Transcript Case Study on Technology Transfer – Introduction Prof. Hagit Messer-Yaron [email protected] Tbilisi, April 11, 2012 © Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012

Case Study on Technology Transfer –
Introduction
Prof. Hagit Messer-Yaron
[email protected]
Tbilisi, April 11, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
University vs. IndustryContrasting Cultures:
University
 Social responsibilities
 Basic, curiosity driven
research
 Create new knowledge
 Freedom of research
 Publications & collaborations
 Sharing of material
 Open, global community and
sharing of research results
Corporate
 Shareholders responsibilities
 Applied research
 Develop new products
 Specific objectives, product
focused
 Ownership and secrecy
 Control of material
 Aiming to global market
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The Death Valley
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Technology Transfer –WHY?

Better exploitation of knowledge to
the benefit of the public (e.g., new
drugs, environmental technologies,
alternative energy).
 A natural source of innovation.
 To foster knowledge-based economy;
direct contribution to short term
growth.
 “Fair” and efficient use of public
support.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Technology Transfer
Technology Transfer –Who?
Researchers (people!),
Faculties,
Administration,
etc.
knowledge
university
Government
Money (Pu)
Technology/knowledge Transfer
knowledge
industry
Entrepreneurs
VCs
Productions
Marketing
Management
etc.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Money (Pr)
The Role of Governments
Financial support for academic, basic
research. Public support is essential for
academic freedom.
2. Intervention programs for “bridging the
gap”.
3. Legal infrastructure: intellectual
property rights (IPR) laws, taxations,
innovation law, etc.
1.
IPR
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The Essential Policy Issue:
 Question:
Who is the “client” in the TT
process?
 Answer: The Clients are the People of
today AND tomorrow.
 Both industries & universities should be
regulated to guarantee the benefit to the
PUBLIC GOOD.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
What is needed for successful TT?
Legal
Infrastructure
Personnel
Policy
Implementation
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Example: The Bayh-Dole Act
The Bayh-Dole Act is "perhaps the most inspired piece
of legislation to be enacted in America over the past
half-century," according to The Economist.
"Innovation's Golden Goose," an opinion piece
published in the Dec. 12, 2002, edition the respected
publication, states: "Together with amendments in
1984 and augmentation in 1986, this unlocked all the
inventions and discoveries that had been made in
laboratories throughout the United States with the help
of taxpayers' money. More than anything, this single
policy measure helped to reverse America's
precipitous slide into industrial irrelevance."
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Echoes of Bayh-Dole?
In most cases, there is an explicit duty to commercialize
Gr egory D. Gr aff, Research Economist, PIPRA, U.S.A., and Visiting Research Fellow, Department of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Implementation: Different Channels
for academia-industry relationship
Structured relations (via TTC/TTO):
 Research and development agreements
 Licensing deals
 New venture formation / Spin-offs
 Service to the industry
Other:
 Individual consultancy
& entrepreneurship
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
A Case Study - introduction
 Are
ALL channels legitimate?
 How each of them serves the PUBLIC
GOOD?
 Is there a difference between different fields
(e.g., nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT)
 Is there a difference between different
countries?
Policy discussion & Examples
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Research and development
agreements
R&D agreements
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Licensing deals
Licensing deals
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
New venture formation /
Spin-offs
Spin offs
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Service to the industry
Service (no IP)
agreements
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Individual consultancy &
entrepreneurship
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Commercialization of research
results – not “all win”



Why YES
Direct contribution to short
term growth.
“Fair” and efficient use of
public support.
Improves exploitation of
knowledge to the benefit of
the public (e.g., new drugs).


Why NO
Risk the base of the
academic culture:
openness, freedom of
research, diversity of
topics, honest report of
results, etc.
May hazard innovation and
therefore growth in the
long run.
Calls for RESPONSIBLE TT
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Example of RTT #1: the Weizmann Inst.
Responsible technology transfer policy!
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Example 1 (cont): the Weizmann
Institute - Policy
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Example of RTT (2): USA
 Under
the Bayh-Dole Act (BDA), the duty to
commercialize is put on the universities.
 Following
the BDA, In most of the developed
countries, universities are responsible for TT.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Guidelines offered for responsible
technology licensing by:








CalTech
Cornell
Harvard
MIT
Stanford
UC
U of Illinois, Chicago
U of Illinois, Chicago,
Urbana-Champaign




© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Univ. of Washington
Wisconsin Alumni
Research Foundation
Yale
AAMC (Assoc. of
American Medical
Colleges)
March 2007
In the Public Interest: Nine Points to
Consider in Licensing University Technology
1.
2.
3.
4.
Universities should reserve the right to practice
licensed inventions, and to allow other nonprofit
and governmental organizations to do so.
Exclusive licenses should be structured in a
manner that encourages technology development
and use.
Strive to minimize the licensing of "future
improvements."
Universities should anticipate and help to manage
technology transfer related conflicts of interest.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
In the Public Interest (cont.)
5.
6.
7.
8.
Ensure broad access to research tools.
Enforcement action should be carefully considered.
Be mindful of export regulations.
Be mindful of the implications of working with
patent aggregators.
9. Consider including provisions that address unmet
needs, such as those of neglected patient
populations or geographic areas, giving particular
attention to improved therapeutics, diagnostics and
agricultural technologies for the developing world.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Major US Universities - 2006 ($ Million)
License Income
194
157
U. of California
System
Stanford University
New York
University
Wake Forest
U. of Florida
MIT
Mt. Sinai Med.-NYU
U. of Michigan
Harvard U.
U. of Colorado
Northwestern U.
Emory U.
U. of Mass.
21
17
U. of Utah
U. of Georgia
U. of Iowa
Research Fd.
18
21
17
20
30
20
27
U. of
Wash./WashResF
U. of Rochester
U. of Wisc.Madison
44
36
38
42
43
U. of Minnesota
61
16
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
61
56
Interim Summary
 These
examples show that on the institutional
level, responsible TT can go TOGETHER with
successful TT.
 It is required and necessary for making the
process of commercialization of research results
a win-win.
 It is doable. It calls for awareness and few basic
rules.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Main points in responsible TT
 Ownership
of IP : The IP generated by a university
team is owned by the University, irrespective of
sponsorship or where it was conceived. The IP is
licensed, not sold.
 Open vs. close license : The license is limited to
certain patents and field of use, the results of a
sponsored research, and well defined know-how,
and does not cover any other un-sponsored research
performed by same or other University researchers,
past, present and future.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Main points in responsible TT (cont.)

No shelving : The essence of the license is the
introduction of licensed products by the licensee to the
market. The licensee is obliged to develop the product
under agreed upon program, else the license is terminated.
No shelving of the technology, for any reason.
 The right to publish : the right of the researchers to
perform research within the license perimeter and the
freedom of publication of the research results is
guaranteed.
 Liability : Licensor does not provide any warranty as to
the applicability of the licensed technology, the
enforceability of the patents, or obtaining certain results
thru the research.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
RTT Risk
TT CHANNEL
Licensing deals
RISK OF PUBLIC
TO PRIVATE
Low
R&D agreements
Forming a start-up
Service to the industry
Individual entrepreneurship
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
High
Lessons from IL experience.
• 7 research universities +1: The Technion; The
Hebrew University in Jerusalem; Tel Aviv University;
Bar Ilan University; Ben Gurion University in the
Negev; Haifa University; The Weizmann Institute+
the Open University.
• Each university is an independent legal entity,
supported and regulated by the state (via the PBC).
• Government’s support to universities is (was)
neutral w.r.t. technology transfer.
• Each university has its own TT policy and it is
implemented by a TTC, which is for profit company,
own by the university.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The technology transfer process
(at TAU)
“Bridging the Gap”
Discovery &
Innovation
Evaluation
Patenting &
Marketing
Strategy
Sponsored Research
Business
Development
IDF
Follow Up
on Contract
Revenues
40-20-40
Academic Basic and
Applied Research
publications
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
To inventors
The rules – main common principles:






Researchers must disclose to the university any research of
commercial potential.
Universities own the IP of “institute inventions”.
“Institute inventions” are discoveries of employees and others,
related to the university.
Institute inventions are commercialized solely by the TTC.
Commercialization revenues are shared by the inventors (4060%) and the university.
If the TTC chooses not to file for patent, the inventors can do
it at their own expense.
1959
Yeda Weizmann Institute
1964
Yissum
Hebrew University
1973
Ramot
Tel Aviv University
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Selected TT Success Stories: Yeda, Yissum & Ramot (2009)
Copaxone® | Teva
Total sale of Weizmann
based products €6
Bilion/year
Rebif ® | Merck Serono
Encryption Algorithm | NDS
GeneCardsTM | XenneX
NanoLubTM | Nanomaterials
Exelon® | Novartis
Dunaliella | Nikken Sohonsha
Doxil ® | J&J
QuantomiXTM | QX Capsule
ErbituxTM | ImClone
Cherry Tomatoes | BonTom
Periochip | Dexcel
Lipimix | Tubilux
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Government’s involvement in
university-industry relations
 Under
the responsibility of the office of the Chief
Scientist at the ministry of Industry, Trade and
Labor (OCS).
 Different intervention programs for universityLOCAL industry collaboration.
 Restrictions on internationalization of
knowledge created under these programs.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Intervention Programs
KAMIN
100%
60%
60%
90%
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Recent Nobel Laureates
 Dan
Shechtman ,Chemistry, 2011 Technion
 Ada E. Yonath, Chemistry, 2009 Wiezmann Inst.
 Robert Aumann, Economics, 2005 HUJI
 Aaron Ciechanover, Chemistry,
2004 - Technion
 Avram Hershko, Chemistry, 2004 Technion
 Daniel Kahneman, Economics,
2002 - HUJI
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Leading in R&D expenditure

ISRAEL is an R&D state - the expenditure on civilian
research and development (R&D) as a percentage of the
gross domestic product (GDP) is the highest in the world:
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Source: ISRAEL CBS
Summary of the IL case
Successful knowledge-base technology &
good science due to:
1. Bottom up RTT policy
2. Government involvement was limited to
support to the R&D industry
3. No legislation/regulation implied on
universities wrt TT. On the contrary - their
institutional academic freedom is
guaranteed by law.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Back to our Case Study:
Are ALL TT channels legitimate? – yes, but…
2. How each of them serves the PUBLIC GOOD? –
diversity (see 3)
3. Is there a difference between different fields
(e.g., nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT)? – yes
(see 2)
4. Is there a difference between different countries?
– partially, mainly due to the characteristics of
the local industry & HE system
1.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Is encouragement of TT serves as
Incubation for Fraud?
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Jan Hendrik Schön - Rise to prominence









PhD at the university of Konstanz in 1997;
1998 gets a post-doc position at Bell Labs;
produces between 1998 and 2001 the most astonishing breakthroughs in the
material (nano) sciences (superconducting materials);
in this period 90 papers, most of them in top journals, together with some 20
renowned researchers as co-authors (19 papers in Science and Nature); at the end of
the period he gets out a paper every 8 days;
In 2001 he announced in Nature that he had produced a transistor on the
molecular scale. The implications of his work were significant. It would have
allowed chips to continue shrinking past the point at which silicon breaks down,
and therefore continue Moore's Law for much longer than is currently predicted. It
also would have drastically reduced the cost of electronics;
Media-hype: a modern alchemist, a genius is born;
receives among other honours the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize;
negotiates for the directorate of a Max-Planck-Institute in Stuttgart;
is said to be a promising candidate for the Nobel prize.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Selected Publication
In Nature:
J. H. Schön, Ch. Kloc, E. Bucher and B. Batlogg. Efficient
organic photovoltaic diodes based on doped pentacene.
Nature 403, 408-410 (1999)
J. H. Schön, Ch. Kloc and B. Batlogg. Superconductivity in
molecular crystals induced by charge injection. Nature
406, 702-704 (2000)
J. H. Schön, Ch. Kloc and B. Batlogg. Superconductivity at
52 K in hole-doped C60. Nature 408, 549-552 (2000)
J. H. Schön, A. Dodabalapur, Z. Bao, C. Kloc, O. Schenker
and B. Batlogg. Gate-induced superconductivity in a
solution-processed organic polymer film. Nature 410,
189-192 (2001)
J. H. Schön, H. Meng and Z. Bao. Self-assembled monolayer
organic field-effect transistors. Nature 413, 713-716
(2001)
J. H. Schön, C. Kloc, T. Siegrist, M. Steigerwald, C. Svensson
and B. Batlogg. Superconductivity in single crystals of the
fullerene C70. Nature 413, 831-833 (2001)
J. H. Schön, M. Dorget, F. C. Beuran, X. Z. Zu, E. Arushanov,
C. D. Cavellin and M. Lagues. Superconductivity in
CaCuO2 as a result of field-effect doping. Nature 414,
434-436 (2001)
In Science:
J. H. Sch?n, S. Berg, Ch. Kloc, B. Batlogg, Ambipolar pentacene
field-effect transistors and inverters, Science 287, 1022
(2000)
J. H. Sch?n, Ch. Kloc, R. C. Haddon, B. Batlogg, A
superconducting field-effect switch, Science 288, 656
(2000)
J. H. Sch?n, Ch. Kloc, B. Batlogg, Fractional quantum Hall effect
in organic molecular semiconductors, Science 288, 2338
(2000)
J. H. Sch?n, Ch. Kloc, A. Dodabala-pur, B. Batlogg, An organic
solid state injection laser, Science 289, 599 (2000)
J. H. Sch?n, A. Dodabalapur, Ch. Kloc, B. Batlogg, A lightemitting field-effect transistor, Science 290, 963 (2000)
J. H. Sch?n, Ch. Kloc, H. Y. Hwang, B. Batlogg, Josephson
junctions with tunable weak links, Science 292, 252 (2001)
J. H. Sch?n, Ch. Kloc, B. Batlogg, High-temperature
superconductivity in lattice-expanded C60, Science 293,
2432 (2001)
J. H. Sch?n, H. Meng, Z. Bao, Field-effect modulation of the
conductance of single molecules, Science 294, 2138 (2001)
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Allegations and investigation
Soon after Schön published his work on single-molecule
semiconductors, others in the physics community
alleged that his data contained anomalies:
1.
Professor Lydia Sohn, then of Princeton University,
noticed that two experiments carried out at very
different temperatures had identical noise. When the
editors of Nature pointed this out to Schön, he
claimed to have accidentally submitted the same
graph twice.
2.
Professor Paul McEuen of Cornell University then
found the same noise in a paper describing a third
experiment.
3.
More research by McEuen, Sohn and other
physicists, uncovered a number of examples of
duplicate data in Schön's work.
This triggered a series of reactions that
quickly led Bell Labs to start a formal
investigation.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The end of the story of JHS






On September 25, 2002, the committee publicly released its report. It contained details of 24
allegations of misconduct. They found evidence of Schön's scientific misconduct in at least 16 of
them. They found that whole data sets had been reused in a number of different experiments. They
also found that some of his “experimental” graphs had been produced using mathematical
functions.
By the end of 2002, 8 of his Science papers, 6 of his PRJ and 7 of his Nature papers have been
withdrawn.
The report found that all of the misdeeds had been performed by Schön alone. All of the coauthors
were exonerated of scientific misconduct.
Schön acknowledged that the data were incorrect in many of these papers. He claimed that the
substitutions could have occurred by honest mistake. He admitted to having falsified some data
and stated he did so to show more convincing evidence for behavior that he observed.
Others have since performed experiments similar to Schön's. They did not obtain similar results.
Even before the allegations had become public, several research groups had tried to reproduce
most of his groundbreaking results without success.
Schön returned to Germany and took a job at an engineering firm. In June 2004 the University of
Konstanz issued a press release stating that Schön's doctoral degree had been revoked due to
"dishonourable conduct". Schön appealed the ruling, but on October 28, 2009 it was upheld by the
University.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
JHS - Science or Science Fiction?
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The role the society and of the
funding system.
 Society
expect science to be beneficial.
 Therefore, it supports research that potentially
leads to “practical” results; e.g., patents,
technology transfer.
 Research proposals create expectations:
scientist should practice science fiction…
 Future funding depends on past success.
=> Today's research funding system is an
incubator to frauds!
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
One Kid – One Little Goat – Chad Gadia
 Research
depends on public funding.
 Public funding for basic science is based on
TRUST in science and scientists;
 But today's system encourage frauds;
 Which reduces trust in science;
 Which calls for tangible results instead;
 Which encourage frauds;
The (only) way out: Clear and Transparent Code of
Ethics for Scientists.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012