Page 54 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

702 SEXTON & LIGLER

the creation of a new technology, software, or research This snapshot of patenting activity reveals that,
tool to the TTO. The rate of submission of inven- while we are seeing female students and staff engage
tion disclosures by a particular research group can in technology commercialization, there exists an
therefore provide a useful proxy for measuring initial urgent need to encourage more female faculty mem-
engagement in the technology commercialization bers to participate. Providing female faculty with
process. Since nationwide data does not yet exist for the experience and skill sets needed to navigate the
the rate of invention disclosure by female inventors at technology commercialization process will accelerate
universities, we examined the data for our university, the cycle that drives university innovation. Increased
North Carolina State University (NC State). We found participation by female faculty will also help to spur
women have been included as contributors on only a cultural shift whereby the participation of women
15% of the invention disclosures submitted during in the commercialization process becomes the rule
the past two years although approximately 35% of and not the exception. However, in order to design
NC State faculty are women. effective programs to reach women faculty, the poten-
The gap in reporting innovations inevitably trans- tial causes behind their lower level of participation
lates to actual patent activity as well. Nationwide, first need to be identified.
women were inventors on only 18.8% of U.S. patents
issued in 2010 (4). Of the U.S. utility patents issued POSSIBLE FACTORS BEHIND THE GENDER
to NC State in 2015 and 2016, 30% included one or PATENT GAP
more female inventors, which is higher than would The underlying reasons for the gender disparity are
be expected based on national trends. Cheering complex but should not be written off as simply “cul-
though these numbers are, a closer look at these tural.” The considerations discussed below include
patents reveals that many of the female inventors differences in opportunities to work in technolo-
are students and staff. When reviewing the trend for gy-rich activities, self-perception of capabilities and
faculty inventors, the disparity is more dramatic—of accomplishments, concerns with work-life balance,
the U.S. utility patents issued to NC State in 2015 and and socioeconomic motivations.
2016, only 5% of the patents listed a female faculty
inventor, as compared to 96% having a male faculty Research Funding Disparities
as an inventor (see Figure 1). It is uncomfortable to entertain the idea that there
may be a true innovation gap, with women simply
producing fewer innovations than their male col-
leagues do. It is tempting to dismiss this possibility
outright. However, the technology-based innovation
that underlies most patents pursued by university
faculty is certainly tied, to some extent, to research
productivity, which is, in turn, tied to the funding
for the research program. Numerous studies indicate
that women continue to receive less funding for their
research than their male colleagues (5), and there
is evidence to indicate that this disparity may be
generated by an underlying gender bias, especially
in the process of grant review (6).
Includes one or more Male Faculty
The problem of gender bias in the sciences remains
Includes one or more Female Inventor
widespread and impacts the professional interactions
Includes one or more Female Faculty between male and female faculty. The experience
of a Stanford professor, who, in 2013, became the
Figure 1. Gender breakdown of patents issued to NC State in first transgender person in the National Academy of
2015 and 2016. Sciences, illustrates the bias that women in science