Is it Time to Increase Funding to Universities for Research and Development in the United States?

In a document released by the Association of American Universities (AAU), Mary Sue Coleman, president of the organization, discusses Vannevar Bush’s report, “Science, the Endless Frontier” in a short essay titled, "Celebrating the Government-University Partnership's 75th Anniversary."  Notably, in light of the report, she explains how issues with respect to climate change and Covid-19 only highlight why government should continue to invest in university research.  Unfortunately, the Trump Administration continues to push for less funding for research and development at universities in terms of real dollars.  One of the Democratic presidential candidates who consistently appeared to support university research and development was Tom Steyer.  If former Vice President Biden is elected, hopefully he will consider Tom Steyer for a position in Biden's administration.  If President Trump is reelected, I hope he reconsiders his position regarding funding university research and development.  The AAU document provides, in part: 

. . . 

Famously titled “Science, the Endless Frontier,” the influential report had been requested the previous year by then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom Bush served as chief scientific adviser. As World War II increasingly appeared winnable – in no small part due to the scientific research enterprise that Bush’s office led – Roosevelt was looking to the future. He asked the MIT-trained Bush to file a report addressing four questions:

1. “What can be done, consistent with military security, and with the prior approval of the military authorities, to make known to the world as soon as possible the contributions which have been made during our war effort to scientific knowledge?”

2. “With particular reference to the war of science against disease, what can be done now to organize a program for continuing in the future the work which has been done in medicine and related sciences?”

3. “What can the Government do now and in the future to aid research activities by public and private organizations?”

4. “Can an effective program be proposed for discovering and developing scientific talent in American youth so that the continuing future of scientific research in this country may be assured on a level comparable to what has been done during the war?”

Bush took this brief set of questions and delivered an expansive report with recommendations that have informed U.S. science policy ever since. Calling basic scientific research “the pacemaker of technological progress,” Bush recommended a significant and ongoing partnership between the federal government and universities to conduct research to benefit the nation.

Bush’s report noted that government support for basic research could continue to bolster not only the nation’s security, but also its economic prosperity. “New products and new processes do not appear full-grown,” he wrote. “They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science!”

Bush’s recommendations led to the creation of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies. These agencies conducted and funded the research that sent humans to the Moon, gave us the Internet and smartphones, ended polio and a host of other diseases, and made HIV infection manageable -- more akin to diabetes than a death sentence.

I recently participated in a National Academies of Sciences-sponsored symposium exploring the legacy of this important report and forecasting the future of the government-university partnership. As Vannevar Bush realized 75 years ago, wartime is not the only time for the government to invest in the science that makes us safer and more prosperous. Leading scientists, government officials, and academic researchers at the symposium agreed that – as emerging threats like the COVID-19 virus and the climate crisis make clear – the United States should double down on investments in the government-university research partnership. In fact, in a 2018 article I wrote for Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, I describe in detail how we must continue pressing toward that “Endless Frontier.” Our prosperous and healthy future absolutely depends on vigorously pursuing this journey.

The Importance of an Accurate Assessment of Patent Valuation and Potential Market

A recent article in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch by Christopher Yasiejeko describes a patent-related dispute between two academic institutions.  Two major research universities, University of Wisconsin (through its technology licensing arm, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF)) and University of Washington, Saint Louis (WUSTL) are engaged in litigation concerning royalty payments over a jointly invented patented invention that was licensed to Abbott Laboratories.  The inventors included a researcher from Wisconsin and one from WUSTL. 

One of the issues with university developed technology is who will cover the patent prosecution costs.  Here, WARF apparently agreed to cover the costs for a higher royalty rate.  The dispute concerns apparent representations made by WARF concerning the value of the patent—allegedly representations were made that the value was not very high by WARF.  WUSTL appears to assert that WARF made representations to others that the patent was actually quite valuable and eventually important to the pharmaceutical, Zemplar, which according to the article “generated $409 million in sales in 2011.”  This appears to be a case where fraud in the inducement in entering the contract is relevant.  However, it seems strange that WUSTL was unable to arrive at their own valuation or understand the potential market for the invention—perhaps they did not have the resources at the time invested in technology transfer.  WARF was likely well financed at that time and certainly experienced.

[Hat Tip to Technology Transfer Central]

Facebook to Scoop (?) New Ideas in Partnership with Leading Research Universities

In an intriguing post, co-Blogger Neil Wilkof recently discussed how essentially elite firms may be beating the competition.  In a recent article on Reuters titled “Facebook Forges Agreement with 17 Universities to Streamline Research,” Dustin Volz discusses how Facebook has entered into partnerships (which includes unstated funding) with 17 major research institutions, including Harvard, Stanford and MIT, for the opportunity to work together on forthcoming research.  The article is a little light on details concerning the agreements.  As I described Steve Blank's discussion in an earlier post, some firms have placed outposts in technology innovation hotbeds to track new cutting edge developments and companies.  For sure, the nimble survive and those who are not do not—see Kodak.  However, Facebook may be strategically moving one step forward by starting at the source of some of the new major developments.  This arguably gives Facebook the “first” opportunity to scoop up new research and ideas as they develop in leading research universities.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing for innovation and importantly competition? 

The Reuters article states that:

The agreement between Facebook's Building 8 and the universities comes as the social media company seeks to find new revenue streams in virtual reality and artificial intelligence, after the company signaled last month it had begun to hit some advertising growth limits on its network of 1.8 billion monthly active users.

Research partnerships between universities and companies typically take nine to 12 months to facilitate, but the new agreement will allow for collaboration on new ideas within weeks, said Regina Dugan, who joined the company in April to run the new Building 8 unit.

Dugan did not provide specifics to explain how the partnership will promote a quicker pace of research, but traditional negotiations between universities and companies can often take several months.

The Top University Business Incubators

The UBI Index, based in Stockholm, Sweden, released its University Business Incubator Rankings for 2014.  The UBI Index apparently offers several different rankings based on the nature of the relationship (or lack of one) between the university and the incubator.  What is a “university business incubator?”  A “University Business Incubator” is defined as an incubator with the following characteristics:

·         Managed (by) or affiliated to university(ies)

·         Primary objective to facilitate entrepreneurship and support early stage (new) ventures through a systematic (mid-long term) and extensive incubation process that includes services and infrastructure

·         Quality controlled intake of clients (startups) and regular time bound exits in form of graduate startup clients

The definition also includes “Business Innovation Centers” as well as “Business Accelerators.”  The main ranking, which is based on information submitted by around 300 university business incubators from 67 countries, is the “University Business Incubator Rankings.”  Here are the top 15 university business incubators:

1	Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship	Rice University	United States
2	SETsquared	University of Bath, Bristol, Exeter, Southampton, Surrey	United Kingdom
3	SCUT National University Science Park	South China University of Technology	China
4	ATP Innovations	University of Sydney; University of Technology, Sydney; Australian National University; University of New South Wales	Australia
5	Digital Media Zone	Ryerson University	Canada
6	IncubaUC	Pontifical Catholic University of Chile	Chile
7	Center of Industry Accelerator and Patent Strategy	National Chiao Tung University	Taiwan
8	Encubator	Chalmers University of Technology	Sweden
9	Instituto Genesis PUC-Rio	Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro	Brazil
10	TEC Edmonton	University of Alberta	Canada
11	INiTS Universitäres Gründerservice Wien	Vienna University of Technology, Vienna University “Alma Mater Rudolphina”	Austria
12	DTU Symbion Innovation	Technical University of Denmark	Denmark
13	Melbourne Accelerator Program	University of Melbourne	Australia
14	Hust Science Park Development Corporation	Huazhong University of Science and Technology	China
15	Incubatore di Imprese Innovative del Politecnico di Torino (I3P)	Politecnico di Torino	Italy

 The rankings are based on an analysis of three performance categories that ultimately rest on over 60 “key performance indicators”.  The three performance categories include: “A, its contribution to the ecosystem; B, its value to the startup clients; and C, its attractiveness quotient.”  The “value to the ecosystem” examines factors such as “jobs created by the startup” and “sales revenue of client startups.”  The “value for the client” includes:

Important indicators measured such as number and activity of mentors and coaches, VC and angel funding availability, the investor network, network of sponsors & partners, the network relationships with large corporations; government; business providers and the size of the alumni network.

The “attractiveness quotient” includes: “investment in client startup” as well as “equity stake.” More information concerning the methodology used can be found here.  Besides the rankings, UBI Index also offers a best practices document for university business incubators as well as consulting services. 

Recently, I wrote on developing new metrics for measuring the success of technology transfer offices, here.  Would technology transfer offices benefit from a similar type of ranking offered by UBI Index (does one exist already)?  Could this be another helpful place to find additional metrics?  In addition, what is the relationship between a well-functioning incubator (or a poorly functioning one) and the success of a technology transfer office? 

Measuring the Success of Technology Transfer Offices (and the field)

There is a glaring critique of the university technology transfer enterprise and perhaps the underlying Bayh-Dole Act in the United States.  That critique is based upon the fact that many university technology transfer offices fail to bring in enough funding through licensing or other activities to cover their own costs let alone make money for the university.  Indeed, only a handful of U.S. universities appear to make substantial amounts of revenue.  An additional criticism of the university technology transfer field generally has been that technology transfer offices (and really, the administrators above them) have been too focused on using revenue generated as a metric for success.  This focus arguably can distort the universities’ general mission directed to the public good, including skewing the incentives for academics.  For example, academics can be pushed to adopt research agendas focused on solving practical problems instead of engaging in basic science, which may ultimately have broader public benefits.  At the confluence of these two critiques is the issue of what should be the proper metric(s)for judging success for the technology transfer office and the field in general.  For sure, U.S. universities are feeling the “pinch” of less government monies for research and are looking for alternative funding sources, such as crowdfunding for academic research.  However, even with that pressure, adminstrators and faculty should judge the success of their technology transfer office based on criteria that flow from the mission of the university and that are aligned with its objectives.  So, when is it a success or not?  What are the right metrics?

Valerie Landrio McDevitt, Joelle Mendez-Hinds, David Winwood, Vinit Nijhawan,Todd Sherer, John F. Ritter, and Paul R. Sanberg, have authored a paper titled, “More than Money: The Exponential Impact of Academic Technology Transfer.”  The paper sets forth the benefits of technology transfer beyond revenue alone and perhaps provides the starting point for the development of additional metrics to judge the success of technology transfer offices.  Here are the benefits described by the authors:

Revenue generation

Unrestricted funds to institution from license income

Direct personal financial benefit to inventors and authors

Increased opportunities for funding

Eligibility for funding by compliance with federal regulations requiring a technology transfer program

Increased opportunities for interinstitutional and interdisciplinary grants

Outreach, licensing, and facilitation of new startups yield new funding partnerships

Increased opportunities for funding sources requiring a commercial partner, for example, SBIR and STTR

Facilitates establishment of international research relationships

Promotes a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation

Successes increase university brand and prestige

Enhances university fundraising efforts

Opportunities to strengthen donor ties by engagement with startups

Positively factors into high level recruitment efforts

Positively affects retention of high-producing and high-potential faculty

Student success

Provides opportunities to participate in real world translational research

Provides exposure to the process of obtaining intellectual property protection

Strengthens prospects of finding jobs and being successful

Public benefit

Fulfills the university’s larger missions to address social, medical, environmental, or technical problems

Improves the quality of life

Economic development

Revenue from university licensing positively affects the US economy

Brings money into the state or region

Aids in the retention of local talent

New university startups create high-wage jobs

It may be difficult to measure some of these “benefits.”  But, what do you think of some of these as potential metrics?  For sure, some of the most beneficial programs often bring to the table attributes that are difficult to measure.  And, surely, metrics such as revenue generation, invention disclosures, patents granted, patents applied for, patents licensed, number of start-ups and other traditional metrics still have some place in the game.  (Hat tip to Technology Transfer Tactics for a lead to the paper.) 

Ethics versus Money in University Tech Transfer

IP Finance is delighted to bring you this piece from our friend Suleman Ali (Holly IP), which touches on a sensitive topic:

Are Commercial Pressures Undermining the Ethics of University Tech Transfer Offices? 

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 made it possible for US universities to benefit financially from government funded research.  It allowed universities to own the patents that resulted from their research, rather than having to assign them to the government.  Since then many US universities have done well in commercialising their research.  The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) in the US reports that last year US universities and research institutes executed 5,130 licenses, formed 705 start-ups, filed 22,750 US patent applications and made $2.6billion from licensing income.  UK universities have also done well from commercialising research, making £61 million in licensing income in 2010/11.  Most would agree that commercialising university research is beneficial for the economy of a country, and in particular helps the increasingly important hi-tech industries. 

The hub of the system is the university tech transfer office.  Such offices are now well established in many top universities, and are finding their feet in the less prestigious universities.  However tech transfer offices have a difficult task.  They have to persuade academics to commercialise their research, educating and pushing the reluctant ones and keeping in check the powerful and pushy ones.  They have to defend the university’s interests when collaborations are set up, and are sometimes accused of being too aggressive in doing so.  Most importantly they have to decide on which research they’re going to commercialise.  That is usually based on two main factors, patentability and commercial worth.  Patentability is complex, but usually possible to decide on -- but assessing commercial worth can be close to impossible, and inevitably tech transfer offices get it wrong a lot of the time. That means many university patents are never licensed or commercialised in any way as a commercial partner is never found. 

A recent article in Nature highlights the phenomena of universities looking to Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) to monetise their unlicensed patents.  The article quotes a figure of only 5% of patents being licensed at most universities, which means that a lot of university resources are going into filing and maintaining patent applications which are never going to give any return by the usual means of commercialisation.  PAEs are controversial because they do not develop the technologies covered by the patents they control.  Instead they make money by asserting their patents against companies using the technologies, and thus are seen by some as a burden on innovative companies.  A report in the Stanford Technology Law Review last year alleges that one of the most high profile PAEs, Intellectual Ventures, has relationships with 400 universities around the world and has signed deals with 50 of them.  It’s clear that many universities have no qualms about monetising their patent cases through PAEs.

Questions can be asked about the do’s and don’ts of commercialising publically funded research.  While it seems acceptable for tech transfer offices to license or sell patent to companies that are going to develop the relevant technology, is it equally acceptable for them to monetise their patents through PAEs?  US universities are aware of the issues raised by turning to PAEs.  A memo that resulted from a meeting of top US universities in 2006 says ‘universities would better serve the public interest by ensuring appropriate use of their technology by requiring their licensees to operate under a business model that encourages commercialization and does not rely primarily on threats of infringement litigation to generate revenue’. 

One wonders about the long term consequences on university research now that the option to license to PAEs is available.  Academics are under increasing pressure to focus their research on areas which will have commercial interest.  While it could be argued this harms blue-sky thinking it would still lead to innovative, and hopefully round-breaking, work.  However the PAE model relies on having patents that cover what is being done by companies.  That may cause academics and tech transfer offices to simply focus on producing patents that PAEs would be interested in having. 

Perhaps now is the time for broader questions to be asked about how publicly funded research should be used.  Governments seem increasingly in favour of open innovation, where the results of university research should be freely available to all, allowing as many organisations as possible to benefit from it.  Allowing PAEs to license and assert patents resulting from university research seems a backward step in that process, hurting not only the most innovative sectors of the economy, but arguably also being detrimental to university research itself. 

President Obama’s Legacy: An “Innovation Deficit” or Greater Wealth (and wider distribution)?

When we look back at Obama’s presidency, my guess is that he will be known for several things.  He’ll be remembered for health care reform and as the President of “The Great Recession,” and maybe even the end of Osama Bin Laden (hopefully, also immigration reform).  I doubt that everyone will remember that he inherited the financial mess that was “The Great Recession.”  I also doubt he’ll be remembered for creating manufacturing hubs, the American Invents Act (except amongst patent lawyers), fighting “patent trolls,” and starting an initiative to research the human brain.  But, he could be remembered for creating the “Innovation Deficit.”  What is the “Innovation Deficit?”  Basically, it is low federal spending on education and specifically on research and development (R&D)  in light of increased spending on R&D by global competitors.

The U.S. budget for FY 2015 is being prepared and universities are worried (as we all should be).  Last week, 165 university presidents in the United States sent an open letter to President Obama and Congress urging continued strong funding for education, here.  The letter is part of an effort led by the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, see www.innovationdeficit.org.  The website includes a fact sheet outlining the “Innovation Deficit.”  It states:

·         Over the last ten years, U.S. R&D expenditures as a share of economic output have remained nearly constant in the U.S., but have increased by nearly 50% in South Korea and nearly 90% in China. (Source: NSF S&E Indicators 2012, Figure O-3)

·         From 1996 to 2007, R&D expenditures in the U.S. grew by an average of 5.8% annually.  During the same time period, China’s average annual growth was 21.9%.  During the first year of the economic slowdown (2008-09), U.S. expenditures decreased slightly while China’s increased by 27%.  (Source: NSF Indicators Figure O-4 and Overview)

·         Between 2000 and 2008, the number of engineering doctorates awarded in China more than tripled to 15,000.  This compared to a total of 8,100 in the United States, of which only about 3,200 went to U.S. citizens and permanent residents.  (Source: NSF Indicators Figure O-10)

·         According to the OECD, government R&D spending between 2000 and 2009 increased by 250% in Korea and 330% in China; U.S. government R&D spending increased by about 45% during the same period.

·         From 1987 to 2008, federal R&D investment grew at just 0.3 percent per year in inflation-adjusted dollars—much lower than its 4.9-percent average annual growth rate from 1953 to 1987—and ten times lower than the rate of GDP growth over that period.  (Source: http://www2.itif.org/2012-leadership-in-decline.pdf)

·         The United States spent up to 17 percent of discretionary spending on R&D during the 1960’s, in part due to the space program, which resulted in a great deal of spinoff innovation; in recent years, outlays have fallen to around 9 percent of the federal discretionary budget. (Source: http://innovationtaskforce.org/docs/Benchmarks%20-%202012.pdf)

·         In 2008, China awarded 1 million first university degrees in natural sciences and engineering, up from 280,000 in 2000. That same year, the total number of first university degrees in natural sciences and engineering awarded in South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (330,000) exceeded the 248,000 earned by U.S. students, despite the considerably larger U.S. population. (Source: NSF Indicators p. O-7)

·         The proportion of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patent grants given to U.S. entities declined from 55% in 1995 to less than half in 2010. (Source: NSF S&E Indicators 2012, Appendix Table 6-45)

·         The percentage of U.S. gross domestic expenditures on R&D funded by the government declined from  47.1% in 1981 to 33.4% in 2011. The U.S. trails nine OECD nations in this percentage. (Source: OECD)

These statistics paint a disturbing picture—especially if this trend continues.  And, if you examine the preview document prepared by the Association of University TechnologyManagers (AUTM) titled, “American Universities: Unsung Heroes of the Economic Recovery” (August 5, 2013) that may provide a clue to the solution to a slow growing economy, you may become even more concerned.  The AUTM document provides a glimpse at the upcoming Annual Licensing Survey that will be released in full in December of 2013.  The preview document states that:

Institutions responding to the survey reported $36.8 billion in net product sales from licensed technologies in fiscal year 2012. In addition, startup companies formed by 70 institutions employed 15,741 full-time employees. This was the second year in which AUTM asked questions specifically targeted at ascertaining the economic impact of academic technology transfer. 

"When people think about job creation, they don't typically think about universities, but the data show that universities substantially contribute to the creation of new jobs in this country," adds Flanigan.  

Highlights of the AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey:  FY2012 include: 

22,150 total U.S. patent applications filed (+11.3%)[;] 14,224 new patent applications filed (+7.2%)[;] 5,145 issued U.S. patents (+9.5%)[;] 5,130 licenses executed (+4.7%)[;] 1,242 options executed (+7%)[;] 483 executed licenses containing equity (+16.1%)[;] Total license income: $2.6 billion (+6.8%)[;] 705 startup companies formed (+5.1%)[; and] 4,002 startups still operating as of the end of FY2012 (+1.9%).

Back in 2001 when President George W. Bush first took office, I remember reading an article about how his administration planned to cut federal spending on R&D.  I remember thinking someone needs to get educated about what is happening with federal R&D funding because they are going to make a big mistake (for many reasons).  Within a few weeks, the Bush Administration announced that they were not going to cut spending in that area.  I hope we find the Obama Administration pushing hard for more spending on R&D.  We need to "feed that Pig." 

Let’s assume that we do the right thing and "feed the Pig." Could the Obama Administration do more than just provide federal funding for R&D?  One idea that has been floated has been the creation of a federal system of universities, “India’s Bold Solution to the US College Crisis: Federal Universities.”  This is an intriguing idea that may inject some needed “umpf” into the U.S. university system for R&D.  Perhaps the federal universities could be built around specific technologies—places where innovation could quickly take place in a system that quite rationally does not change quickly.  As I blogged about before, perhaps something like the Cornell project in NYC, but without a lot of baggage.  Greater wealth—and maybe some help for wider distribution of it.  Something to think about.