Keywords
Research commercialization, entrepreneurship, intellectual property, technology transfer, disclosures, patents, license, start-ups
Research commercialization, entrepreneurship, intellectual property, technology transfer, disclosures, patents, license, start-ups
In response to the reviewers’ comments, we have made several changes of which the most substantial are that we have clarified the overall intent of the study, increased the sample size and we have added a description of the study’s limitations. We have also responded to each reviewers’ report below.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jessica Silvaggi
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Scott Crick
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Evan Facher
Research is a vital component of the mission of universities, and indeed academic institutions conduct a substantial volume of research that is funded by government, industry and philanthropic agencies. Development or the commercialization of research should also be a key component of the research mission such that novel ideas, techniques and products can enter the marketplace for the benefit of a variety of stakeholders including inventors, universities and society. In order to facilitate academic-based commercialization, legislation, such as the Bayh-Dole Act, provides universities the legal framework for commercializing the research that is developed within university settings1,2.
In a commercialization survey conducted by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), in 2013, United States-based institutions generated over 24,000 disclosures, obtained over 5,000 new patents, executed over 5,000 licensing agreements, formed over 800 start-up companies and generated $2.75 billion in license income3. Despite this overall success, academic researchers experience many issues that obstruct the commercialization of research within higher education settings. Previous studies at academic institutions have documented challenges to the commercialization process that include, but are not limited to: risk aversion; constraints on faculty time; lack of financial support; policy/regulation barriers; infrastructure insufficiencies; lack of a common understanding of the value of research commercialization; lack of entrepreneurial thinking among faculty; and lack of interaction and collaboration between universities and industry4–10. A previous study at the University of Kentucky found that expense, time constraints, insufficient infrastructure and lack of industry partnerships were the most common factors experienced by cancer researchers that impede research commercialization11. Ultimately, challenges to the effective and efficient commercialization of research inhibits obtaining the maximum benefit of university research in that such barriers can prevent university-based innovation from progressing to the marketplace for the benefit of inventors, universities and society.
The University of Kentucky commercializes its research through the Intellectual Property Development and Technology Transfer Office, a unit of the Office of the Vice President for Research. Through this office, the university’s research commercialization activities are historically modest compared to its benchmark institutions. The university currently ranks last among its benchmark institutions in regard to several commercialization metrics including in staffing, invention disclosures, patent applications and license/options executed (Table 1). And, growth in commercialization activity has been relatively flat from 2010–2013 with the exception of a recent increase in license income (Table 2). These data could suggest that the University of Kentucky may experience additional commercialization barriers as compared to its benchmark institutions and/or a higher magnitude of common barriers among institutions.
The study herein was designed as a supplement to the previous study at the University of Kentucky11 and focused on obtaining a more detailed understanding of the impediments to commercializing research at the university from the perspective of three faculty members that have been successful in the continuum of commercialization through successfully obtaining patents, licensing intellectual property and forming start-up companies. The rationale for conducting this supplemental study with only successful academic entrepreneurs was that we believed that more focused and individualized conversations with such entrepreneurs could provide more insight into the commercialization process versus conducting the study with individuals that have had more limited or no experience in commercializing research.
The study herein is a supplement to and modeled closely after a similar, larger scale study conducted at the University of Kentucky specifically among cancer researchers11. The methodology and design of the study was qualitative in nature and was based on two modules: an online survey (included as Supplementary materials S1) followed by a face-to-face interview. It is important to note that the prior study11 did not include a face-to-face interview and was conducted with faculty that had both successfully commercialized their research and those that had not. It is also noteworthy that the respondents for this supplemental work span different research categories as defined in Table 4. The purpose of this supplemental research was to obtain more detailed information, primarily through the face-to-face interview, on the impediments to the commercialization of research at the University of Kentucky.
The selection criteria for inclusion in the study was that the selected participants must be faculty members, have active research programs and be successful academic entrepreneurs based on having obtained patents, licensed intellectual property and created start-up companies. The research subjects for this study were identified through searches of publically available databases containing information on the selection criteria. For module one, data were collected and managed using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tool. REDCap is a secure, Internet-based study-support application12. Module two data were recorded in written format during the face-to-face interview.
There are several limitations associated with this study. As a limited case study designed as a supplement to prior research11, the results may not be translatable to other situations or research questions beyond that addressed in the original study11, and the opinions of the three respondents may not be representative of all the stakeholders involved in the commercialization landscape at the University of Kentucky or elsewhere. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all faculty either at the University of Kentucky or at other universities, and the findings may or may not be capable of being generalized to other research areas. Further, as a cross-sectional study, the barriers experienced by the participants outside of the data collection window may not have been captured. Subject selection bias, which could lead to data and outcome bias, may also exist. Lastly, the study was designed to identify general challenges, thus more specific challenges were likely not captured by this analysis. Despite these limitations, the data obtained from this study, especially from the face-to-face interviews, provide additional supplemental information that enhances the findings of the previous study11. Thus, this supplemental work provides more detailed information that can be presented to the administrative leadership of the commercialization process at the University of Kentucky.
This study was determined to not require review by the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board. The research subjects consented to participate in the study electronically via engagement with the online survey and chose to participate in both modules of the study. The participants chose to remain anonymous beyond interaction with the investigators involved in the study.
The first series of survey questions, summarized in Table 3, aimed to assess the subjects’ category of research, professional productivity and their perspective on research commercialization. Respondent 1 classified his research as “translational;” he feels satisfied with his level of professional productivity in terms of publishing research manuscripts, obtaining grant funding and other means of academic productivity; and he indicated that he intends to commercialize additional research in the future. Despite believing that research commercialization is important in the academic setting and that his research field values such work, he feels that the University of Kentucky places little emphasis on and thus does not greatly value research commercialization. Respondent 2 classified his research as “basic;” he feels that his research is underutilized; and he intends to continue commercializing his work. Further, respondent 2 believes commercialization is important in an academic setting, yet the University of Kentucky does not emphasize such activity and he believes that his research field does not place an emphasis on commercialization. Respondent 3 classified her research as “basic/translational;” she is satisfied with her level of professional productivity; and, interestingly, despite having developed intellectual property and starting a company, she indicated that she may not pursue the commercialization of her research again in the future. Similar to respondent 1, respondent 3 also feels that research commercialization is important in the academic setting and that her research field values such activity, but that the University of Kentucky does not value research commercialization.
The second set of survey questions, summarized in Table 4, addressed the research subjects’ perceived impediments to commercializing research. Respondent 1 believes that risk, lack of investors, commercialization infrastructure, unsupportive university and federal policies, and “other barriers not listed” prohibit his efforts to effectively and efficiently commercialize research. Respondent 2 feels that commercialization infrastructure, lack of importance to academia (i.e., lack of emphasis placed on commercialization by academia), and “other barriers not listed” are the impediments that inhibit his commercialization efforts. The barriers identified by respondent 3 include the presence of risk, lack of time, expense, lack of investors, insufficient infrastructure, unsupportive university policies, and lack of industry partners.
In the face-to-face interview, respondent 1 indicated that the “other barriers” included major prohibiting factors such as the lack of university support/infrastructure in areas of market analysis, grant development, and navigating legal matters including conflict of interest and intellectual property ownership issues. Of these “other” items, we had anticipated that such factors could be captured under the commercialization infrastructure and/or policy categories of answer choices in the survey. Ultimately, respondent 1 indicated that infrastructure issues are the most significant factors that impede research commercialization at the University of Kentucky. The subject also discussed how some of these barriers are more challenging and more difficult to overcome and that he felt that the barriers he has encountered are different at other universities. Respondent 2 indicated three major factors that negatively impact commercialization at the university and those are: 1) a lack of an entrepreneurial culture at the university level which has eroded the interest faculty have in pursuing the commercialization of their work; 2) inhibitory commercialization policies and an unwillingness for those policies to be malleable to individual commercialization situations/circumstances; and 3) insufficient and inhibitory commercialization infrastructure. Respondent 3 described the biggest barriers to academic research commercialization as faculty’s lack of business knowledge and commercialization background. Interestingly, she considers it more the responsibility of each faculty member to drive any potential commercial aspect of their work rather than rely on resources and support that may or may not exist at the university level. Since the majority of faculty do not receive any training in business or commercialization areas, she feels that this hampers the overall commercialization activity on university campuses.
Similar to the previous study among cancer researchers11, these data suggest that faculty members experience multiple barriers in the commercialization process at the University of Kentucky. Additionally, in comparison with previous studies4–11, the data may suggest that not all barriers are consistent or common between individual faculty members (for example, expense, time constraints, insufficient infrastructure, and lack of industry partnerships were the most common barriers experienced among University of Kentucky cancer researchers11). And, some barriers appear to be more prohibitive than others.
The final set of questions, summarized in Table 5, were meant to determine which impediments would need to be overcome in order to increase faculty participation in research commercialization. Respondent 1 indicated that the barriers in the commercialization process do not deter him from attempting to commercialize his research, however, he believes that reducing/mitigating all the potential barriers surveyed, other than addressing royalty pay to inventors, would enhance research commercialization activity at the University of Kentucky. The subject also indicated that he would utilize outside (off campus) commercialization resources to lower the barriers he faces in order to improve his commercialization efforts. Respondent 2 would also use off campus resources to enhance his commercialization efforts and he believes that providing faculty protected time for commercialization efforts, providing additional and more helpful information to faculty about how to commercialize research, increasing the financial support available to entrepreneurial faculty, enhancing the commercialization infrastructure on campus, and increasing the emphasis placed on research commercialization would improve the commercialization activity at the university. Similar to respondents 1 and 2, respondent 3 would use off campus resources to commercialize her research, and she feels that providing information on how to commercialize, providing financial support, improving commercialization infrastructure, revising university policies, and increasing links to industry would improve commercialization activity at the University of Kentucky.
These data are similar to the feelings reported by cancer researchers11 in which respondents believe that mitigating many factors would presumably increase commercialization activity. Not all respondents, however, completely agree on all the factors that are important to address.
This case study investigated the mindset of three successful academic entrepreneurs at the University of Kentucky in relation to the status of the research commercialization process and in context with the university’s general commercialization activity. The general state of the institution’s commercialization activity is modest relative to its benchmark institutions and stagnant in growth over time. The research subjects identified several factors that generally impede research commercialization and the subjects agreed that mitigating many factors may increase commercialization activity. Infrastructure insufficiencies, a lack of an emphasis by the university on the importance of research commercialization, a low to nonexistent entrepreneurial culture on campus, inhibitory policies, and a lack of business and commercialization knowledge among faculty were highlighted as the most significant barriers. While generally fitting with the impediments found at other universities and among cancer researchers at the University of Kentucky4–11, the results suggest that not all barriers are common or consistent between faculty and that some impediments may be more prohibitive than others. It is likely that the barriers vary between and among disciplines and the barriers may further vary based on an individual’s general experience with the commercialization process.
These data can be shared with the University of Kentucky’s Intellectual Property Development and Technology Transfer Office and the Office of the Vice President for Research and used as a guide to make changes that will improve the research commercialization process. The research subjects’ comments regarding commercialization infrastructure, a stagnant entrepreneurial culture, inhibitory commercialization policies, and faculty’s lack of business/commercialization knowledge may be particularly important to address in order to enhance commercialization activity at the university. Additionally, similar work could be conducted at and among other institutions. For example, a survey similar to the one herein and that used in the prior study11 could be incorporated into the yearly AUTM licensing survey in order to gauge, on a much broader scale, the impediments to academic research commercialization as well as to understand how other institutions are mitigating such impediments. Understanding how institutions that are highly successful in commercializing research mitigate barriers in the process would be greatly beneficial to institutions that have low to modest commercialization activity.
NLV and EM conceived and designed the study; conducted the study; analyzed the data; and wrote the paper. This research project was completed, in part, to fulfill the requirements of EM’s Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Biotechnology.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 2 (revision) 04 Aug 15 |
read | read | read |
Version 1 28 May 15 |
read | read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)