Bad Timing: Starving the University Technology Transfer System

A group of over 1000 scientists who are elected members of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has released a letter expressing concern with the Trump Administration’s handling of research funding.  The letter states, in part:

If our country’s research enterprise is dismantled, we will lose our scientific edge. Other countries will lead the development of novel disease treatments, clean energy sources, and the new technologies of the future. Their populations will be healthier, and their economies will surpass us in business, defense, intelligence gathering, and monitoring our planet’s health. The damage to our nation’s scientific enterprise could take decades to reverse. 

The AUTM, the Association of University Technology Managers, noted that the Great Recession would have been much worse if it had not been for university technology transfer.  Harming the engine that’s been creating innovation and new business may not be such a good thing right now.  Besides pushing us into a recession, I do wonder what the political fallout will be of the increased removal of research funding from universities.  Not only do universities spin-off companies to varying degrees of success but there are universities located in many, many congressional districts--and those universities are major regional employers.  The full letter is available, here.  The Scientific American discusses the full letter, here. 

A Closer Look at CRISPR Patents and Licensing: A More Nuanced Approach

Professors Jorge Contreras and Jacob Sherkow recently published an article on February 17, 2017, titled, "CRISPR, Surrogate Licensing and Scientific Discovery: Have Research Universities Abandoned Their Public Focus," in Science.  The authors examined the publicly available licenses between the research institutions and "spin-off" companies which include one of the principal researchers (the spin-off companies are called "surrogates" by the authors).  The authors believe that an apparent "bottleneck" exists with respect to some of the exclusive field of use licenses granted to surrogates which may result in underuse of the technology ultimately harming innovation.  This is, in part, because the surrogates may not be best positioned to utilize the technology under some of the broader fields of use that are exclusively licensed.  The authors note that a "platform technology" such as CRISPR should be broadly accessible and provide some suggestions for future licensing.  The authors also point to how the research institutions have attempted to make the technology available as a tool although without the rights to "market and develop products derived from their research."  This paper is three pages long and well-worth a read.