Page 78 - Technology and Innovation Journal - 19-1

416 NIJHAWAN

billion in 2013, and distributions from university years from just three licenses, the last being Google
endowment funds, which have accumulated to $466 in 1996. Of 44,902 active industry licenses in the U.S.,
billion (4) nationally, of which the largest category in only 222 generated over $1 million annually in 2015.
2012 was for facilities and programs at $10.8 billion Figure 1 shows the Stokes classification of scientific
followed by grants and scholarships at $3.5 billion research. Faculty conducting research in “Pascal’s
(5). Quadrant” are more likely to discover and invent
In Science, The Endless Frontier, Bush coined the technology relevant to the market and to be licensed
clever term “basic research” to appeal to both sci- by industry to bring to consumers.
entists who were seeking independence to pursue
curiosity-based research and politicians who were Considerations of Use?
seeking a social benefit. The atom bomb was an No Yes
example of curiosity-based research that resulted in
a practical aim, ending World War II. As we enter Yes Pure Basic Use-inspired
Research
Basic Research
an era of scarce public funds, politicians are increas- (Bohr) (Pascal)
ingly demanding nearer-term return on investment Quest for basic
(ROI) rather than just being focused on Nobel prizes understanding? Pure Applied
from research funding. The term basic research is No Research
slowly being replaced by a new term: “translational (Edison)
research.” However, as stated in Science the Endless
Frontier, “Words alone cannot bridge the gap between Figure 1. Stokes classification of scientific research.
the different interests of scientists and politicians in
pursuing research: governments demand relevance; However, university technology transfer offices
scientists desire freedom. The so-far futile search for (TTO) have to provide patenting and licensing
a language that is relevant today both reflects and services to all faculty regardless of whether it is in
reinforces the unsettled nature of science policy” (6). Pasteur’s or in Bohr’s quadrant. Furthermore, TTOs
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 unleashed universities are compelled to treat every invention as a poten-
to own and commercialize inventions arising from tial blockbuster to avoid embarrassment from “the
federally funded research. By self-reported mea- one that got away.” Venture capitalists (VC) also fear
sures, the results have been dramatic: 100% growth passing on blockbuster opportunities but have an “it’s
of licensing revenue from 2003 to 2013 as reported in part of business” attitude (8).
the Association of University Technology Managers
Licensing Activity Survey FY2014. However, much BOSTON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF
of the license royalty revenue growth has come from: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
1. A handful of blockbuster inventions Boston University (BU) was founded in 1839 as
the Newbury Biblical Institute, and the school moved
2. A handful of research universities, academic first to New Hampshire in 1847 and then to Boston in
medical centers, and related institutions, such 1867. It was chartered as Boston University in 1869.
as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology In 1873, BU merged with the New England Female
(MIT), Stanford, Massachusetts General Hospi- Medical College (founded in 1848), becoming the
tal, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foun- first accredited coeducational medical school in the
dation U.S. In 1875, BU professor Alexander Graham Bell
3. A handful of serial faculty inventors received a year’s salary advance to pursue his research.
The majority of research universities generate less The following year, he invented the telephone in a
license royalty income than the cost of their technol- BU lab. BU established its technology transfer unit
ogy transfer units. A survey of high-tech patenting in 1976 and began to offer the Ph.D. in engineering
showed university patents collectively earn a negative in 1992. Over the first 34 years, the BU Office of
3% rate of ROI (7). Stanford University obtained 65% Technology Development (OTD), as it is now known,
of its $1.77 billion in royalty income earned over 30 generated peak annual licensing royalty revenue of