Monetizing University Research

Over the past decade plus we have from time to time tried to monetize University R&D. There is an interesting piece on MedCity News regarding this from the perspective of the University. They note:

...said one of the major points that prospective licensees should make clear is what exactly is going to be done with the technology. For example, explaining the full scope and potential of how the technology may be used across different applications. “If it does have multiple applications then we need to have a conversation around field of use so that we can make sure that all aspects of the technology are developed and not just sitting on the company’s shelf,” ..... Another point of negotiation,... needs to be the discussion around timelines and milestones for commercializing the technology...we’re managing assets that belong to the state ... as well as to the inventors, so we’re looking for overall fair consideration,

The counter to this is simple. Does the representations made by the inventors really work, and by this I mean commercially. A peer reviewed paper means nothing. What is the cost to manufacture and can the Lab at the University demonstrate the effectiveness and efficacy of the invention. Also one must understand the role of the PI involved. They are researchers but often they want to "run" the company. Finally, a commercial entity invests significant amounts of money and time and Universities must avoid being too greedy. Finally, a patent is just that, a piece of paper. Defending the patent could be costly and loaded with risk.

For these reasons the "valley of death" facing many academic research efforts is real and all too often dominated by actions of the researchers and the Universities.