Technology Transfer Metrics: Toward Improving Global Human Welfare

1
Technology Transfer MetricsToward Improving
Global Human Welfare
Matthew Rocco PriceCollege of William Mary
2
Outline

• I. Brief TT Review
• II. Success, Innovation, and Goals
• III. Conventional TT Metrics
• IV. Departures from AUTM Orthodoxy
• V. UAEM's TT Metrics Proposal
• VI. Conclusions Questions

3
Technology Transfer Review
Courtesy Nick Stine, Penn UAEM
4
Outline

• I. Brief TT Review
• II. Success, Innovation, and Goals
• III. Conventional TT Metrics
• IV. Departures from AUTM Orthodoxy
• V. UAEM's TT Metrics Proposal
• VI. Conclusions Questions

5
Goals

• Not every end is the goal. The end of a melody
  is not its goal and yet if
• melody has not reached its end, it has not
  reached its goal. A parable. -F. Nietzsche,
  Ecce Homo

Non-profit universities
Worldwide accessibility of university-licensed
biomedical end-products Maximizing societal
use of benefit from university innovations
vs. for-profit, publicly-held companies like
Gilead Sciences (GILD)
Mission ...to advance the care of patients
suffering from life-threatening diseases
worldwide. Maximize profits and return value to
shareholders
6
WM Mission Statement Specific Goals

• to instill in its students an appreciation for
  the human condition, a concern for the public
  well-being, and a life-long commitment to
  learning
• to use the scholarship and skills of its faculty
  and students to further human knowledge and
  understanding, and to address specific problems
  confronting the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
  nation, and the world.

http//www.wm.edu/provost/strategicplan/WilliamMar
yMissionStatement.pdf
7
Technology Transfer Office (TTO)

• Mission Statement
•  
• The mission of the College of William and Mary
  Technology Transfer
• Office is to benefit the public by moving results
• of WM research into societal use. We will
• a. support effective and efficient
  commercialization of university technologies
  through appropriate mechanisms
• b. support research at the College and economic
  development in the region
• c. ensure that the process is consistent with the
  academic, research, and conflict of interest
  principles of the College.
• http//www.wm.edu/ip/mission.php

8
Universities Prize Tech Transfer Deals Despite
Economic Realities

• Discretionary funds
• Faculty incentives, e.g. revenue sharing
• TTOs often consider securing royalty and
  licensing fees their most important objective
• This is despite the frequently claimed primary
  goal of serving the public good

Losing sight of our objectives is our most
frequent act of stupidity
courtesy of Sanjay Basu/UAEM
9
Metrics Madness-BusinessWeek, September 25 2006

• The common mistakes are putting in too many
  metrics, measuring the wrong things, misaligning
  metrics within organizations, and counting what
  can be counted, not what counts.

10
How is Innovation Assessed?

• Common Private Sector Innovation Metrics
• Number of Patents
• Revenues Growth from New Products
• Partnerships
• TSR / ROI
• Risk Analyses
• Kill Rate
• RD Spending
• Time to Market

11
Other BW Critiques

• Warning! Invention is not innovation, and
  patents do not automatically lead to innovation.
  A patent focus can become distracting. Many
  companies focus on the legal aspects of
  protection so much that they lose sight of the
  business.
• Overall insights
• TTOs ought not lose sight of their stated
  objectives
• Maximizing patent royalties in many situations
  mismatches universities' goals

12
Outline

• I. Brief TT Review
• II. Success, Innovation, and Goals
• III. Conventional TT Metrics
• IV. Departures from AUTM Orthodoxy
• V. UAEM TT Metrics Proposals
• VI. Conclusions Questions

13
0.6 of Licenses Generate gt 1M
AUTM Technology Transfer Metrics
Data from 2004 AUTM Licensing Surveyhttp//www.au
tm.net/events/File/04AUTMSurveySum-USpublic.pdf
14
RD Expenditures
Data from 2004 AUTM Licensing Surveyhttp//www.au
tm.net/events/File/04AUTMSurveySum-USpublic.pdf
15
Data from 2004 AUTM Licensing Surveyhttp//www.au
tm.net/events/File/04AUTMSurveySum-USpublic.pdf
16
Despite increasing commercialization, TTOs
overall arent making a lot of money!

• It is likely that after taking costs into
  account, the majority of American research
  universities are losing money on their patenting
  and licensing activities. Columbia Professor
  Bhaven Sampat
• The dirty secret is that for many
  universitiesperhaps mostthey are not breaking
  even, much less making money on the
  proposition. Johns Hopkins President
  William Brody

courtesy of Samantha Chaifetz/UAEM
17
Milken Institute Report's Metrics

• Research quality/quantity via publication
  rankings
• Patenting activity, quality, and impact
• Early-stage commercialization success
• Hypothesized principal determinants
• Absorptive capacity of the surrounding region
• OTT research quality as measured in papers
• ROI characterized by labor cost indices

Mind to Market A Global Analysis of University
Biotechnology Transfer and Commercialization.
Published September 20th, 2006.
18
Mind to Market A Global Analysis of University
Biotechnology Transfer and Commercialization.
Published September 20th, 2006.
19
Outline

• I. Brief TT Review
• II. Success, Innovation, and Goals
• III. Conventional TT Metrics
• IV. Departures from AUTM Orthodoxy
• V. UAEM TT Metrics Proposals
• VI. Conclusions Questions

20
Non-Traditional Deals

• Research income over royalties
• Dual-market licensing opportunities
• Donating Patent Rights
• ...Steps Forward, But Still in Bean-Countable
  Terms...

21
This Slide Has Been Removed
22
Outline

• I. Brief TT Review
• II. Success, Innovation, and Goals
• III. Conventional TT Metrics
• IV. Departures from AUTM Orthodoxy
• V. UAEM TT Metrics Proposals
• VI. Conclusions Questions

23
Framing Language From UAEM's Consensus Statement

• impact on global human welfare rather than
  simply by financial return
• positive social impact from university
  innovations will go largely unnoticed
• transparent criteria measuring access to health
  technologies and innovation in neglected diseases

24
Consensus Statement Asks

• Collect and make public statistics on indicators
  relevant to global health access.
• But what specific form will these indicators
  take?
• Which data should be published, and who should
  pay for it?
• Collaborate with other universities and consortia
  to develop more robust technology transfer
  metrics that better gauge access to public health
  goods and innovation in neglected diseases.
• Which consortia are the likely candidates?
• What are current known or unknown relationships
  between upstream university tech. transfer
  activity access?

25
Consensus Statement Asks, cont'd

• facilitation of generic competition
• mandatory sublicensing clauses for LMI markets
• specific access milestones
• agreements that reduce royalty payments from the
  licensee to the University in exchange for fair
  pricing in LMI markets on the part of the licensee

26
Other UAEM Policy Objectives

• University IP should promote not conflict
  with developing countries' TRIPS public health
  right
• Monitoring effects of aforementioned policy
  changes
• Transparency

27
Outline

• I. Brief TT Review
• II. Success, Innovation, and Goals
• III. Conventional TT Metrics
• IV. Departures from AUTM Orthodoxy
• V. UAEM TT Metrics Proposals
• VI. Conclusions Questions

28
Conclusions

• Metrics Licenses Access
• Current TTO metrics misaligned with universities'
  stated missions
• Metrics changes present a collective action
  problem
• Consensus Statement will play a
  coalition-building role