When I read the New York Times September 7th business section and its article “When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder,” I got angry — just as you should be angry. The article (available here) takes university TTOs to task for being money-hungry at the expense of basic science and attacks Bayh-Dole as well-intentioned but now-failed legislation. It’s yet another “journalist” ranting about what’s wrong with university research and the “warped” incentives behind the surge in tech transfer activity. It’s yet another “expert” who in actuality has little knowledge of the tech transfer world, or university research activity, but feels qualified anyway to lob verbal grenades — as long as the accusations are backed up by a few crackpot critics with an ax to grind. I might have let it pass as just another misinformed opinion, but when something gets 15 inches and a big headline in the New York Times on Sunday, people take notice.

By Sunday evening, after stewing most of the day, I had written a response and sent it off to the Times business editor, confident that the stalwart newspaper would feel compelled to offer an opposing perspective. I waited. I watched as other blogs picked up the Times article and had a field day piling on. Now I’ve waited long enough — and so have you. Below is the response I sent, which apparently will never be published. I hope this will provide at least some balance to the misinformed and half-baked criticism that is becoming something of a spectator sport these days. I invite you to add your comments.

David Schwartz
CEO and Executive Editor

To the Editor:

I was stunned to read Janet Rae-Dupree’s scathing but one-sided and grossly underinformed article in the Sunday Times, “When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder.” The statements of “fact” made in this diatribe accusing universities, their technology transfer offices, and scientists of having profit-minded tunnel vision and neglecting basic research could hardly have been more unfair, untrue, and incomplete.

On behalf of the technology transfer professionals, university administrators, and researchers working harder than Ms. Rae-Dupree likely could even fathom to produce innovations and technology breakthroughs, please permit me to add another perspective to her cynical view.

First, her assertion that the Bayh-Dole Act has created a warped set of incentives and consequences is maddeningly off-base. The fact is, this piece of brilliant legislation has been the catalyst that has made U.S. research and innovation the envy of the world. Other nations that are still trying to catch up regularly point to Bayh-Dole as an unfair advantage for American universities, and many have adopted similar laws based on its incredible success. By creating incentives and clarifying ownership issues related to intellectual property produced by university researchers, the Bayh-Dole Act assured — and continues to assure — that U.S. research leads the world, and has put us well ahead of our competitors in what is widely expected to be an economy driven by innovation for decades to come.

The mission of virtually every university research institution remains solidly focused on producing technological advances for the benefit of the public both in the U.S. and throughout the world. Academic research — much of it basic research in critical areas of global need such as alternative energy, medicine, and agriculture — has never been more vibrant or productive. Our world’s biggest problems, from widespread but preventable disease and global warming to energy shortages and terrorism threats, are being addressed by scientists in labs every day. Thankfully, as a result of Bayh-Dole, these researchers have become more highly valued by universities and better incented to develop new solutions to big problems. The “brain drain” that so many other countries suffer from, wherein top scientists leave low-paying university positions to work for industry, does not have a major impact on U.S. universities. In fact, talented scientists from countries without Bayh-Dole’s incentives — India is a good example — come to our shores to escape the relative drudgery of their academic research environment and end up contributing to our research-driven economic wealth.

Yes, tech transfer offices and the universities they work for do seek fair compensation for their hard-fought research successes. They negotiate sometimes rich licenses with companies in pharmaceutical, energy, communications, biotech, defense, and many other industries so that their research can reach the public. Taking their discoveries to market is  not their bailiwick — though many universities are becoming deeply involved in start-ups based on their research successes. The point is, without partnerships struck between academic centers and industry, many of the greatest innovations of our time would never have seen the light of day outside the laboratory, or would have been delayed by many years for lack of funding. Critical medicines like Guardasil and Emtriva, economic engines like Google, and many thousands of less celebrated but important contributions to the world and its inhabitants have directly resulted from university research, much of which owes a huge debt to the authors of the Bayh-Dole Act.

Ms. Rae-Dupree seems aghast that something as banal as money might motivate researchers and universities to create wonderful products that offer solutions to serious problems and actually emerge from the ivory tower of academia into the real world of capitalism and supply and demand. What she fails to recognize or acknowledge is that without the funds generated by academic licensing activity, many labs would suffer, less research would be done, fewer products and innovations would reach the people who need them, and massive economic benefits produced by these innovations would not accrue to the U.S. and local economies. If anything, universities are still much too timid and unskilled in bringing their faculties’ many inventions to the marketplace. Most tech transfer offices have piles of invention files that these underfunded and understaffed units simply cannot get to, so they remain in limbo between the lab and the marketplace forever.

She might also like to know what happens to most of the money generated by the commercialization of university research. Researchers, who typically get a third of any royalties, may be able to live a bit higher, but most are dedicated to their work so profoundly that they donate much of what they earn back to their labs. The universities use virtually all of their shares to pour back into the research enterprise, funding future discoveries not even imagined yet. And these dollars have become even more critical to keeping U.S. research vibrant as funds from government and other grant organization have become tougher to obtain.

In fact, the funds generated by campus commercialization are the very dollars that are keeping our scientist doing more “Blue Sky” and basic research than ever. With any luck — and with a big assist from the legislation Ms. Rae-Dupree criticizes — those “simple serendipitous discoveries” will lead to real products, real jobs, real benefits, real economic growth, and real solutions to global problems.

David Schwartz
CEO and Executive Editor
Technology Transfer Tactics
www.technologytransfertactics.com

Write a comment