THE LAST WORD
By Ulrich Krull
The extent of miscibility
of Canadian universities and commercialization
Ulrich Krull is appointed as a Professor of Analytical Chemistry and holds the endowed AstraZeneca Chair in Biotechnology at the University of Toronto. At present he handles the portfolio of VicePrincipal: Research at the University of Toronto Mississauga, and serves as an editor for the Elsevier journal Analytica Chimica Acta. His research interests are in the areas of biosensor and diagnostic technologies.
The role of Canadian universities in commercialization continues to generate substantial debate, prompted by signals from government and industry about a need to directly contribution to economic competitiveness and prosperity. With a mandate to broadly teach about and explore sciences, social sciences and humanities, from a platform that protects freedom of ideas and that stimulates debate, a purist might view the fundamental aspirations of universities to be contradictory to the competitive world of commercialization. It is intriguing though that most every academic will indicate that they personally are innovative, and to note that the process of commercialization is one form of innovation. Innovation is described as the reduction of creativity into something of practical relevance, be it a new product, a new policy, or some other outcome. It is the bridging from creative idea to reduction to practice that lies at the root of the tension that universities experience in the process of commercialization. The participation of universities in commercialization reflects a gradient of activities, largely driven by the actions of individuals who have specific expertise, and sometimes with efforts towards coordination by means of a central administrative structure. From activities including the filing of patents and licensing of intellectual property, to equity positions, leasing of space to spin-off initiatives, consulting, and contract research, universities have become involved in a spectrum of activities that support commercialization. It is clear that a significant amount of activity is in place across the country – so why is there a sense that while universities are open, they are not really “open for business”. This may have roots in the lack of a consistent appreciation about what activities are appropriate and welcome. It is crucial to realize that a response to this suggestion cannot be based on “one size fits all”. For example, the differences in university policies of ownership of intellectual property immediately sets conditions regarding how industry, inventors and a university can align for partnerships. It is also the case that universities by virtue of their talent pools are particularly adept at creativity, with innovation appearing frequently only in some subject areas, and commercialization typically representing one avenue of innovation in which universities tend to have less experience. Examining a snapshot that reflects current conditions suggests that there is a path in this evolutionary process that would safeguard the academic mission while promoting opportunity to support socio-economic development. This path is suggested by a fundamental truism of commercial success – focus on core competency. Industry has the “know how” and talent to drive commercialization, and industry should lead in these initiatives. Universities offer a wealth of creativity and a healthy appetite
to innovate, offering a pipeline for commercialization. Suggesting that commercialization should be a mandate handed to universities does not at this juncture represent an activity that builds on a core competency. Alignment of research outcomes with commercialization activities is deemed to be an obvious need by critics of the present system, but the connection of universities with industry remains ineffective in the absence of an attractive bridging mechanism. The functional elements of such a mechanism arise from the opportunity that universities have to identify novel developments within their operations, and to subsequently become active in the protection and promotion of innovations. An efficient mechanism that offers awareness for those in industry to evaluate and access advantageous technologies and processes represents an investment that both universities and industry can embrace. Perhaps one of the most effective developments that universities might consider in partnership with industry and government is the creation of a national intellectual property network/pool, with business development officers that can both identify synergistic technologies and also connect with industry to promote these opportunities for scrutiny. A noteworthy fundamental limitation at present is that universities have tended to operate as individual agents in competition, which creates a situation where synergies between technological developments cannot be identified. An initiative to pool intellectual property resources would set in motion opportunity for improved attraction of funding in Canada, and improved potential for commercial impact by virtue of the depth of technological innovation that is made possible by bundling of technologies. This notion of institutions partnering to achieve advantage in terms of collective impact of intellectual property is being explored by “MaRS Innovation”. In an experiment supported by the Government of Canada through the Networks of Centres of Excellence program, 14 different academic institutions, hospitals and commercialization operations in the Greater Toronto Area have created a partnership that seems to be uniquely positioned to bundle technology assets, and through this, to develop solutions to address market opportunities. Imagine the power of such an approach if the creativity at universities could be accessed and aligned across our country. I am eagerly looking forward to seeing data from the prototype represented by MaRS Innovation.
@
Got something to say? Please send your comments/letters to biotechnology_focus@promotive.net
38 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS MAY 2010
10-394
