Bringing down the barriers to technology transfer

Conflict over the goals of joint research was the second most common problem cited by both academe and industry, with 62 percent of business executives saying that university researchers, “Don’t understand business or market demands.”

Science|Business brought the two sides together at ESOF to discuss the issue in a session entitled, “Is Technology Transfer Evil?”

There are some bright lights, but it is also the case that there remains a deep resistance in European academia to doing research with industry. Such engagement is seen as distracting from the more important matter of publishing papers, and as an affront to academic freedom.

Companies, meanwhile, are accused of not understanding the constraints under which academics operate. Add to this cultural divide and conflicts on goals the extremely awkward question of who owns any intellectual property, and the amount of management time that is needed to make a collaboration work successfully, and technology transfer does indeed look evil.

A necessary evil

But technology transfer is a necessary evil, and both sides need to find ways to navigate the cultural divide, according to Pat Frain, Director of NovaUCD, the innovation and technology transfer centre at University College Dublin, who told delegates that the route to overcoming the divide is in creating partnerships that foster collaborative research. “If you are licensing to industry then 90 per cent is about the relationship. Only 10 per cent is about the science. To be successful in the long run, you need long-term relationships.”

Frederick Wittock, of the pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson, agreed. The company’s most significant relationships are with the Karolinska Institute, Imperial College London, Madrid University, and the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (VIB). “They have all worked hard to understand what we needed,” said Wittock.

The Spanish automotive components manufacturer Ficosa International has collaborations in place with 15 universities in five countries, and CEO Javier Pujol Artigasbelieves universities are the most important source of technology creation. The difficulty for industry is tapping that knowledge base. Ficosa looks to university collaborations to help speed the time to market. “But very often universities are not aware of the needs of the market,” he said. Universities need to get better at showcasing their capabilities, to facilitate and streamline the process of establishing and maintaining collaborations, Artigas suggested.

Close, but not too close

For Richard Seabrook, a founding member of the technology transfer division of the UK medical charity, the Wellcome Trust, it is not appropriate to ask universities to align themselves too closely with the needs of industry as a route to speeding up technology transfer. “Universities are meant to be multidisciplinary,” he said. “Which industries do they align themselves with?”

The aims and objectives of academe are and should be distinctive, agreed Alfons Sauquet, Dean, Department of Human Resources at ESADE Business School, Spain. The trick then is to set up collaborative projects to appeal to both. “You have to find projects and goals that meet the needs of both sides simultaneously,” he said.

The Wellcome Trust has a unique perspective on the issue of technology transfer. Its mission in funding basic research is to see the fruits translated into new and better healthcare treatments and products. Yet often it finds intellectual property spilling out of the technology transfer pipeline. “The breakpoints, or weaknesses are where [projects] are not de-risked enough for industry,” said Seabrook. Wellcome is trying to address this in its drug discovery programme, which gives large grants to both academe and industry to advance the development of promising compounds.

Many of the logjams in the technology transfer process revolve around cultural issues that may take some time to shift. But one immediate move to defuse the problem would be to improve the quality of technology transfer offices (TTOs). Frain pointed to moves to professionalise the activity and create a more structured career path, with the Institute of Knowledge Transfer in London is setting up a framework to recognise professional competence in technology transfer.

TTOs could do better, agreed Seabrook. First, they have to understand what the buyer wants. They spend too much time pushing out “unproductive information” about the latest discoveries. “TTOs need to have a quality check [asking] industry, What do you need?,” said Seabrook.

In addition, there needs to be more training in the fine art of negotiating deals. Industry definitely has the upper hand in terms of experience and TTOs may be so keen to land a deal they end up with an unfavourable agreement.

While the panelists agreed that the academic-industry culture gap may take some time to shift, they all agree there should be no let-up in attempts to change things. As Wittock put it, “Creation of intellectual property and technology transfer is the only way Europe and the knowledge economy can and will survive. If you don’t agree there needs to be a more fluid exchange, you won’t get anywhere.”

The Science|Business online survey began on 13 June among delegates planning to attend ESOF. As of 18 July, 228 had responded to the survey. Science|Business plans to continue the survey internationally and report full results in December.