The next few weeks are going to be dicey, so I am not going to commit to posting regularly. Boy, this sounds just like the intro to last week’s recap . . .

If you would like to subscribe to this blog feed, just click on the orange RSS logo on the upper right hand portion of the screen - or you can use the subscribe function in your web browser.

And, for anyone that is visiting the blog for the first time and would like to see post summaries, use the drop down box on the left sidebar to search for the category “recap” or click this link and you will find posts that summarize the blog topics over the past few weeks.

Here is a recap of last week’s posts:

DG2010 - Programs versus projects talks a little bit about how important it is to ensure that your NSERC discovery proposal describes a program of research. An excerpt from the peer review manual was added to the post on Friday.

Views on proposal writing is a mashup of blog posts from academic bloggers espousing their views on grant proposals.

DG2010 - References covers a few tips and tricks to think about when you are writing and proofing your reference list for your NSERC discovery grant application. These tips are also relevant for other documents that include reference lists . . .(read: journal submissions)! I belong to the Council of Science Editors and you wouldn’t believe the amount of editorial research that is done on reference error analysis. A scintillating topic, I know, but an interesting factoid nonetheless.

TOOLS: TERMIUM Plus® is now free and available online. Best of all, you can access a searchable version of The Canadian Style through Termium.

DG2010 - Relative cost of research is my long-promised post on the cost of research evaluation indicator. There are also links to the Peer Review Manual and other FAQ files on the revised review process.

In a recent post, I offered a full text version of Marcel Mongeon’s opinion piece from Research Money on the current challenges facing technology transfer in Canada. Technology Transfer Tactics, a monthly newsletter/ezine for technology transfer professionals, posted a commentary on Marcel’s piece on their blog. In my opinion, they completely sensationalized what Marcel was trying to say. To readers who have arrived here from Technology Transfer Tactics – technology transfer in Canada is not dead – but it is struggling a little bit – as is the entire Canadian research scene.

Interestingly, a somewhat similar conversation has been flying around on the ACCT Canada’s TT-CAN listserve over this very same topic and Marcel’s op/ed joined the discussion midway. It was unfortunate that the discussion occurred during BIO because I am certain that many more voices would have been heard. Some of the participants were vehemently offended by Marcel’s statements, but since technology transfer is a small community in Canada, many are aware that he likes to stimulate discussion to help us brainstorm new ways of looking at the challenges that we collectively face. (I include myself as a technology transfer professional, because ultimately communication is a form of technology transfer and I often work with university TTOs on various projects – see the spin-off company report for the Universities of Manitoba, Regina and Saskatchewan.)

FYI – the original discussion revolved around how Canadian universities could develop more partnerships with SMEs (small to medium enterprises) and what barriers impeded these relationships. Some of the barriers that were identified were challenges in negotiating contracts, intellectual property issues, and speed of research deployment.

Here was my foray into the email discussion (bear in mind that this is my interpretation of what Marcel was trying to say):

I think Marcel was trying to be provocative with his title.

My interpretation was that we need to focus instead on building relationships between university researchers and companies (because obviously the SME perspective is that university-industry partnerships, even highly leveraged ones, are a pain in the a** for the companies on a whole host of levels). Changing this perception wouldn’t be a bad idea, would it?

We have become too tied to our metrics, which unfortunately focus almost exclusively on the number of licenses, patents, and cash the technology transfer or commercialization activity generates. However, if perhaps we shift the university focus from trying to capture immediate value to building relationships, we will engage our faculty more effectively, invite industry partnership and . . . voila . . . technology transfer.

Most blue sky innovations don’t get commercialized because there is no receptor available, but if the receptors are in place at the start, there ultimately will be more transfer. (Yes, I know that some of these great ideas make fabulous start up companies.)

I’m not advocating giving everything away, but I have observed inflated expectations of value at the TT level - seeing a pre$ valuation of $3m on a spin-off idea with no real business plan is one immediate way to tell a potential investor that they better look for a more realistic company/university to partner with.

One of the greatest challenges for UILOs/TTOs is the question of who they serve. Is it the institution’s researchers? The inventors? The institution? The research funders? Or is it the companies they deal with? With so many masters, no wonder adequately measuring the outcome and success of technology transfer is a confusing process.

NSERC posted an analysis of the 2009 Discovery grant competition (including comparisons to the 2008 competition) on their Program News page.

This is the most detailed analysis I have ever seen from NSERC. The change in grant level scatter plots are particularly fascinating.

FYI - I had a bit of trouble getting the file because the release links directly to the pdf. Here is the URL directly to the pdf.

Today’s issue of Research Money (Volume 23; Number 8) has an op-ed piece written by Marcel Mongeon, a Canadian thought leader in technology transfer and commercialization issues. Marcel’s commentary is spot-on with my position on technology transfer and academic research.

Recent discussions about the STIC report and Gordon’s paper on the economics of peer review (discussed here, here and here) make this commentary all the more timely.

Full text posted with permission from Research Money:

Opinion Leader: Marcel Mongeon

Tech Transfer is Dead!
Long Live Industry Engagement!
By Marcel D. Mongeon

Recent funding cuts for technology transfer are providing an opportunity for research institutions to focus on a more important objective. Technology transfer came to Canada from the United States after the Bayh-Dole Act was passed in 1980 allowing institutions to own any resulting inventions. Previously, research results made with US federal funding were public domain and free for anyone to use.

There was an inherent contradiction in putting research results into the public domain.

Because there could be no exclusivity, business was reluctant to invest in clinical trials or market development. Bayh-Dole changed this paradigm, encouraging development investments in legally protected research results.

The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) began tracking various metrics, including the number of patents applied for and licensed, the income arising and the number of start-up companies formed. This is what technology transfer became - seeking patents and finding customers for them by way of licences or the creation of companies.

In Canada, rather than adopting the term `technology transfer’, it is much more common to find `commercialization’ or its French translation `valorisation’. A federal expert panel on the commercialization of university research reported in Public Investments in University Research: Reaping the Benefits (1999). A more recent expert panel on commercialization was released in 2006 in People and Excellence: The Heart of Successful Commercialization.

In Canada, `commercialization’ has become synonymous with technology transfer. The tri- council Intellectual Property management (IPM) program and the corresponding provincial and regional programs supported the hiring and training of those who could learn the intricacies of patents, licensing and spin-off company formation. The establishment of regional networks and their collective activities through ACCT Canada have led to a well- defined profession of technology transfer professionals.

But there is a fly in the ointment.

Despite a long history of working with businesses in collaborative research projects, the research contract function in Canadian research institutions was being marginalized at the same time the technology transfer function was growing. Many universities organized their research support offices by separating responsibility for technology transfer from research agreements.

Although there may be various local conditions that militate in favour of such changes, the skills involved in the negotiation of research collaboration agreements with industry are similar to those required for patenting, licensing and spin-off company formation. By splitting the functions between multiple offices, institutions force an inefficient allocation of resources.

Paradoxically, the perceptions of Canadian business in dealing with universities, colleges and research hospitals has deteriorated over the same time that technology transfer has been growing. The 2006 expert panel report suggested that business needs to increase its collaborations at the beginning of the research process rather than at the end point. In other words: we need more research collaboration agreements and fewer patent licences.

A recent international study notes that the patenting/licensing/company formation paradigm (i.e. technology transfer) may be getting in the way of successful university-industry interactions. This should not be a surprise to anyone. After all, a focus on patenting and licensing puts institutions and companies in adversarial roles which they would be lessened if they were working on a collaborative research problem.

Institutions are now at a threshold forced by reallocations in tri-council funding. The IPM program is finished and nothing is replacing it. Provincial and regional programs are also ending. Many skilled people will be out of work as the funding for their technology transfer salaries ends.

Research institutions do not need to lose this valuable resource. The answer is found in just a minor shift in approach. It has been pioneered in Australia and is known as `industry engagement’.

The reality in Canada is that industry has never been approached by institutions in a coordinated fashion. Different people from fundraising, student internship, technology transfer and research promotion offices - not to mention individual researchers - fall over each other in approaching business prospects. Institutions spend huge sums in general research advertising without actually inviting businesses to partner with them and giving them a clear path to do so.

Research managers at these institutions can make things easier for business by providing one point of contact for all research purposes. Technology transfer, research communications and research contracts offices can be merged and coordinated; many do this under the title of `industrial liaison’.

After a physical reorganization, institutions could then review the metrics that they track. AUCC leads the way by reporting in Momentum on the `Value of industrial research contracts’. Coincidentally, of the six metrics used, this is the one that has grown the most. Other metrics such as `Number of researchers involved in industrial research contracts’ and `Number of students with industrial research experience’ would also demonstrate a commitment to the concept of industry engagement.

The final piece of the puzzle is to solve the perennial `battle of the forms’ in negotiating contracts. Rather than every institution having its own favoured clauses and terms, a process similar to the Lambert Agreements in the UK could result in standard template agreements that business and research institutions could use with little additional negotiation required. Either Industry Canada or the research councils are best placed to catalyze and fund such a process. One hopes the benefits will be as obvious to them as they are to everyone else.

The death of technology transfer in Canada could be the beginning of a new era of industry engagement. A lot will depend on how research institutions respond to the challenges.

Marcel Mongeon is an intellectual property coach assisting institutions and companies with strategies to profit from their intangible assets. He is an experienced international speaker and seminar leader in business strategy, intellectual property management and negotiations.

For a while there, I was hitting my goal of posting at least once per week, but I’m afraid my writing streak has hit a bit of a snag. I’ll be posting quite intermittently for the next month as I am utterly swamped. I’ll do my best to post things that pique my interest, but I suspect that any rational commentary on any topics will be deferred until things slow down.

I still plan on providing further commentary on the Gordon and Poulin peer review paper in the coming weeks, but I ran across this blog post that I found quite interesting.

If you are interested in reviewing previous discussions on the paper, see my posts here, and here. there are several links within those posts to other comments in the blogosphere.