Page 39 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

WOMEN INNOVATOR PROGRAMS IN ACADEMIA 687

reach the female population should be reevaluated. innovators, TTOs must critically understand how
The original work by Thursby (11) with respect to women participate in technology transfer activities
invention disclosure submissions was offered to the at their own institutions and seek to enhance their
community over 10 years ago, but the number of participation with purposeful direction.
invention disclosure submissions to TTOs has not Some factors to consider when engaging female
increased in the female faculty population as evi- innovators may include differences in risk profiles,
denced by more recent data, which shows the same industry connections, and perceptions regarding
levels of under-representation of female inventors the readiness of lab work for technology transfer (9
listed on invention disclosures (12). 21). Though women have reported less exposure to
Because fewer female faculty members are sub- the commercialization process and fewer opportu-
mitting invention disclosures, it is not surprising that nities to engage overall, they are just as interested
fewer patents list female inventors (12,15,18-20). In in learning about opportunities in the commercial
fact, a study demonstrated that female academics sector, suggesting that the invitation to women to
patent at a rate that is 40% lower than their male participate in translating innovations may be import-
counterparts (18), and women inventors in 2013 ant (21). Biology and family engagement present
accounted for only 18% of university-owned pat- another challenge to women that can impact a male
ents (12). A 2016 publication by the Institute for career differently. A survey of doctorate recipients
Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) has demonstrated found that mothers in the academy are less likely to
that, today, while women are listed on almost 20% patent due to the higher proportion of responsibility
of patents, they are only listed as the primary inven- towards child-rearing and household chores (20).
tors on less than 8% of patents (19). Projections in However, this study also showed that when women
the same study suggest that women will not reach had prior experience with patenting their work, the
equality on patent filings with men until 2092 unless gap between male academic patenting and female
underlying factors contributing to the under-rep- academic patenting narrowed (20), suggesting that
resentation of women are addressed. Factors cited familiarizing women scientists with commercializa-
include eliminating the differential access to capital tion concepts and processes, as well as enhancing
by women, enhancing female networks to include the commercial networks of female scientists, may
experts in commercialization, and offering invitations be key steps to better engaging women scientists in
to women to participate in patenting activities. technology transfer activities.
Furthermore, the study showed that the predom- This article looks closely into a snapshot of a single
inant areas for lead female patentees were not in TTO, the Office of Technology Management (OTM)
STEM but in more traditional areas such as jewelry at Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL),
and apparel. Yet, women inventors have contributed and outcomes of implementing a women’s innovator
significantly through non-lead roles on STEM-related program. The WUSTL Women in Innovation and
patents (19), suggesting that there are ample numbers Technology (WIT) program was established as a
of educated women capable of creating and inventing simple means of understanding whether (a) inviting
in STEM fields. female scientists to participate, (b) providing the
For all the reasons addressed above, TTOs have language of commercialization, and (c) helping to
a unique opportunity (and it could be argued an establish more concrete networks in the local entre-
obligation) to better engage female faculty members preneurship community could positively impact
in academic technology transfer activities. Sufficient overall female participation in technology transfer
examples exist to argue that female scientists’ engage- activities. In order to answer this question, we sought
ment in commercializing academic work has different to measure the level of engagement of female fac-
barriers than male scientists (9,21), and, therefore, ulty members within the institution before and after
TTOs should consider how best to enhance engage- implementation of WIT and also to examine internal
ment between different innovator populations. In office practices as an influence on engagement of
order to be successful in this endeavor with female women in technology transfer.