Funding cuts have hit Canadian tech transfer offices particularly hard, and one IP strategist is hailing the “death” of tech transfer there as a needed correction in how research is developed and commercialized. In an opinion piece appearing in Research Money, Marcel Mongeon — described as a “thought leader in technology transfer and commercialization issues — says dramatic reductions in tech transfer budgets offer “an opportunity for research institutions to focus on a more important objective.” Mongeon categorizes tech transfer as an unwanted immigrant from the U.S. that focuses too heavily on patents and licensing at the expense of more meaningful research collaborations with industry. As tech transfer gained momentum, he contends, “the research contract function in Canadian research institutions was being marginalized,” and “many universities organized their research support offices by separating responsibility for technology transfer from research agreements.” Doing so, he argues, resulted in “an inefficient allocation of resources.”

Mongeon makes no secret of his distaste for the tech transfer approach to commercialization. “Paradoxically,” he says, “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 solution, he posits, lies in “more research collaboration agreements and fewer patent licenses.” The typical TTO focus on patents and licensing “puts institutions and companies in adversarial roles which they would be lessened if they were working on a collaborative research problem,” Mongeon maintains. To bring about such a change, he recommends shifting the many tech transfer staffers who are losing their jobs into “industry engagement” positions modeled after the common practice in Australia.

Go to: Harms and Company Consulting

Posted May 27th, 2009 under Tech Transfer

Write a comment