DC Regional Universities Use Lean Startup in Healthcare | NSF I-CORPS

I have been following the NSF I-Corps experiment since its inception and have been pleasantly surprised by its growth and expanding reach. GWU, University of Maryland and Virginia Tech have taken the lead in our region (the DC I-Corps) and have some great people working on the program. I came across a piece from Stephanie Baum at Med City News highlighting some of the innovative teams and projects taking part. From Baum,

Here’s a sample of the healthcare and device technologies involved in the program, which runs through November 19.

University of Maryland, College Park

Myotherapeutics is developing a clinical assay for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease. Eva Chin, an assistant professor, leads the group.

George Washington University

Key Orthopedics has a 3D-printed polymer device for growing stem cells in bone and cartilage tissue and is led by Benjamin Holmes, a Ph.D student.

NanoChon is producing joint injury therapeutic technologies for extended and sustained biologic delivery. It’s led by Nathan Castro, a Ph.D. student.

Its exciting to see our local universities, their leaders, faculty, and graduate students learning to employ lean in the development of their ideas and technologies. Exciting time.

Report Says UK Struggles with Research Commercialisation | Times Higher Education | #highered

The Times Higher Education site has an interesting piece highlighting the difficulties British universities are having commercializing all of the research funding they receive from their government. A new report on the subject has supported this criticism. From Elizabeth Gibney:

“British entrepreneurs are being badly let down by a lack of access to financial support and a system that often forces them to sell out to private equity investors or larger foreign companies to get ideas off the ground,” said committee chair and Labour MP, Andrew Miller.

MPs said they had been encouraged by the work of the Technology Strategy Board and its network of “catapult” centres, but said that they were concerned about the access of small firms to facilities, and that government grant funding was often highly bureaucratic to apply for and only enough to “get an idea off the ground”.

The report, Bridging the Valley of Death: Improving the Commercialisation of Research, adds that while academic research is the “jewel in the crown of UK innovation activity”, the committee had concerns about how universities interact with the commercialisation of research.

It questions whether changes to the Higher Education Innovation Fund, which reward institutions that have already benefited from successfully commercialising their intellectual property, might further decrease the success of already struggling institutions.

“We would like to see how well changes to the Higher Education Innovation Fund improve commercialisation activity; whether there is a need for greater amounts of proof of concept funding in the sector; and challenge the institutions to become more accommodating to non-traditional backgrounds among their academic staff,” it reads.

“We have concerns that driving an innovation agenda too aggressively through universities may have diminishing returns with regard to commercialisation and risk damaging the academic research that is working well,” it adds.

via MPs criticise government over research commercialisation | News | Times Higher Education.

OSU President Calls for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Public Universities

E. Gordon Gee, President of Ohio State University has an interesting piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education calling for more innovative and entrepreneurial leadership at public universities. While I don’t know if this is dramatically new (See Kerr, Bok, Etzkowitz), it appears that years of slow growth and weak state finances have forced Gee to rethink what he and his university do. Some snippets from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

This nation and our world are not merely in a recession; we are also experiencing a resetting of the global economy. All signs point to a new normal in which those of us engaged in higher education must accept that no amount of pleading or whining or denying will alter what now seems an inexorable reality. We will earn what support we get by virtue of our excellence—and our hustle, our ingenuity, and our creativity.

Later,

As a starting point, this means the following: finding innovative ways to leverage the market, assessing university-owned assets and considering shedding those that do not contribute to our central mission, commercializing technological innovations, and simplifying processes.

And,

Along those same lines, this past spring and summer we began using a new approach to commercializing our technology innovations. Ohio State’s tech-commercialization effort is just beginning, but we believe it holds great promise—for bringing innovations by faculty members to market, for rewarding them for their work, and for helping to sustain the university in the process. Doing so is not turning the university into a business, it is enabling us to support our core academic values despite volatility in the world around us.

The core question, which all entrepreneurs ask, is what kind of value can a public university and does this provide value to its stakeholders. It is not just about raising revenues and cutting cost.

Looking forward to learning more about Gee and the work he is doing at OSU. Anyone in Columbus want to weight in?

via Colleges Must Find Innovative Ways to Finance Their Missions – Commentary – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Universities Making Money from Licensing Technology | Inside Higher Ed

Good piece by Sam Petulla highlighting the recent Association of University Technology Managers survey on technology commercialization at select universities in America. Decent growth given overall higher education and economic trends. Good charts in the full piece. From Inside Higher Education:

Although economic growth stagnated in 2009, a new survey says scientific research from about 150 universities created 555 startup companies and resulted in over 4,500 patent optioning and licensing deals last year, earning $1.8 billion in payouts for the institutions in the process. The numbers continue a decade-long trend of the increased role of universities in generating commercial products for businesses.

“Technology transfer” — as the process of universities commercializing their findings is known — allows businesses to turn the fruits of academic research into new technologies, such as new drugs and energy-saving products. In return, universities collect licensing fees or royalties, or a partial ownership stake in a product. Universities also typically have a small staff dedicated to brokering deals on hand — not an insignificant source of employment itself.

Technology transfer offices still garner a lot of attention and resources, but did they play a role in Facebook, Google, H-P, Under Armour, Gatorade, and Groupon? Does anyone have any evidence on any of these?

(I have read Rovell’s book on Gatorade — First in Thirst — so I do know the University of Florida did not really want anything to do with the creation of the drink in the early years. When it became worth hundreds of millions, the lawsuits began. )

It appears the full survey is only available for purchase. So, there are some news stories and press releases out there. For example, a Dec. 20,  University of Utah press release based on the survey: “U of Utah: No. 1 for Startups, Overtakes MIT in Number of Spinoff Companies.”

The IPWatchDog blog has a nice look at the piece including some good charts on tops universities and hospitals in terms of funding and commercialization of technology. Some good information on the survey and trends from Gene Quinn at IPWatchDog, Inc.:

In terms of mechanics, the 2009 AUTM survey was sent to 322 U.S. institutions, which is up 12 from 310 U.S. institutions that were contacted in FY2008. Of the 322 U.S. Institutions contacted 249 were universities and colleges, 69 were U.S. hospitals and research institutions, and four were third-party patent management and investment firms. The response rate was 56.2 percent, which included 153 U.S. universities, 27 U.S. hospitals and research institutions, and one third-party patent management and investment firm.

In 2009, 181 institutions reported 20,309 disclosures, an increase of 194 (0.96 percent) compared with the 20,115 disclosures from 189 institutions in 2008. This marked an uninterrupted trend of annual increases in total disclosures since 2000.

I’d love to show you some of IPWatchDog’s great charts, etc., but given the name of the site I’d guess they wouldn’t want me to do that (or would they bow to the ethos of the internet — I have already provided multiple links to their site).

Either way, there is some good stuff out there on the latest AUTM survey and they are worth exploring.

 

via News: Universities Gain from Licensing Activity – Inside Higher Ed.

Churning Out Companies from Inside Higher Ed

Interesting piece by Doug Lederman in today’s Inside Higher Education pointing to new research on the number of new ventures, start-ups, patents and licensing fees that are coming out of major research Universities in the U.S.

From the piece by Inside Higher Ed:

Colleges and universities created 542 companies, issued 2,821 patents, and generated $2.379 billion in licensing income in the 2008 fiscal year, according to an annual survey by the Association of University Technology Managers.

Although the association discourages direct comparisons in its survey, “U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY 2008,” because the roster of participating colleges changes a bit from year to year, the technology managers’ group points out that most of the indicators show “a steady increase in the amount of technology transfer activity,” Arundeep S. Pradhan, AUTM’s president and associate vice president for technology transfer and business development at Oregon Health & Science University, said in a news release about the findings.

The post features a great chart that compares many schools/systems, highlighting their federal research funds, start-ups, patents, and licensing fees. There is a huge discrepancy in performance by the schools in the charts.

News: Churning Out Companies – Inside Higher Ed.

Churning Out Companies from Inside Higher Ed

Interesting piece by Doug Lederman in today’s Inside Higher Education pointing to new research on the number of new ventures, start-ups, patents and licensing fees that are coming out of major research Universities in the U.S.

From the piece by Inside Higher Ed:

Colleges and universities created 542 companies, issued 2,821 patents, and generated $2.379 billion in licensing income in the 2008 fiscal year, according to an annual survey by the Association of University Technology Managers.

Although the association discourages direct comparisons in its survey, “U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY 2008,” because the roster of participating colleges changes a bit from year to year, the technology managers’ group points out that most of the indicators show “a steady increase in the amount of technology transfer activity,” Arundeep S. Pradhan, AUTM’s president and associate vice president for technology transfer and business development at Oregon Health & Science University, said in a news release about the findings.

The post features a great chart that compares many schools/systems, highlighting their federal research funds, start-ups, patents, and licensing fees. There is a huge discrepancy in performance in the simple below.

News: Churning Out Companies – Inside Higher Ed.