If we are to unleash the
potential of our academic entrepreneurs; government, universities and the
business community need to remove the barriers to commercialisation of research.
The
purpose and impact of universities
Universities carry out three
core activities. Firstly, education: to enable students to develop a deep
understanding of their subject of choice and acquire relevant skills. Secondly,
fundamental research: to create new knowledge and insight. Thirdly, impact: to
apply knowledge outside of academia for the good of society.
UK universities do an
exceptionally good job at the first two of these elements. While there is much
exemplary achievement in the third element, impact, universities require a
supportive environment in order to boost the success of academic endeavours.
We know that academic
research has the power to change lives through broader application and that the
major challenges we face – for example in climate change, in food security, in
health, in digital innovation – will need a combination of curiosity-driven and
applied research in order to develop effective solutions.
But we also know that the
most transformational findings are most likely to emerge from unfettered
research endeavours. Research Councils UK estimates that £45bn of current
economic value in the UK accrues as a consequence of investment in fundamental
research. As President Barack Obama noted
in his 2013 state of the union speech, “Every dollar we invested to map the human
genome returned $140 to our economy.” It is certainly the case
that ongoing and sustained investment in ‘blue skies’ research will create
discoveries and new knowledge that can drive future innovations and industries.
But we should also remember
that our universities already contribute substantially to the immediate
economy. The UK HE sector employs more than 650,000 people and, according to a
study by Universities UK in 2009, generated more than £59bn per annum in the
economy. Many universities are their region’s largest employer and most play a
key role in attracting overseas investors.
The
knowledge exchange landscape
The commercialisation of
research has over the last few decades become a very important element of the
broader activity known as knowledge exchange (KE). This is the two-way process
by which we enable the communication, translation and application of knowledge
between academic and non-academic communities. There are many forms of KE,
among them consultancy, continuing professional development, and collaborative
and contract research (see panel). These activities generate around £3.4bn per
annum, income which universities reinvest in our students, our staff and our
communities, to fuel education, research and innovation.
New inventions or
discoveries made in academic research laboratories can clearly have the
potential to be converted into a commercial product. Although such ventures can
generate a financial return for universities, this may not be the primary
driver. Indeed data show that income derived by UK universities directly
from IP is around £70m per annum, approximately 1.1% of research income,
whereas in the USA it exceeds £1.1bn, more than 3% of research income. Nevertheless
a commercial approach is often pursued because it is simply the most effective
method for maximising the impact and benefit of academic research.
Commercialisation
is a key instrument for effective knowledge exchange and impact
So how have universities
evolved their approach to commercialisation?
The most common approach is
for universities to establish technology transfer offices (TTOs), dedicated to
the commercialisation of research. Typically, their mission is aligned with the
core values of the university rather than oriented toward profits. In the
majority, they seek to maximise the impact of the knowledge created through
commercialisation and to reinvest any surplus in the academic mission.
TTOs mostly work with
academics to take promising ideas through proof-of-concept and into the early
phases of commercialisation. The business managers need to be very skilled in
working with the academic community and balance the ongoing academic
imperatives with commercial considerations.
However, it is still
relatively difficult for academic entrepreneurs to successfully spin-out
companies in the UK. Presently the most significant barrier is the lack of
financial capital available for long-term development work and to maintain the
costs of patents. Inventors and universities often find themselves “diluted
out” before the enterprise reaches a significant value. There is considerable
pressure to seek capital overseas, where a healthier, less risk-averse investor
community exists. Until we can make it easier for entrepreneurs to access local
capital on the right scale, their bridge across the ‘valley of death’ will take
them overseas.
The relative inaccessibility
of finance might explain the strong preference within the UK to progress
innovation through partnering and licensing. In such cases a third party
organisation takes the lead in development phases and the inventors are
rewarded through a revenue sharing arrangement.
Building
on our success in knowledge exchange and commercialisation
The UK is far better at KE
and commercialisation than is often recognised, but we can and must do much
better. But if we are to do so we must be more ambitious, so that the
individual entrepreneurs and innovators can realise their potential. There are
some specific actions that universities and government can take.
What can
universities do better?
Universities need to do far
more to foster a culture of entrepreneurship within their academic and student
communities. This means re-examination of their policies, promotion criteria
and reward structures, and the provision of time to pursue innovation.
Universities need to tear down bureaucracy within their organisations and be
less risk averse. Universities need to invest more in innovation within their
organisations and be more explicit about both its value to society and its role
in enhancing the university mission. Finally, universities need to get better
at working with business, seeing long-term collaborations as an investment,
rather than a source of short-term income.
What can
government do?
Government has a key role to
play. Firstly, it needs to recognise our universities' strengths, rather than
simply assuming that all good innovation happens overseas. Secondly, we need
continued investment in translation and innovation, but not at the expense of
funding for basic research. We have a wide range of reasonably effective
instruments already in place: HEFCE, research councils, the Technology Strategy
Board (TSB) and Capital for Enterprise, so lets use them rather than invent new
ones. Thirdly, government needs to focus on policy initiatives that will
benefit the UK, rather than those – such as IP giveaways and ill-considered
open access requirements – that will benefit our competitors’ economies.
Fourthly, we need a coherent and modern approach to industrial strategy, and we
need to create the conditions for individuals to succeed: backing, not picking,
winners. Our business community needs a simpler approach to regulation,
improved infrastructure, a skilled workforce and an attractive tax environment.
Finally, we need to make it clear we are open for business, and that means
competing effectively for global talent and making the UK the destination of
choice for world-class innovators, entrepreneurs and employees wherever they
come from.
Summary
Commercialisation of the
intellectual property generated through research is an important part of the
knowledge exchange landscape in the UK. Despite this, at present there are
significant barriers, which impede the UK’s academic entrepreneurs. If we are
to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit and potential of the academic community, we
need concerted effort from universities, from government and from business
partners.
This article was published in Science in Parliament
http://www.vmine.net/scienceinparliament/sip70-2_contents.pdf
This article was published in Science in Parliament
http://www.vmine.net/scienceinparliament/sip70-2_contents.pdf