Blind Technology Transfer: our challenge from the South

braileThe last years have been characterized by an accelerated transforming process of the cultural, economic, political and social dimensions of society. Consequently, new trends have emerged — especially those developed by large and medium size companies — which support a business strategy oriented toward innovation through partnership with external research groups (coming from the scientific and technological system) under a new conceptual framework: the open innovation. This approach has particular relevance in some disciplinary fields such as biotechnology, in which boundaries between basic science and technology have blurred, causing an intense interaction between companies and the university research system.

Specifically, the systemic character of innovation places the problem of knowledge appraisal in the centre of processes. In this way, intellectual property becomes the focus of business strategies in order to improve or maintain their competitiveness. While for scientific and technological organizations, IP represents an effort to control and ensure knowledge transfer from R&D labs, especially in developing countries

In this context, and based on the conception that patents can be necessary but not enough for the applicability of research results, the relevance and appropriateness of analyzing the correspondence between patent development and R&D activities is shown. Furthermore, the problematization of this phenomenon appears as an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between scientific research investment and technology development processes, as well as their connection to innovation.

Concerning Argentina, it has seen its budget for science and technology substantially increase since 2003, and the institutional development of the science and technology system has evolved. Public-private partnerships under the open innovation model are also emerging, incipiently being supported by various public instruments that promote the new Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. This set of political actions has affected the field of biotechnology, developing  new businesses and  increasing the number of  patent applications, however, there is no evidence on the relevance of knowledge transfer from the public sector to industry.

As a result, it has become relevant to explore the fate of biotechnology research papers produced in Argentina. To do this, what determines which part of the local R&D is exogenously appropriated and can be measured through the reference of scientific papers in foreign patents is hypothesized.

In our paper, we intended to explain the way in which the flow of scientific and technological knowledge from Quilmes National University (UNQ) toward foreign organizations and companies has been produced, as a case study. The core of the paper proposes the discussion over the appropriation of technological knowledge generated by institutions engaged in scientific and technological research, especially in highly dynamic disciplinary fields such as biotechnology.

Accordingly, the study focuses on reflecting upon the technological value of the knowledge generated. Specifically, this work shows the flow and the appropriation of scientific and technological knowledge developed in UNQ to foreign organizations and companies, whose circulation and diffusion occurred without the university being able to control, prevent or measure it.

Somehow, this sort of ‘liberation’ of knowledge – typical of the academic logic of science – can be understood as an indirect subsidy from the Argentinean public sector to foreign companies. Being this type of phenomena invisible to the political actions of the institution, we may consider them as blind technology transfer processes or just blind leakage of knowledge.

In terms of implementation of innovation policies between the central countries and the developing countries, a center-periphery relationship is established which, among other things, can be verified by observing the flow of knowledge from developing to developed countries.

We also face the problem of reflecting on the need to design new instruments to promote innovation, which, on the one hand, further stimulate local industry connections with the Argentinean scientific and technological subsystem, and, on the other, control, guide and/or streamline this ‘invisible flow’ of knowledge generated. This will require the active participation of other ministries (Health, Agriculture, particularly Industry) to complement and guide the initiatives of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation.

The universities will not be able to solve the lack of an industrial sector demanding research results, but they can be key actors in public policies for their own development. That is why it is imperative to re-signify the role of university technology transfer offices, as it will be desirable to increase the likelihood of research results appropriation. This forces us to think about the institutional significances of invisible technology transfer processes by developing new strategies of knowledge appropriation and appraisal.

Summing up, blurring boundaries between science and technology is a new phenomenon, especially in fields such as biotechnology. The awareness of the flow of scientific knowledge developed at a public university toward foreign companies and organizations becomes the driving force toward improvements in managing technology transfer offices and the development of innovative public policies for solving structural failures caused by industrial underdevelopment.

Darío Codner 

Events

calendar3Conferences and meetings of interest to those in the biotech sphere.

 

 

Future Biotech Summit

February 20 & 21, Hyatt Regency Mission Bay San Diego

https://www.gtcbio.com/conference/fb-overview

 

BioPharma Asia Convention

March 10–13, Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre

https://www.terrapinn.com/exhibition/bio-asia/index.stm

 

From the Laboratory to Leadership Program

March 26, April 9, April 23 & May 13, Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association Offices, Seattle

https://www.theleadershipedge.com/content/wbba-seattle-area-from-the-laboratory-to-leadership-program-0

 

21st Annual Future Leaders in the Biotech Industry

March 28, Millennium Broadway Hotel and Conference Center, New York

https://www.biocentury.com/conferences/futureleaders/dates

 

MassBio Annual Meeting

April 3 & 4, Royal Sonesta Hotel, Cambridge, Massachusetts

https://www.massbio.org/events/calendar/2302-massbio_annual_meeting/event_detail

 

11th Annual BIO Asia International Conference

April 8 & 9, Grand Hyatt, Tokyo

https://www.bio.org/events/conferences/bio-asia-international-conference?gclid=CK-e57bol7wCFTHZQgodYAkAAg

 

Legislative Day Fly-In 2014

April 8 & 9, Embassy Suites, Washington, DC

https://www.bio.org/events/conferences/fly-overview

 

University-Industry Interaction Conference

April 23-25, CosmoCaixa, Barcelona, Spain

https://www.university-industry.com/

 

 

 

Q&A: David Rabuka

BooksI sat down with David Rabuka at the recent IBC Antibody Engineering and Therapeutics conference and discussed his entrepreneurial path. David is the founder and chief scientific officer of Redwood Bioscience, a startup company focused on antibody-drug conjugates and other semi-synthetic therapeutics. David started the company as a graduate student at UC Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in chemistry with professor Carolyn Bertozzi.

 

Gene Kym:  You worked in industry at Optimer Pharmaceuticals prior to starting your PhD program.  How has this influenced your scientific development and career as an entrepreneur? 

David Rabuka: Working in a small biotech environment before I started my PhD program was very influential in my scientific development and career as an entrepreneur. The speed of work and the focus on reaching milestones quickly was something I learned while working in industry. This is especially true if you are involved in a smaller start-up environment. I learned how to design experiments that would lead to an answer quickly, either positive or negative, and then move on to the next question. I also learned the technical skills I needed when I started my PhD program and could run independently out of the gate. Being exposed to the business side of biotech was a fantastic learning experience, one that I would not have been exposed to without working in industry. Building and executing on programs that generated value, both for investors and customers/patients, is something that I was fortunate enough to be exposed to in a small start-up environment. The start-up environment is engaging and exciting. I knew that even upon returning to UC Berkeley to work on my PhD program that my career would continue with an entrepreneurial focus.

 

GK: You licensed the technology from UC Berkeley and started a company while writing your PhD thesis. Can you speak about this experience from a student perspective? Did you face specific challenges?

DR: The final year of my PhD program is a bit of blur, actually. I am not sure when I slept. From a student perspective it seemed to me par for the course. I was extremely busy, but I don’t think any more so than my lab mates and colleagues – you just work steadily and grind it out. I actually really enjoyed the process of getting the company started while I was finishing up my academic requirements. Mixed things up a bit, I suppose, and kept everything interesting.

 

GK: Mentors and networking are important for young entrepreneurs. Are there people who have guided you along the way? How did you build your network as a student? Were there any unexpected benefits that came from networking?

DR: Networking is absolutely essential for young entrepreneurs. It sometimes sounds silly – network, network, network – but in the end it is the folks you surround yourself with that will make or break getting the company off the ground. Again, having worked in industry before grad school helped me a lot. I had the advantage of already having built up a network of scientists, [business development] folks and mentors. The CEO of the company I worked at before heading off to grad school, for example, was always willing to sit down and listen to my ideas and plans and give advice. Many other folks along the way also provided new contacts and assistance. These were folks I had interacted with at conferences, or past collaborations. Some of my mentors I simply met through friends and family. During grad school there were many opportunities to meet with folks who were more than happy to help out. I would attend lectures and seminars around company building. Many universities, including UC Berkeley, are beginning to provide services and solutions for spinning out technology. I tapped all of these.

 

GK: How important are management skills in a startup, and how can scientists develop these skills? What else should aspiring entrepreneurs learn that is not taught in school?

DR: Initially management skills, for me, weren’t important right out of the gate, as I was the only employee and I really didn’t give it that much thought. However, over time as the company grew, my management tasks grew accordingly. I was forced to develop management skills on the fly and just learned things along the way. I read a bunch of books, some useful, many not. While I was in grad school I did have the opportunity to manage an undergrad researcher – a very useful learning experience. It’s funny, but really I just take everything I liked from past managers I have worked under and try to apply those principles to how I manage my own team. Being a great manager is an evolving process for me, and I am constantly being challenged. Getting honest feedback from your team and being willing to adapt accordingly is essential for entrepreneurs who find themselves in a management role for the first time.

 

GK: Your company uses a platform technology. Can you speak about distinguishing a platform from a product? How has this affected your startup’s path?

DR: There are different pools of money that one can access if you are a platform company or a product company. Most investors have a preference of one path over the other, and it is important to identify funding opportunities that fit your path forward and not to try to force your company down a path that may not be a fit for your team and not play into your strengths. We tried a number of variations on our company theme, spinning it as a product play, and failed to garner any interest or attention from investors. We weren’t a product play, and it was painfully apparent. The problem was that we hadn’t properly identified the groups that would be interested in a platform company. Being a platform company also requires a more outward-looking approach to building a business. Building collaborations and partnerships consumes more of your resources and bandwidth, as opposed to focusing on developing a product.