Juggling the desire for revenue and a responsibility to work for the common good, Duke's technology transfer operations are striking a balance.
Juggling the desire for revenue and a responsibility to work for the common good, Duke’s technology transfer operations are striking a balance.
Tech transfer—a multi-million dollar business—refers to shifting new technology out of the laboratory and into the market where it can be sold. While it has important social implications like generating licensing revenue, creating jobs and affecting public health, the pull of potential revenue also poses a tough moral question for research universities, including four schools in the area.
Wake Forest University’s technology transfer programs are by far the most profitable in the area. In part due to its new development of a vacuum that removes air from a wound before stitching occurs, the Winston-Salem school garnered $19 million in licensing revenue in 2003—more money from project licensing than Duke, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University combined. The three schools each generated less than $5 million in the same period.
In addition, Wake Forest also manages to generate higher revenue while spending less. While Wake Forest spent only $125 million, NCSU had $286 million to work with, UNC received $303 million and Duke, which received the most research funding than any other Triangle university in 2003, topped the list with $475 million, according to a survey conducted by the Association of University Technology Managers. The survey compiles information about inventions, licensing, patents and start-up company activity at not-for-profit institutions like universities and research hospitals.
Duke, however, is not concerned about the financial success of Wake Forest’s tech transfer operations because some officials regard revenue generation as a useful indication of progress but not as the most important reason for their work.
“You would like to think that you can convert the result of research into something useful,” said Robert Taber, vice chancellor for science and technology. “The revenue could be considered a marker [of success].” Revenue can also be an indirect measure of how well a university’s tech transfer program is performing, he added.
Taber also noted that Duke’s licensing-generated revenue this year is consistent with numbers from recent years.
Gilbert Smith, director of corporate research relations and a licensing officer for the Office of Science and Technology, said another important aspect of tech transfer is the well-deserved credit that the creators get from the proliferation of the research.
“It is a way to recognize the intellectual contribution of the University and individuals at the University,” he said.
Alan Herosian, Duke’s director of corporate alliances and development, thinks Duke has a healthy balance between its goals of revenue generation and altruistic product development.
“In terms of our mission we try to maximize opportunities. In terms of what we do as an institution, we do both,” he said. “A lot of the research that we do that advances knowledge in a particular field is useful. That is the ongoing, underlying premise of an academic institution.
“We spend as much time building relationships with companies and people and investors in the institution rather than trying to get licensing because those relationships are more enduring and often lead to broader collaborations that enrich the institution in other ways [like] philanthropy and education,” Herosian said.
Taber said two medicines recently developed at Duke were designed with the primary intention of benefiting society, rather than generating revenue.
Fuzeon, a injection designed to treat AIDS patients that have not responded from conventional treatments, was developed by Duke scientists. Myozyme, a treatment for Pompe’s Disease, a rare but fatal glycogen storage illness in children, was pioneered at Duke as well. Both drugs are currently being introduced to the market.
UNC takes a stance similar to Duke’s position. “The goal of tech transfer at UNC is to facilitate the movement of technology into the marketplace,” said Tony Waldrop, vice chancellor for research and economic development. “[Revenue] is not the primary goal. As a public university, we think it is really important that we move products out that might not be blockbusters for us,” he added, noting an AIDS vaccine that is based on UNC-licensed technology. The vaccine will soon be used in developing countries.
Herosian said Duke’s model has become an example other universities try to emulate. “A lot of people look at our model but can’t get organized to do what we do—so they do plain vanilla licensing.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.