COMMERCIALIZATION AS A TENURE CRITERION: A POWERFUL INCENTIVE FOR FACULTY INVENTORS Stephen W.S. McKeever Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer.

COMMERCIALIZATION AS A TENURE CRITERION: A POWERFUL INCENTIVE FOR FACULTY INVENTORS

Stephen W.S. McKeever

Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer

Oklahoma State University

The Industry View

“Faculty don’t get tenure because they transition technology. They get tenure because they publish.”

Al Palmer, General Dynamics

The Politicians’ View:

“…..technology transfer has been considered by policymakers as a driver of national and regional economic growth in the U.S. …”

From: The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned from Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the U.S. and the U.K.

by Phan and Siegel

,

The University Administrator’s View:“….. university officials at leading research universities have also viewed technology transfer as a potential source of substantial revenue for their institutions. “

From: The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned from Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the U.S. and the U.K.

by Phan and Siegel

The Growth of University Technology CommercializationSince the Bayh-Dole Act (1980), commercialization of university technology has increased immensely:

•Prior to 1980, <250 university-generated patents per year•In 1993, 1,600 patents•In 2011, 4,700 patents issued; >13,000 patent applications (AUTM)•Also in 2011, >21,800 invention disclosures and $2.5b in royalty income

…….and yet….

Only a very small minority of Faculty participate in technology transfer/commercialization activities

•Approximately 524,000 faculty in US colleges and universities•Approximately 22,000 invention disclosures

•About 4%

•At OSU, ranges from 3-4%

What motivates Faculty Members?Surveys show that the main motivator for successful faculty members to come to a university in the first place is the ability to create and advance their own academic career.

•They want to practice and grow their own scholarship

•They want to teach young people

•They want prestige & recognition

•NOTE: Money is not an important motivator

What efforts support the Faculty member in these ambitions?

• Publications

• External funding

• Student mentorship

• Teaching

• Institutional citizenship

The traditional metricsfor success in academia

What incentives do Universities offer to participate in Commercialization?

• Money – share of royalty income

• Release time from teaching or administrative duties

• Use of university infrastructure (to a degree, and with constraints)

All good – but do not match the motivators for becoming a professor in the first place

A Paradox

This is an Incentive Mismatch

One route to get involved in technology transfer and commercialization is to be more engaged in collaborative research with industry

However, national average for research income from industry versus all other sources only about 8%

At OSU, 7%

WHY?

Industries are from Mars; Universities are from Venus

?Venus Mars

CULTURAL BARRIER

The characteristics of an “Engaged” University

• Flexible IP policies and efficient IP Management

- leads to more R&D with industry

• Incentives to faculty for entrepreneurial activities

- leads to patents, licenses and royalties

• Support for Faculty who form companies from university IP

- leads to more Start-Up company formation

• Recognition of alternative promotion/tenure strategies

Alternative Promotion/Tenure Strategies

Alternative Promotion/Tenure Strategies• Need to get newly created knowledge into society for the

benefit of society

• Giving it away for free is the most popular strategy (publish)

• Not necessarily the most effective strategy in all cases

• Exclusive partnerships with profit-making entities often more effective

• Making money (for the profit-making entity) essential for this to work

Alternative Promotion/Tenure Strategies• Need to keep “secret” for a limited period

- Can publish after IP protection

• If creates wealth for a company

- adds to economy

- creates jobs

- made accessible by society, i.e. useful

- income generated for more research

• If does not create wealth (i.e. publish, free to all)

- industry unlikely to develop and commercialize it since it is an expense but not a commercial advantage

Alternative Promotion/Tenure StrategiesTherefore, commercialization needs to be recognized for P&T by:

• Faculty Members

• P&T Committees

• Administration

• Governance Boards

Essential for all tobe ‘on board’

Problems (and dangers to be aware of)

• Commercialization of the creative process – “dark side”

• Ethical issues – big business dictating what knowledge can or cannot be published

• ‘Publish or Perish’ long ingrained into the university culture over centuries – has its own ethical baggage

• Private benefit from state or federal assets (paid by tax payers)

• Convolved funding sources

Summary• Stresses and modern impetus is for universities to:

- engage more with industry- engage more in commercialization

Currently, only small minority of faculty are doing so

Incentives to get involved should match incentives for faculty members to be professors in the first place- money ok, but not sufficient- promotion & tenure incentives essential- efficient university system for commercialization to make

the whole process easy- will ease collaborations between universities and

industry

Thank you for listening