Introduction
• Primary mission of teaching and
research.
• Provide long-run impact creating jobs
and new business that promotes local
economic growth.
• However, universities are a source of a
wider base of ideas and actions that
contribute to the local economy.
Major Employers
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cambridge, United Kingdom, AnnArbor, Michigan and New Haven Connecticut
• universities control much of the local real estate
Pittsburgh - The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC)
• manufacturers gradually closed their operations job growth came from the health
care
University of Toronto, Top employer with 8,485 employees in 2013
Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia was the second largest
employer in 2008
Breznitz, S. M., and M. P.
Feldman., 2012. “The Engaged
University.” Journal of Technology
Transfer. 37 (2): 139-157.
Yale and Cambridge
• 1990s - universities under pressure to
make an impact and contribution to
their local economies
• Both institutions made changes to
their policies and processes
• Different outcomes
The Cambridge Phenomenon
Biotech spin-outs/ Start-ups
Acquired by
Becker
Underwood
Prof William Bains
Prof John Caldwell
Iain Cubitt
Amedis
pharmaceutical
Dr. Greg Winter
Changed its name
to MicroBio Group
Pestex
Chris Evans
Merlin Ventures
Chris Evans
Chris Evans
Celsis
Toad
Iain Cubitt
Axis Genetcs Dr. Greg Winter
Daniel Roach
Alan
Goodman
CAT
BioRobotics
Chris Evans
Enviros
Enzymatix
Chiroscience
AGC
1984
Alan
Goodman
Chris Evans
Alan
Goodman
(FD)
CeNes
ATM
Alan
Goodman
Dr. Chris Lowe
J. McCann
Cambridge
Celltech Alan Munro Sensors
Cantab
Pharmaceuticals Dr. Chris Lowe
Chris Evans
Alan
Goodman CORE
Alan LIDCO
Goodman
Alan Oxford
Goodman
Biomedica
Merged
with
Xenova
Group Ltd
Martin Davies
Daivd Chiswell
ChiroTech
Rapigene
Merged by
Celltech
Group
RiboTargets
Simon Sturge
Chris Evans
Cerebrus
Diversys
Dr. Ken Jones
MRC LMB
Affinity Dr. Vivan Stad
chromatography
1960s
AdproTech
University
Prof. Peter Lachmann
Biotica Technology
Until 1985
Prof. Peter Leadlay
Prof. Jim Staunton
Kudos
Pharmaceuticals
1986-1990
Alan
Goodman
Daniel Roach
Daniel Roach
Amura
Alan
Salix
Alan
pharmaceutical Goodman
Goodman
Alan
Goodman
Dr. Roger Millington
Holometrica
AbcamJonathan Miller
Cambridge
Mark Bodmer
Hexagen
Peptide
Therapeutics
Now Acambis
Avlar
BioVentures
Acquired by
Prometic
Biosciences
Inc
1991-1995
1996-2000
Metris
Lorantis
Mark Bodmer
Therapeutics
Paradigm
Prof. Stephen Smith
Therapeutics
Dr. Steve Charnock-Jones
De Novo
Dr. Mark Carlton
Sense
Dr. Philip Dean
Proteomics
Dr. Jonathan Blackburn
2001-2002
Prof. Stephen Jackson
Acquired by Incyte
Source: Dr. Shailendra Vyakarnam, Sustaining the Spirit of Entrepreneurship
Cambridge
- Negative Impact
• “If I can choose to license technology from
Cambridge or from Imperial or Oxford I will choose
Imperial or Oxford over Cambridge”
(Biotechnology executive)
• “The TTO gives the impression that it is the British
civil service. <You> better not make the mistake and
get the technology out <from the university>”
(Biotechnology executive)
Yale – Positive Impact
Impact - Yale
• [Yale is] very important. They play a very
important champion and facilitating role, [in]
formulation of business plans and also
sponsoring companies while they are raising
capital. (Biotechnology executive)
• There would be no Science Park without
Yale. Yale is one of the last Ivy Leagues
that see the importance of fostering
technology. Yale is the intellectual and
economic driver.
(Biotechnology
executive)
Main Arguments
• External Factors- Different institutional and regional
histories and environment
• Internal Factors- Technology commercialization
– Culture
– Policy
– Organization
• Organizational change – Comprehensiveness
– Velocity
– Inclusiveness
The Mott
Report
1969
“Free
Hand”
Policy to
Technology
Transfer.
IPR can be
assigned to
researchers
or
companies
The Wolfson Industrial
Liaison Office (WILO)
Under the Dept. Of
Engineering
1970
The Wolfson Industrial
Liaison Office (WILO)
Under the university of
Cambridge
1983
The
Dearing
Report
1997
The
Sainsbury
report
1999
Move to a
technology
transfer
Centralized
Control
Mechanism.
University
owns IPR from
sponsored
research.
The
Higher
Education
Innovation
Fund 2001
1999
Cambridge
Entrepreneurial
Center (CEC
2002
2005
2006
The Wolfson Industrial
Liaison Office (WILO)
Under the University of
Cambridge
Research
Grant &
Contract
Office
(RG&CO)
The University
Challenge
Fund (UCF)
Research Services Division (RSD)
Includes: CEC, CLO, WILO, RG&CO, and UCF
Director: David Secher
2000
Cambridge Enterprise (CE)
Director: Peter Hiscocks
2003
The
university
owns all
IPR
regardles
s of the
source of
funding.
Corporate
Liaison Office
(CLO)
Cambridge Enterprise
Including UCF
Director: Ann Dobree
Cambridge Enterprise
Director: Teri F. Willey
RSD
Director David Secher
RSD
Includes: CLO, CE, RG&CO,
and UCF
Director: David Secher
Center for Entrepreneurship
Learning (CfEL)
Director: Shai Vyakranam
RSD
Includes: CLO and RG&CO
Director: David Secher
Center for Entrepreneurship
Learning (CfEL)
Director: Shai Vyakranam
RSD
Director: David Secher
Center for Entrepreneurship
Learning (CfEL)
Director: Shai Vyakranam
11
Conclusion I
Location matters –
Its not the university itself
The region in which a university is
situated, its history and environment, is
critical in the way it influences internal
university mechanisms for technology
transfer
Conclusion II
Though universities have the potential to make a
positive contribution to local economic development, not
all will.
Its more than one university decision processes.
Conclusion III
To improve their technology-transfer universities
need to consider three organizational change
factors:
– Comprehensiveness
– Velocity
– Inclusiveness
By choosing a particular path of change, the
university also changes its role and its ability to
contribute to the region.
QUESTIONS?
shiri.breznitz@utoronto.ca
THANK YOU!