Research, Innovation, and Technology Transfer: Maybe We're Not Doing Such a Great Job?

Stephen Quake is a professor at Stanford University and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He writes, in a guest column for The New York Times, about inefficiencies in technology leverage, transfer, and licensing—and says it's broke, let's fix it:

In some quarters of academia there is a deep longing for a return to the ivory tower – that time when the university was disconnected from commercial interests and faculty members were unsoiled by the financial rewards that can be associated with their research.

I must admit that in some respects I share that nostalgia – it would be good for society if there were institutions to turn to for unbiased opinions on the questions that face society. However, it is also true that universities have turned away from the ivory tower model and have embraced a more engaged role in the commercial development of the discoveries of their faculty members.

***

Today’s university faculty is a diverse community of ivory tower researchers alongside inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs. I will discuss two consequences of this: first, what happens when a faculty member has a financial interest in his research, and second, how faculty inventions are commercialized.

***

Although some may still pine for the ivory tower, today’s universities are a swirling cauldron of research that cover the gamut from the esoteric to the applied, and function not only as scholarly institutions but also as engines of innovation. Universities should embrace their role as technology creators and maximize this process by facilitating the efforts of their faculty members. Our country’s economic future could depend on it.