Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Strategic Innovation and Commercialization: Supporting IP and Tech Transfer to Advance U.S. Research Competitiveness

Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

On February 7–8, 2023, the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) convened a workshop for its membership and invited guests to discuss how to foster the health and productivity of the U.S. research enterprise in the context of challenges and potential solutions driven by new partnerships and other opportunities related to economic security and competition.¹ The workshop considered critical elements to promote and strengthen research commercialization, including new protection and security frameworks for intellectual property (IP), advancement of U.S. leadership in international standards organizations, and best practices to promote technology transfer.

Opening the workshop in conversation with GUIRR co-chair Darryll Pines (University of Maryland), Vaishali Udupa (U.S. Patent and Trade Office [USPTO]) reflected on the ways her experience as an inventor and lawyer has prepared her for her new role as Commissioner of Patents at USPTO, the leader of the U.S. system for IP protection—a system that she emphasized is key to strengthening the country’s innovation capacity and economic competitiveness.

In January 2023 USPTO released a draft 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, which aims to drive U.S. innovation and increase competitiveness by protecting IP and expanding participation in the U.S. innovation ecosystem.² “Achieving the plan’s goals in a system of inclusive capitalism requires tapping into creativity and innovative minds across the country,” Udupa stated. In this regard, it is important to look at how key areas of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) are protected, and to ensure as many people as possible are participating in the innovation ecosystem. She presented a key figure from the plan: USPTO estimated if the number of U.S. inventors increases four-fold, U.S. gross domestic product could increase by $1 trillion. “Increasing innovation will improve the U.S. economy,” she said, noting that innovative industries contribute almost $8 trillion to U.S. GDP and account for 44 percent of all U.S. jobs.³

__________________

Udupa noted that for the last several years the share of foreign-origin patent applications has been higher than the share of applications from domestic entities (e.g., individuals, companies, universities)—the split in 2019 was 56 percent to 44 percent.⁴ To ensure domestic invention and innovation capacity, USPTO provides outreach, resources, and tools to help individuals and small-business inventors understand the value of their IP and how to protect it, including a new tool called IPIdentifier.⁵ “We are helping you throughout the process, and we want to make sure that everyone is part of that innovative process.” USPTO also works with counterparts in other countries to share best practices to ensure global IP rights are enforced.

Pines harkened back to remarks from the National Science Foundation Director Sethuraman Panchanathan at the October 2022 GUIRR meeting, where he called for “innovation anywhere, opportunities everywhere.”⁶ Udupa strongly concurred with the message. She stated that for USPTO to fulfill its strategic objective to expand innovation and entrepreneurship throughout the country, more engagement of women, minority communities, and people from rural areas like the one where she grew up will be necessary. Among other efforts, USPTO has established a Council for Inclusive Innovation and works with a wide range of partners, including industry, other federal agencies, and universities. Providing legal resources and reducing fees to make it easier for small companies and inventors to file for patents are other strategies to expand participation. Monthly sessions are held around the country with women entrepreneurs (although all can participate). USPTO also partners with other federal agencies including the International Trade Administration, Small Business Administration, Department of the Interior, and others to protect IP. In each of these partnerships, Udupa mentioned that the role of the USPTO is to stress the value of IP on the road to bringing innovations to market.

An attendee from University of California Berkeley asked Udupa to reflect on trends influencing inventors’ decision-making when applying for patents, citing a range of reasons for not filing including the rising cost of litigation and a more pressing need to stay ahead of the competition in certain industries. Udupa noted that though inventors have other options to filing a patent (including making innovations open source or keeping them as trade secrets), in some industries patenting continues to be extremely important, and USPTO is committed to ensuring a strong and reliable patent system for all industries that benefit from such protection.

Other questions from attendees for Udupa focused on pathways for greater involvement by universities with USPTO, in addition to IP protection for inventions developed on campuses. Points mentioned included understanding the lower number of patents from faculty at institutions in Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) states; opportunities for law school students to provide legal assistance to inventors at their institutions; and prospects for tapping into universities’ existing programs to reach diverse and underserved communities. Udupa highlighted that STEM programs through the USPTO’s National Inventors Hall of Fame reached 287,000 pre-K students and 27,000 teachers around the country last year, and these programs might benefit from university engagement. In closing, Udupa invited the GUIRR community to provide feedback on the 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.

ECONOMIC SECURITY, STRATEGIC COMPETITION, AND THE U.S. RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

In introducing the first panel of the workshop, GUIRR co-chair Al Grasso (MITRE) commented that the links between economic security and national security are entwined. Pointing to studies by the National Academies and the Special Competitive Studies Project, Grasso urged attention to U.S. competitiveness in critical technology areas.⁷ He also mentioned the need to address issues of scale, access, and security in highly complex situations.

__________________

Candice Wright (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO]) explained the GAO’s Science, Technology, and Analytics Branch was formed in January 2019 to bring together and expand programs within the nonpartisan agency to better provide information to Congress. She highlighted recent studies in three areas: (1) the balance between the open exchange of ideas and security risks, (2) technology transfer, and (3) competitiveness in transformational research areas.

Related to the balance between openness and security, Wright noted that researchers and inventors are required to be “cross-over artists” armed with skills in their fields of expertise, as well as policy, security implications, and profitability. “The global nature of S&T offers exciting areas for collaboration, but also increases risks,” she continued, which puts added pressure on U.S. universities. Among its findings, GAO recommended that federal agencies develop policies to guide researchers in disclosures and other policies to balance openness and risk.⁸

Related to technology transfer, specifically for projects funded by the Department of Energy, Wright pointed to GAO work on how companies can bridge the so-called “valley of death” between the end of public funding and start of sufficient private funding.⁹ “If researchers align their goals with industry needs,” she said, “researchers and lab officials increase the chance that a technology will successfully mature and transition to the commercial market.” The DoE iCorps program was developed specifically to train researchers to commercialize new technologies and identify industry needs. GAO recommended that DoE continue to assess researcher needs for commercialization training and expand that capacity where needed.

Related to transformational areas, GAO, in partnership with the National Academies, studied how to maintain U.S. competitiveness in such areas as quantum and artificial intelligence (AI). Experts identified important considerations including developing a strategic approach, bringing together cross-sector partnerships and consortia, and conducting future-oriented planning.¹⁰ “Training the S&T workforce is key in maintaining competitiveness,” she stressed. Looking forward, Wright said that to compete globally, R&D in the United States must respond to strategic public needs. “The insights and recommendations stemming from our work offer a window into what can be done, what might be needed to improve the U.S. position, and directions that changes might take,” she concluded.

Bill Dally (NVIDIA) emphasized that while the United States leads the world in most technical areas, the gap is closing because of higher investments in other countries, especially China. Facing this challenge requires strategic U.S. investments from each sector building on its own unique advantage. In Dally’s opinion, universities are best positioned to conduct fundamental research; industry to conduct applied research and product development; and government to fund research and lower barriers with subsidies He added that government funds the long-term research that industry rarely undertakes.

In Dally’s view, the trajectory of innovation starts with basic research. He said he counsels researchers to treat ideas “like livestock, not children,” culling the herd of ideas that might not work out for various reasons, rather than protecting them. Next in the trajectory are pioneering products, which he said should get out into the marketplace quickly to learn from customer feedback. Through rapid iterations, a mature product with a closer fit to the market (and more competition) can result. He illustrated this trajectory with artificial intelligence hardware.

“Part of a research strategy is deciding what not to do,” he stressed. In allocating resources, he emphasized projects with the greatest impact on the world and on his company, and those with the greatest probability of success. He urged understanding each project’s “receivers” (who turn the technology into a product) and “champions” (who have the problem for whom the product will benefit). Success often depends on getting the champions involved. He noted the risks of industry

__________________

being too oriented around short-term results, and researchers too fixed on their favorite projects. “What works is a portfolio approach to investing in a lot of small-risk projects and then ruthlessly down-selecting,” he argued. Other elements for a successful research strategy outlined by Dally included embracing and enabling a system to support bottom-up development of high-impact ideas, in which identified leaders are funded with independence; identifying a path to impact; and avoiding chasing fads.

Chaouki Abdallah (Georgia Tech) shared his perspective on innovation and security as a university researcher and administrator, as well as someone who came to the United States as an international student. He stressed three main points: that all research is dual use in some way; networks are everywhere; and partnerships are key.

Abdallah noted many technologies have both beneficial and dangerous uses. “Researchers must look at the wider implications of their work, even if they cannot anticipate every possibility,” he said. Recognizing all research as dual use challenges two traditional assumptions about research—first, that it is possible to clearly delineate between fundamental and proprietary research; and second, that economic and national security are related but separate. In Abdallah’s view, the “bright line” delineation between fundamental and proprietary research as outlined by National Security Decision Directive (NSDD)-189 is now being blurred, given the speed of innovation and the ubiquity of technology use and availability.¹¹ He also now sees economic security as a subset of national security—along with physical security and national values—and referenced examples of technology agreements being led by national security offices rather than the scientific agencies.¹²

“Given the ubiquity of trade, talent, investment, and international collaboration networks, all it takes is one link from one node in a network to another to spread information, as well as misinformation or other negative things,” he observed. He referenced the concept known in sociology as “the strength of weak ties,” which suggests that an individual doesn’t need to have many ties to be influential, if they have a tie to a network, which allows multiple networks to merge. To demonstrate the complex network of networks involved in international trade, Abdallah discussed the network of U.S. import and export partners and products and referenced U.S. outbound investment in Chinese AI companies.¹³

Abdallah also urged attention both to the inflows and outflows of international students to the United States. Using ChatGPT and the measurement of the Higgs boson mass as examples, he underscored that international collaboration networks are necessary for large-scale, impactful discovery and innovation. However, as he and co-author Harry Broadman wrote in Science, the impact of security policies on cross-border research, including among allies, is important to consider.¹⁴ In conclusion, Abdallah said research should be collaborative, inclusive, and well-communicated. Research universities should be partnership builders, and standards and mechanisms for researchers should be in place “to make it easy to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing.”

During discussion, a participant from the European Union commented on the need for cooperation amidst global interdependency in research and business, suggesting that defining when and where risk mitigation can happen—rather than trying to eliminate all risk—is important. He referenced EU efforts to build a level playing field globally, including through an articulation of values and principles in international research.¹⁵ Abdallah acknowledged that for all the focus on critical technologies, “people are the most important platform.”

__________________

In considering a question from Grasso about how to build and access talent to accelerate innovation, Dally observed a shortage of talent in computer hardware and semiconductors. He called for incentives to encourage people to pursue careers in critical STEM areas, as well as the creation of pipeline programs and outreach to K–12 students to improve retention. Abdallah suggested looking at non-U.S. models, for example in countries that have greater female participation in STEM. Wright urged outreach in all parts of the United States, as well as accepting both that people move around in their career pathways, and that this movement can enrich individuals’ experiences and improve institutional cultures.

A participant from GAO asked the speakers to reflect on the skillset necessary to identify champions and receivers (as discussed by Dally) and to leverage weak ties (as discussed by Abdallah). Dally commented many researchers prefer to be in the lab, but the key is to make clear that reward is based on the handoff of their research. “The system should reward impact, not just publications,” he posited. Abdallah observed that international students are often practiced at developing and leveraging networks because of their choice to relocate for their education. Wright commented on the value of mentors who can model these skills and challenge people to take risks outside of their comfort zones.

BUILDING RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION CAPACITY TO STRENGTHEN U.S. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

The second panel, moderated by Pines, discussed building capacity in the ecosystem. Presenters were asked how sharing university-industry collaboration and partnership best practice can enable greater economic impact from research commercialization efforts.

Donald Siegel (Arizona State University Global Center for Technology Transfer) discussed lessons learned and new directions in technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. A literature search underscores how the technology transfer world at universities has changed to support entrepreneurship ecosystems since the BayhDole Act of 1980, which allows contractors to patent inventions resulting from federally funded research. However, Siegel said, tension can still exist between faculty and administration in technology transfer. He noted social science research has shown the impact on tech transfer of incentives, social networks, institutional policies, and academic department culture, but there is a void in the literature. He and colleagues have called for more research on national labs and other non-university institutions; post-docs in addition to faculty; workplace practices; cultural assimilation of foreign-born scientists; and the impacts of the pandemic.

As a case study with practical implications, Siegel highlighted an NSF-funded project on the role of perceptions about organizational justice in formal and informal technology transfer.¹⁶ He and colleagues looked at the impact of faculty perceptions of organizational justice on how they engage formally with tech transfer offices or bypass these offices via consulting or other activities. The extent to which faculty perceive distributive, procedural, and interactional justice related to technology transfer, along with whether they prioritize entrepreneurial identity or prosocial motivations, affects their technology transfer choices. “My main takeaway is that we must think about the human dimension of technology transfer—how we manage, motivate, create culture that supports technology on campus and in federal labs,” he said.

Cary Coglianese (University of Pennsylvania Law School) described the Penn Program on Regulation, designed to teach law and public policy graduate students about voluntary codes and standards so they are more knowledgeable and can lead within the hundreds of nongovernmental standards-setting bodies globally. In suggesting why students should be familiar with standards, he pointed out that standards are complements or substitutes to law, become terms in contracts, define the standard of care in product liability litigation and in criminal courts, trigger licensing negotiations, and are widely incorporated into law and regulations.

__________________

Coglianese’s project, funded by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), provides a range of resources for faculty including course modules and multi-media case studies.¹⁷ Five course modules are designed to fit within existing classes: (1) Introduction to voluntary codes and practices, (2) Standard essential patents; (3) Incorporation by reference; (4) Risk regulation; and (5) Federal preemption. Teaching guides, discussion questions, slides, handouts, short videos, and supplemental readings are available. Case studies expose students to real-world situations, for example, on licensing and green building codes. He welcomed wide use of the materials for courses and other purposes.

Dev Shenoy (Department of Defense [DoD]) explained the Microelectronics Commons project has been established to help new technologies bridge the valley of death to commercial viability.¹⁸ Reminding participants that microelectronics underpins critical technologies, he stressed that microelectronics is a “must-win technology for DoD” that is essential to U.S. security. Section 9903 of the CHIPS + Science Act contains language to support the U.S. microelectronics ecosystem by developing public-private partnerships for lab-to-fab onshore prototyping.¹⁹ Shenoy noted that barriers facing researchers at universities and small start-ups include high costs to access fabs for end-to-end prototyping, lack of onshore capabilities for assembly and packaging, and lack of workforce expertise. The Microelectronics Commons is designed to bridge the gap between publicly supported research and funding by venture capital.

According to Shenoy, the Commons will provide necessary patient capital in critical areas and build strong participation across sectors. It will set up ‘Hubs’—networks of regional entities—and ‘Cores’—fabs and foundries with scalable capacity beyond what a regional hub will be able to provide. The goal is to connect Hubs and Cores to accelerate prototyping; strengthen local economies; and support the physical, human, and digital infrastructure for onshore capabilities.

Charles Bris-Bois (DARPA) highlighted DARPA’s commercialization strategy to transition more DARPA-funded innovations into commercial applications. As Bris-Bois noted, the DARPA model has worked for 65 years, but adversaries have benefited by identifying performers (universities and small firms) that emerge with a need for additional funding to bring their innovations to market. DARPA’s challenge, he said, “is to be proactive and make performers more attractive to U.S. capital.” To accomplish this, DARPA set up an experiment in its Biological Technologies Office, called the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative (EEI), in which entrepreneurs are embedded with DARPA technologists and scientists to advise how to de-risk business plans and raise funds. Among other metrics shared by Bris-Bois, EEI contributed to raising $526 million in venture capital and $171 million in government awards; no problematic foreign investment resulted.

For DARPA offices and programs that cannot fit the EEI model, DARPA offers non-traditional commercial support in coaching, mentoring, and connecting to networks. Echoing other speakers, Bris-Bois noted the need for companies to show product-market fit to overcome barriers to transition, and to look for other funding models besides venture capital. DARPA is targeting a curated subset of investors who are approached with a de-risked business plan for funding. The project has expanded from an experiment to full agency implementation in the past nine months, and according to Bris-Bois the metrics look good.

During discussion, an attendee from RTI International asked how to access the best talent while also seeking geographic distribution of innovation capacity. Shenoy responded that the Microelectronic Commons’ regional hubs aim to create strong ecosystems. He commented that both collaboration and competition are needed for innovation. Siegel said he and his colleagues are working to identify and measure what a supportive innovation culture entails. Bris-Bois said, “The top-tier

__________________

entrepreneurial talent that DARPA is tapping are people with a wide range of experiences, including those who have overcome previous failures and those who have navigated the different stages of company formation and investment.” Echoing Dally’s point about winnowing down potential investments, Bris-Bois said DARPA starts with a larger list of possibilities, then rigorously assesses where to focus resources.

RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE MODERN GLOBAL COMPETITION AND SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

GUIRR member Brian King (Clarivate) moderated a session about the challenges and opportunities of risk, and the need to maintain leadership. Three presenters talked about how the partnerships, forums, and mechanisms in which they are involved affect the evolving security and competition environment.

Jayne Morrow (NIST) welcomed the previous discussions about the need to engage in standards development and leadership. She explained her own research led her to see the role of biological standards and measurements in the metrology community, which is critical to trade. In her current work at NIST, she is involved in standards and measurements across sectors.

“A challenge is the growing number of international standards organizations and activities when resources are limited,” she said, explaining the U.S. government’s role is guided by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. Federal agencies are also encouraged to work together on standards through Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, and private industry is encouraged to be involved.²⁰ NIST convenes and participates in a range of consortia to explore how its technology and measurement science can support standards development. NIST also coordinates Manufacturing USA, a network of 16 institutes around the country that can link with other efforts to pull in resources.

Morrow concluded by emphasizing the importance of networks and best practices in standards development. She noted that timing is essential—when standards are set too early, this can stymie innovation; however, if others take the lead in setting standards, then U.S. companies may fall behind She urged talking about standards “not just as sidebar conversations, but in the forefront” of the discussion about global technology competitiveness. She also noted NIST is looking for ways to get involved with academia and other agencies, such as NSF, and she welcomed ideas to improve career development, curriculum development, training, best practices, and access to test beds. To incentivize standards development as an attractive career path, Morrow suggested finding ways for professionals to gain visibility and recognition in what is often very time-intensive work and encouraging institutions to recognize the value of this work in promotion and tenure routes.

Christina Lomasney (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [PNNL]) discussed risk mitigation in the modern technology transfer environment. She began by pointing out that the public and private sectors in the United States spent about $607 billion in R&D activity in 2019; a little over $100 billion of this amount went to basic research.²¹ “The federal government bridges a critical gap in providing funding for basic and applied research—even in immediate terms, the impact of that investment is significant to the U.S. economy,” she argued. As the largest federal investor in basic research in the physical sciences, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invests about $20 billion annually in seventeen labs across the country. She drew from federal statute to define technology transfer as a practice to (1) advance the economic, energy, and national security interests of the United States; (2) achieve maximum public return and impact; and (3) ensure streamlined and compliant technology transition. “The technology transfer mission of the national labs enables industrial partnerships with the goal of providing benefit from federal research to U.S. economic competitiveness,” she said.

Unlike DoD-funded facilities, Lomasney noted, DOE labs do not have a built-in customer and must engage with

__________________

industry early on. This means that technology transfer is the labs’ primary threat vector, but she pointed out that technologies and industries face different threats that require different solutions. For emerging and sensitive technologies, export controls can be effective to thwart adversary exploitation, although there is debate about how to apply them. For critical and foundational industries, governance controls can be effective, but the principal agency charged with protection, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Safety, has expanded pressures without a commensurate increase in budget. “The takeaway as we transition from figuring out what the risks are, to figuring out what to do about them is that we are challenged in implementation,” she stated.

Lomasney identified three elements of threat mitigation: regulatory, implementation standards, and risk mitigation practices, all of which DOE uses or implements. DOE’s Office of Technology Transitions has funded PNNL, other national lab partners, and industry partners to build compliant lab-to-market tools and processes to streamline technology transition. They will support a common set of principles and rules for technology transfer, similar to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)—a standardized consensus on financial accounting requirements and practices. “A mechanism for measuring and comparing measurements around tech transfer is necessary to create frameworks for technology and entity classification,” Lomasney said. This measurement framework was referenced as a set of generally accepted technology transfer principles, similar to GAAP.

Mauricio Futran (Johnson & Johnson, retired) discussed pharmaceutical supply chain agility and security risks. While the worst supply outcomes were avoided in the COVID-19 pandemic, challenges were exposed in both small-molecule pharma (e.g., tablets and other oral medicines, mostly made in China and India) and large-molecule pharma (e.g., biologics, including vaccines).

“Related to agility, the pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated with high barriers to innovation and scalability,” Futran explained. Manufacturing processes are based on empirical science, and they lack quantitative, data, and predictive model-based approaches. Related to security, small-molecule pharma has a long supply chain that involves many active ingredients, most of which come from China. To Futran, arguments for reshoring the industry are naïve given this complexity. Large-molecule pharma involves many proprietary, single-sourced materials; moreover, many quality assays take days or weeks to perform in labs. Adding to supply chain challenges, Futran said the industry has no equipment standards regarding interchangeability, and physical and software standards to enable plug-and-play of equipment modules is just emerging.

During discussion, several issues related to standards development were raised. To deal with multiple competing standards, Morrow suggested looking at harmonization and consistent measurements for baselining. She urged advocating for a global perspective through international organizations. Standards are not usually part of engineering education, she noted, but suggested engineering research centers as a place where this could happen. Lomasney urged rewarding involvement in standards as a way to incentivize more people to get involved in their development.

NEXT HORIZONS AND NEW MODELS FOR DRIVING INNOVATION LANDSCAPES

In the final panel, Pines asked presenters to share their efforts to drive innovation. They shared ideas on a range of systems and models to accelerate technology and form high-impact partnerships.

Kelly Sexton (University of Michigan [U-M]) described Innovation Partnerships as a model for leveraging research universities to increase economic growth outside of coastal entrepreneurial hotspots to building regional commercialization capacity.²² Seventy-five percent of venture capital is concentrated in California, Massachusetts, and New York, she pointed out; conversely, 74 percent of federally funded research is

__________________

geographically diverse and invested outside those three states.²³

As Sexton explained, U-M has built regional capacity through robust technology commercialization over the past decade, with 53 startup companies launched in the past two years. Solutions have been developed to address three bottlenecks: innovation, talent (specifically entrepreneurial talent), and capital. First, to de-risk innovation, a statewide program, the Michigan Translational Research and Commercialization Program, offers bridge funding through five hubs at U-M and other campuses in agriculture biotech, advanced computing, advanced materials, life sciences, and advanced transportation. Second, to strengthen talent, the Tech Transfer Talent Network, another statewide program, matches experienced mentors with faculty members and graduate students as they advance their technology to form start-ups.

A third challenge is access to capital. According to Sexton, Michigan and the entire Great Lakes Region have a large disparity between academic research expenditures and invested venture capital. This means Great Lakes start-ups take on average two years longer than those on the coasts to raise their first $500,000. The time spent fundraising means many companies lose their competitive advantage. Her office has created the Accelerate Blue Fund to invest in U-M start-ups. Results of 11 investments to date show that for every $1 invested by the fund, companies have raised an additional $26 from other investors. The goal is to raise $30 million from philanthropy to become evergreen.

Charles Lewis (Skysong Innovations, Arizona State University [ASU]) recalled his own difficult beginnings in the mid-1980s starting a company as a recent ASU graduate with no support from the university. After a successful career as an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, he returned to ASU to support its mission to advance research and discovery of public value. Skysong Innovations became ASU’s specialized firm for identifying, protecting, and transferring ASU innovations into the marketplace for the benefit of society.²⁴

Lewis related that the venture-capital model, with revenue as the priority, did not work within the ASU culture. Skysong Innovations pivoted to become a service organization with a focus on support of all faculty, protection of their patents, and facilitation of licenses to gain access to the technologies they develop. “It’s more about speed to market rather than picking winners and losers,” he explained. “Let the market figure out who the winners are, rather than the Technology Transfer office.” The office has supported 205 new startups with a total of $1 billion in cumulative outside investments reported, with the largest in the area of sustainability. Lewis noted the importance as a public university to document the contribution of these investments to job creation and support of the local economy.

Skysong Innovations and Mayo Clinic launched a MedTech Accelerator in 2019. The two-week intensive program now attracts companies from around the world, and they have signed more than 75 commercial deals to date. Other programs include AZBioPEERS, which provides mentoring; a Start-Up Mill to create strong networks of entrepreneurs; and ASU InvestU, an angel group. “Ninety percent of new startups fail in the first five years,” Lewis concluded. “We try to do what we can to pull down the percentages.”

Iain Kerr (Emergent Futures Lab) offered what he called a disruptive perspective to drive STEM innovation. He referred to a recent paper in Nature in which the authors reviewed articles and patents to posit that since the 1940s, the United States has become less disruptively innovative, which slows progress in some fields.²⁵ Kerr discussed differences between radical and developmental innovation. Radical innovation makes qualitative differences and is disruptive, while developmental innovation is more incremental. Both universities and industry have perfected developmental innovation,

__________________

he said, but paradoxically, the techniques used for developmental innovation can also undermine radical innovation.

Different ecosystems in teaching, research, and economic activity are needed to achieve disruption. For example, disruptive innovation is not looking for product-market fit, because the end use is not yet imagined. Rather than identifying specific talent, the people who contribute to disruptive innovation are distributed. Kerr urged focusing on both types of innovation, since both are needed. He suggested looking at social movements that create paradigm change as models. He suggested one tactic may be to create faculty reward systems that recognize structural change and risk taking.

In response to a question from an attendee from UIDP related to how to incentivize innovation in university settings, Sexton said that the name of her office changed from “Technology Transfer” to “‘Innovation Partnerships” after much consultation with faculty. Lewis noted the benefits of designing challenges and competitions to spur use-inspired research. Kerr said disruptive innovation is not intended to solve existing problems and suggested a model that focuses on novel approaches, rather than outcomes.

Addressing another participant’s question about how to operationalize the charge to the National Science Foundation to identify critical technologies for the nation, Kerr said that something completely new may not be able to be identified.²⁶ Emerging technologies are often obvious in retrospect, he commented, and the more radical, the less predictable. He suggested development of new methodologies of experimentation. Sexton commented that university technology transfer offices are well-positioned to see what is happening across the research enterprise on their campuses, learn what venture capital and companies are looking for, and share the information across their states and with NSF. Lewis said Skysong is encouraged to protect IP that seems to have no commercial use today but may in the future.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Pines thanked participants and summarized a few points he took from the workshop. “The overarching question is to understand the key elements undergirding the axioms of innovation,” he said. In the United States, he noted, most people believe that democratic governance is best for innovation, but he suggested looking for lessons in other systems. Other axioms relate to access to high-quality talent, capital, partnerships, policies and laws, standards, access to ideas, and methods of de-risking innovation. “But if only 10 percent or so of startups are successful, the system is not fully working,” he posited. He invited GUIRR participants and others to examine these and other axioms to increase the chances of success.

__________________

DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Paula Whitacre as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The statements made are those of the author or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants; the planning committee; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

PLANNING COMMITTEE Chaouki Abdallah, Georgia Institute of Technology; Celia Merzbacher, Quantum Economic Development Consortium; Kelly Boatright Sexton, University of Michigan.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop Series—in Brief was reviewed by Kingsley Fregene, Lockheed Martin and Asha Balakrishnan, Institute for Defense Analyses. Marilyn Baker, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.

STAFF Michael Nestor, GUIRR Director; Megan Nicholson, Senior Program Officer; Komal Syed, Program Officer; Christa Nairn, Senior Program Assistant; Clara Savage, Senior Finance Business Partner; Cyril Lee, Financial Assistant.

SPONSORS This workshop was supported by the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable membership, National Institutes of Health (Contract AWD-001268), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

For more information, visit http://www.nas.edu/guirr.

SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Strategic Innovation and Commercialization: Supporting IP and Tech Transfer to Advance U.S. Research Competitiveness: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27190.

Policy and Global Affairs Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.