Rethinking university technology transfer
Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA
President and CEO, Society of Physician Entrepreneurs, another lousy golfer, terrible cook, friction fixer
?Congress passed a massive end-of-year spending package that included $1.5 trillion in fiscal year (FY) 2022 omnibus appropriations.?The package had broad bipartisan support, passing the House on a vote of 361-69 and the Senate on a vote of 68-31.?President Biden later signed it into law before government funding was set to expire on March 15.?Overall, the final spending package will provide modest increases in funding for all federal programs of interest to the research community, including for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The?Lab to Market?initiative, is intended to increase the economic impact of federally-funded research by accelerating transfer of new technologies from federal laboratories to the commercial marketplace. The goal is to increase the research quotient, i.e. the return on investment associated with federal investment in research and development. More specifically, there was much discussion about how successful universities have been at licensing university developed technologies thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act and how updated legislation is necessary in order to remove barriers that make the same successes difficult, if not impossible, for federal laboratories.
Calling it a “top priority for the Administration,” formwe Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, explained that the question that needs to be answers is “how best to maximize the impact of our $150 billion annual federal investment in research and development.” During his remarks Ross wholeheartedly supported university research and technology transfer, explaining that the return on research dollars spent is 10 times greater with respect to university technologies than for technologies coming from federal labs.
But, the US biomedical research system, the envy of the world, is sick. Labs are closing because principal investigators (PIs) have no money, states are cutting back on higher education support and limiting how available monies can be used, tenure track jobs are fading, and graduate students and postdocs can't find jobs. The very foundation of innovation- basic research discoveries, inventions and ideas- is under siege. What are some workable solutions?
Simply increasing NIH grant funding won't address the systemic problems. In fact, doubling the research budget several years ago without considering the follow-on funding issues has arguably created some of the problems. How do we treat the illness? Some suggestions:
1. Expand the JOBS act to empower equity crowdfunding specifically designed to support biomedical research.
2. Rethink how the NIH funds projects, instead of scientists with vision
3. Expand private research philanthropy
4. Reduce the number of biomedical PhD programs
领英推荐
5. Continue to develop programs that offer bioscience students non-academic career options
6. Expand efforts to get more "impact" from basic science research, including how we do biomedical science technology transfer, translational research and life science technology commercialization.
7. Do a better job of integrating basic and applied research and development funding by NIH and SBIR/STTR
8. Do a better job of integrating FDA clearance with CMS payment approval
9. Change the university anti-entrepreneurial culture
10. Improve industry-academic knowledge transfer and exchange. Here's how.
Discovery is different than entrepreneurship. Money is not the primary determinant of the difference.
The vital signs of US Biomedical Research, Inc, are fading. Unless we institute treatment soon, we might lose the patient.
Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA is the President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs on Substack
Senior Business Consultant at Cleverity LLC
6 年The Federal Gov't doesn't make money. It wastes money. Outside of Physics (and maybe even that), what basic research isn't linked to profit? Let the market decide.
Yes, we need to foster systems that inspire and reward clinical researchers leading to improved practice and medical solutions, not just basic academic research that ends when the paper is published. NIH has been looking at this since the days of Jim Wyngarden, but no change.
Professor at the Anne Burnett Marion School of Medicine at Texas Christian University
10 年Here in the US, we spend considerable amounts of money on "basic" research, which arguably has very little clinical application or relevance. We need to restructure our research/academia system to emphasize clinical research. Basic research models should support clinical systems, and basic research models should be chosen that our more relevant to human systems.
at
10 年Go to Europe