results suggest that poison baiting with Eradicat or dried kangaroo meat baits was inefficient for feral cats due to both low rates of bait detection and poor ingestion rates for baits that were encountered. Cats consumed more baits on dunes than swales and uptake was higher under bushes than in open areas. The use of auditory or olfactory lures adjacent to baits did not increase ingestion rates. Foxes consumed more baits encountered than cats and exhibited no preference between Eradicat and kangaroo meat baits. Bait uptake by native non-target species averaged between 14 and 57% of baits during the six trials, accounting for up to 90% of total bait uptake. Corvid species were primarily responsible for non-target uptake. Threatened mammal species investigated and nibbled baits but rarely consumed them; however, corvids and some common rodent species ingested enough poison to potentially receive a lethal dose.
Conclusions
It is likely that several factors contributed to poor bait uptake by cats including the presence of alternative prey, a preference for live prey, an aversion to scavenging or eating unfamiliar foods and a stronger reliance on visual rather than olfactory cues for locating food.
Implications
Further trials for control of feral cats should concentrate on increasing ingestion rates without the requirement for hunger through either involuntary ingestion via grooming or development of a highly palatable bait.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.