The Key to the Door of Innovative Opportunities

Many universities have been successful in advancing research innovations for the public benefit. MIT, Stanford, CalTech, University of Utah, and UC Berkeley stand out as current exemplars that are fulfilling the mandate of the Bayh-Dole Act by contributing to innovative biotechnology, IT, and economic growth. These institutions are operating with the character and vision we need.

Any one of the nation's 400 research universities could be the home of the next breakthrough innovation. However, America's federal research dollars are innovative faculty are spread thin across the country and within the universities themselves. Because each university has such diverse research interests, it's economically impractical to allocate the resources needed to recognize, support, and promote every type of invention at every research university.

One size will not fit all and efficiency dictates that we not duplicate specialized resources in a multitude of locations. Thus, The Kauffman Foundation proposes that researchers be given the freedom to look beyond their own university to seek the most qualified agent to help shepherd their innovation to public utilization. Specialization will occur naturally as agencies' talents and interests develop and gravitate to centers of excellence. Technology transfer offices will transform from hundreds of generalists into any number of specialists. The best organizations will thrive in this competitive environment, which will reward constant improvement.

To accomplish this initiative, the Department of Commerce can instruct federal granting agencies to stipulate, as a condition of federal grant awards, that universities must accommodate a principal investigators' reasonable request to employ the best qualified technology transfer agent to act as a trustee of their intellectual property. This would mutually benefit the public, university and inventor(s), and would avoid conflicts of interest. It is contrary to the public interest to vest sole discretion and total authority in one party (investigator or university) to make commercialization decisions.

Kauffman's suggestion that control of research commercialization decisions be shared with inventors has inspired strong rejoinders. Andrew Cohn, the Association of University Technology Transfer Managers' Vice President for Public Policy wrote to the Department of Commerce that, "Faculty free agents would be working for their own benefit, clearly an issue from a conflict of interest standpoint." We agree. However, the same is true of university administrators eager for discretionary funds. The intent of the proposal is not to exchange one extreme--total authority and sole discretion by the university--for another--total authority and discretion by the faculty member. Both the administration and faculty must agree on the agency or submit to an equitable dispute resolution process. Conflicts of interest can occur in any important decision. Transparency and accountability with equitable balance and sharing of power is the democratic governance solution.

Where universities either cannot or will not provide specialized resources for commercialization of a particular type of innovation, we ask that they give their faculty researchers the opportunity to search for a qualified in dependant agent best suited to translate the research for public benefit.

Never waste a crisis. Economic instability and growing unemployment have led our nation's leaders to examine the fundamental resources available to restore America's vitality. The resounding conclusion is that America's enduring strength lies in its innate culture of innovation and entrepreneurialism. New jobs are created by new businesses, a great many of which arise from university innovations funded primarily by federal research grants. Honoring public policy to enable economic growth is the logical solution to create sustainable jobs and economic stability.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD

IP Advocate asks that you write to Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke today. Let him know that as faculty scientists of America we are ready to serve our nation through our research, and that his can be best accomplished in an open market environment free of university monopoly on innovation deployment.

These changes will give those of us who want or need it the opportunity to be as entrepreneurial and creative in finding ways to deploy our innovations as we are in finding ways to fund our research and publish our results.

Please also send a copy of your email or U.S. mail letter to:

Please consider copying us at reform@ip-advocate.org on your e-mail communications, or our U.S. mail address so that we may use your letter in our ongoing advocacy campaigns.

"This is not about inventor-owned.
This is not about inventor-as-agent.
This is not about who knows more.

Agents are a legitimate alternative to university parent offices...
May be proof of concept, incubator, accelerator...
May be consortium, commons, patent pool, standards of organizations...
May be mission-directed foundation, strategic aggregator...
May be commercialization expert, design house...
May be another university or university research foundation...

Faculty inventors and principal investigators should have a voice in choice of agent...
With regard to their research objectives...
With regard to their expertise and readiness to participate in development...
With regard to choice of model of development--license, start-up, open innovation, standard...
With regard to industry engagement, collaboration...
With regard to compatibility on priorities, readiness, connections, and reputation...

Agents reduce university patent office workload and improve likelihood of income from licensing by...
Shifting costs...
Shifting risk...
Reducing conflict between incompatibles...
Being positioned closer to target recipients...
Being positioned for specialized expertise..."

Gerald Barnett, Director Research Technology Enterprise Initiative, University of Washington.