John Molloy

Tech transfer is not dead, but change is needed

By John Molloy

Contrary to Marcel Mongeon's recent article "Technology Transfer is Dead! Long Live Industry Engagement!" (R$, May 19/09), technology transfer is not dead. In fact, all current indications show that it is poised to grow in importance and relevance for institutions, for industry and for the public.

I disagree with a number of points raised in this article. For starters, technology transfer did not come to Canada from the United States. I will accept that the Bayh-Dole Act increased tech transfer activity in the US and Canada, but technology transfer was being done in Canada long before that legislation was enacted. Queen's University, our parent institution, has been engaged in technology transfer activities since 1953 and hired its first registered patent agent on staff in 1977.

I also disagree with Mr Mongeon's statement that we need more research collaboration agreements and fewer patent licences because the latter discourages industry-institution interactions. A focus on commercialization does not necessarily put institutions and companies in adversarial roles. Experienced and reasonable professionals on both sides can reach a successful agreement without becoming adversaries.

The technology transfer professional knows that the full impact of the research discovery will only be realized in the hands of industry. These managers also have a good appreciation of what risks remain in the development of a discovery, and that awareness keeps expectations in check. Assuming that most reasonable people will be fair, there should never be a need for confrontation. Good negotiation and deal-making does not involve adversarial posturing.

It is also important to separate the functions of grant and contract administration from commercialization. Clearly the former needs to be maintained within university control, whereas commercialization is best allowed to operate as a business within the academic environment. As the head of a technology transfer organization focused exclusively on commercialization, I have seen first-hand that commercialization requires entirely different motivators and skill sets than those required for research contract administration.

Commercialization demands creative, entrepreneurial, ambitious managers who thrive in chaos. We need an entrepreneurial culture to be effective at commercialization and keeping the research grants and contract administration separate from commercialization has served us well. And every commercialization office must be able to understand and negotiate research contracts and collaborative agreements as the need arises.

Nor is it true that provincial and federal governments have abandoned funding for technology transfer. The Ontario government, for example, is planning a new program of support under the Ontario Innovation Network, and Industry Canada is also considering a new program to support commercialization. There are also other programs, such as the Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research. Government assistance for tech transfer is growing, not diminishing.

Canadian universities do about $6 billion per year in research and most is fundamental in nature. Industry-sponsored research at universities accounts for only approximately 20% of the total research spending at universities. The real strength in university research is in basic research, and we need to be much more aggressive in identifying discoveries and managing discoveries that can be converted into commercial products or services. I will not accept the argument that because tech transfer results have been poor, universities should not manage commercialization. Rather, we have never aggressively pursued commercialization so as to maximize the chances of success.

We cannot squander this national asset of discovery, especially when the need to innovate is so important. But we need a new commercialization model.

This model requires commercialization managers who are highly experienced business professionals with a considerable degree of technical expertise. They need to understand the problems of their industry sector and appreciate how a discovery can relate to current or emerging problems. They need to understand what is required to advance a discovery to the point where industry or investors will have sufficient interest, and they need to be able to manage those development projects. Focus is needed so that expertise and experience can be effective in the relevant domain, and areas of focus need to be based on strategic areas of interest.

These domain-specific managers need to be incorporated in a centre that is supported by a strong, entrepreneurial tech transfer infrastructure that can provide all of the functions necessary for successful commercialization, including intellectual property protection, financing, communications, and business management. And they need resources to fund development projects.

The catch is that today no single institution has the research base to support such a domain-specific commercialization initiative. In order to build the critical mass of research needed to justify the required infrastructure, we must share and network.

Discovery flow in specific domains of interest must come from research institutions across the country and beyond. Institutions should not care who manages their commercialization, as long as the commercialization is effective. At the same time, institutions will need to retain general capacity for technology transfer and coordination with these larger domain-driven centres.

I agree that we need to bring industry into collaborations with universities, where the strength of this research can help industry. The key is to engage industry much earlier in the discovery evaluation process. When industry is involved in the discovery development process, it is able to look beyond its short-term, incremental problems to innovations that may be the key to long-term sustainability. Once the market is educated about the long-term value of these transformative discoveries, technology push becomes market pull. Perhaps we can even stimulate a more healthy culture of innovation in Canadian industry.

Utilizing the discovery engine in this country is critical to long term economic viability and we have to make much better use of this asset. But a new aggressive, entrepreneurial approach with active industry engagement is needed. We cannot accept that "technology transfer is dead". It can be done and needs to be done. And we can achieve significant economic and social impact — if we do it properly.

John Molloy is president and CEO, PARTEQ Innovations, Queen's University.