no slide title · 2014. 7. 10. · specific field, as a share of the world’s total publications...
TRANSCRIPT
MindMind--toto--Market:Market:A Global Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer A Global Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer
and Commercializationand Commercialization
National Press ClubNational Press ClubWashington, D.C.Washington, D.C.
Ross DeVolRoss DeVolDirector, Regional EconomicsDirector, Regional Economics
Director, Center for Health EconomicsDirector, Center for Health Economics(310) 570 4615(310) 570 4615
[email protected]@milkeninstitute.orgwww.milkeninstitute.orgwww.milkeninstitute.org
September 20, 2006 September 20, 2006
Overview
• Role of National Innovation Policies• Faculty Research Quality• Incentives and Culture • Human Capital Investment in OTT • Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem• Measures on Commercialization Outcomes
University Biotechnology Publication Subfields
Biology Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology MultidisciplinaryBiochemistry and BiophysicsExperimental Biology MicrobiologyCell and Developmental BiologyMolecular Biology and Genetics
University Biotechnology Publication Indicators
Defined
1 Number of Publications – (40% Weight)Size indicator that reflects the number of each university's biotech publications.
2 Activity – (20% Weight)Concentration indicator measured by the number of publications in qualifiedsubfields as percentage of total publications of a specific university, dividedby the world’s publications in that specific field, as a share of the world’s totalpublications.
3 Impact – (40% Weight)Quality indicator that reflects the number of citations of a university in aspecific subfield as a percent share of the number of total publications of theuniversity in that field, divided by the total citations of the world in thatspecific field, as a share of the world’s total publications in that field.
9. University of Washington
1. Harvard University
21. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
30. University of Toronto
23. Universites de Paris (I-XIII)
3. University of London
2. University of Tokyo
6. Univ of CA, San Diego
5. Univ. of Pennsylvania
7. Johns Hopkins University
10. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles
8. Washington University
29. SUNY at Yeshiva University
28. Univ. of NC at Chapel Hill
22. Univ. of TX at Dallas
27. Cornell University26. Case Western Reserve University
25. Univ. of CA, Berkeley
24. Columbia University
12. Stanford University
11. Yale University
13. Rockefeller University
14. Univ. of WI, Madison
16. Baylor College of Medicine
18. Duke University
19. Osaka University
20. Kyoto University
17. Univ. of Oxford
15. Univ. of Cambridge
4. Univ. of CA, San Francisco
University Biotechnology Publication Ranking
Top 30, 1998-2002
Top 1011-2021-30
29. Yeshiva University
University Biotech Patent Methodology
U.S. Issued Patents
Compare relative strength and
quality of portfolios
ApplyBiotech filter
to all U.S. patents
• Semantic filter based on key attributes and characteristics of biotechnology• Relevant class codes
Analyses
Identify college/ university patents
and unify/standardize assignees
ApplyNano-
technology filter
Identify citing organizations and
dependencies
• Semantic filter based on key attributes and characteristics of nano-technology• Relevant class codes
Compare relative strength and
quality of portfolios
Analyses
Source: ipIQ
University Biotech Patent Indicators
Defined
1 Biotech Patents Issued in U.S. – (65% Weight)The absolute number of biotech patents takes into account all Type 1 utility patents issued in the U.S. patent system.
2 Current Impact Index(CII) – (15% Weight)The Current Impact Index shows the impact of a company’s patents on the latest technological developments. The CII is a measure of how often the previous five years of a company’s patents are cited by patents issued in the most recent year, relative to all U.S. patents.
3 Science Linkage – (10% Weight)Science Linkage is a measure of the extent to which a company’s technology builds upon cutting-edge scientific research. A higher number indicates that a company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.
4 Technology Cycle Time(TCT) – (10% Weight)
Technology Cycle Time is an indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property. A tendency to cite older patents is an indication that a company utilizes older technology. The average TCT is a short as three or four years in rapidly evolving industries, such as electronics, and as long as fifteen years in industries that change more slowly.
11. Harvard University
28. MA Institute of Technology
8. Univ of CA, San Diego15. Univ. of Pennsylvania
3. Johns Hopkins University
23. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles
22. Washington University
5. Cornell University
7. Univ. of CA, Berkeley
6. Columbia University
4. Stanford University
18. Yale University
9. Univ. of WI, Madison
2. Univ. of CA, San Francisco
27. Univ.of Minnesota
29. Univ. of Chicago
1. University of Texas
16. Rockefeller University
20. Thomas Jefferson University
26. University of Utah
17. CA Institute of Technology
30. Univ. of Alabama
25. Univ. of British Columbia
10. University of London
12. Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem
13. University of Michigan14. McGill University
19. Univ. of Melbourne
21. Tel-Aviv University
24. University of Oxford
University Biotech Patent Ranking
Top 30, 2000-2004
Top 1011-2021-30
University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index
Top 10 U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004
Rank Institution Name
PatentsIssuedScore
LicensesExecuted
Score
LicensingIncomeScore
StartupsScore
OverallScore
1 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT) 95.17 79.89 90.64 100.00 100.002 University of California System 97.26 85.25 95.16 83.24 96.593 California Institute of Technology 100.00 70.77 87.12 86.60 92.944 Stanford University 91.56 84.28 93.76 77.02 92.655 University of Florida 84.82 71.41 92.57 69.26 86.116 University of Minnesota 78.92 77.46 91.02 69.24 85.557 Brigham Young University 66.87 80.60 86.13 77.57 85.418 University of British Columbia 74.36 74.09 82.73 77.42 84.239 University of Michigan 82.70 72.25 77.98 74.89 82.54
10 New York University 73.68 63.30 100.00 58.16 81.63
Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%
University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index
11-25 Cont’d, U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004
Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%
Rank Institution Name
PatentsIssuedScore
LicensesExecuted
Score
LicensingIncomeScore
StartupsScore
OverallScore
11 Georgia Institute of Technology 76.80 60.51 72.79 83.41 80.9512 University of Pennsylvania 76.41 72.05 83.95 67.15 80.8313 University of Illinois, Chicago, Urbana, Champaign 72.80 74.55 77.60 72.72 80.3514 University of Utah 77.08 70.80 81.56 66.01 79.4015 University of Southern California 70.77 79.81 70.37 75.72 79.2816 Cornell Research Fdn., Inc. 86.31 75.99 77.99 61.51 78.6917 University of Virginia Patent Fdn. 66.53 75.11 79.41 68.48 78.5218 Harvard University 78.82 76.06 87.54 52.45 77.6819 University of California, San Francisco 88.60 11.63 99.73 62.39 77.1920 North Carolina State University 78.41 73.80 74.40 64.77 76.9421 SUNY Research Foundation 79.51 64.36 84.63 58.01 76.9022 W.A.R.F./University of Wisconsin 87.59 86.65 90.52 38.99 76.8623 McGill University 77.47 68.76 72.12 69.24 76.8024 University of Washington/Wash. Res. Fdn. 75.11 76.10 88.49 50.03 76.5425 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 78.48 76.86 71.14 64.21 76.00
AUTM and ASTP University Performance Measures
Per Million Research Expenditures, 2004
U.S. Canada Europe U.S./Canada U.S./EuropeAverage Research Expenditures (US$ Mil.) 225 178 100
Invention Disclosures 0.40 0.14 0.32 2.98 1.25Patent Applications 0.25 0.06 0.12 4.21 2.06Patents Granted 0.09 0.01 0.04 6.09 2.38Licenses Executed 0.11 0.07 0.09 1.58 1.25Licensing Income (US$) 27,825 12,934 11,988 2.15 2.32Startups Established 0.01 0.01 0.03 1.74 0.37
Per Million Research Expenditures Ratio
U.S. University Licensing Income
Actual vs. Fitted, 2003
Universities in Descending Order
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
US$ Millions
Actual ValuesFitted Values
Simulation 2 - Income Attributed to Office of Technology Transfer
Top 10 U.S. Universities based on Labor Cost Value, 1997- 2003 Average
Actual Licensing Income
Simulated Licensing Income
UniversityUniversity of California System 99.7 83.2 224 156 20 14.8Massachusetts Institute of Technology 33.4 28.3 103 79 22 19.1University of Washington 26.1 22.7 91 75 7 5.7Stanford University 50.6 47.4 133 117 12 10.5University of Wisconsin 25.5 19.4 116 86 3 1.8Johns Hopkins University 8.8 6.0 101 83 6 4.3University of Michigan 5.9 3.7 55 44 7 5.5State University of New York 14.6 11.1 39 27 5 3.8Harvard University 19.3 16.9 68 58 3 2.3University of Minnesota 17.8 13.7 84 67 7 5.8U.S. Total 639.14 505.84 2,734 2,101 247 197
Actual Licenses Executed
Simulated Licenses Executed
Actual Startups
Simulated StartupsUS$ Millions
Conclusions: National Innovation Policy and Culture
• Commitment to Financing University Research• University Mission Must Include
Commercialization• IP Protection System Is Important• Industry Involvement Critical to Success
Conclusions: National Innovation Policy and Culture, Cont’d
• Entrepreneurial Support and Financing Key• Human Capital Investment Essential• Biotechnology Cluster Formation Promotes
National Success
Conclusions: University Level Findings
• Faculty– Research Capacity– Entrepreneurial Incentives and Culture– “Star Scientist”
Conclusions: University Level Findings, Cont’d
• OTT– Professional OTTs Generate High Returns– Age of OTT Office (Networking Effect)– Critical Mass Required for Returns– Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem
Significant– Exclusive Licensing Important for Spinouts and
Startups– Without OTT, Commercialization Occurs, Just Not
as Efficiently
Conclusions: Overall
• Gaps Remain between Research Quality and Commercialization Outcomes
• Commercialization Increasing Over Time• U.S. Tops in Research and Commercialization• Other Countries Making Sizeable Investments