1Introduction
1.Technology transfer describes the movement of knowledge, or technology, from one organisation to another. In higher education institutions, it is the process of commercialising university-owned ‘intellectual property’ (IP), namely “creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary [ … ] works and designs”1 that can be protected through patents, trademarks and copyright. Commercialisation may be achieved through the licencing of IP to existing companies or through setting up new, ‘spin-out’ companies. To facilitate this transaction, many universities have established ‘technology transfer offices’ (TTOs). Though the exact remit of a TTO varies between universities, they are generally responsible for identifying, protecting and transferring knowledge created in universities “out to business where it can be developed into products and services that benefit society”.2
2.Despite being in widespread usage, the term technology transfer has been criticised for implying that innovation is a linear process that begins in universities and ends with a commercialised product. Evidence heard by our predecessor Committee during its Bridging the Valley of Death inquiry in 2013 highlighted that very few innovations start as discoveries in academic research.3 The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) told our predecessors that:
The vast majority of new technologies in the world that become commercially adopted will be devised and developed in the business world, by entrepreneurs, technology consultants, large and small businesses and in supply chains (albeit, we believe, infused and informed by university ideas and human capital development) [ … ] we estimate that only 19% of patent application filings from [the] UK [originate in] universities.4
3.While technology transfer is likely to be a more complex, interactive, and iterative process than the term implies, successive Governments and universities have increasingly focused their efforts on improving the translation of university research into commercial success. Three months after launching our inquiry, for example, in October 2016, the Chancellor announced funding of:
£120 million [over the next four years] to incentivise university collaboration in tech transfer and in engaging with business, helping transform research at universities and institutions into viable business ventures.5
The following month the Government announced the establishment of the ‘Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund’ to “address Britain’s historic weakness on commercialisation and [turn] our world-leading research into long-term success”.6 While further details are expected shortly, the Government has stated that it will “consult on how the fund can best support emerging fields [ … ] and other areas where the UK has a proven scientific strength and there is a significant economic opportunity for commercialisation”.7
4.In addition to providing funding for technology transfer, the Government is also in the process of restructuring the governance of research and innovation through the Higher Education and Research Bill and the establishment of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI—a move we examined in detail in an earlier report Setting up UK Research & Innovation).8 By establishing UKRI—which comprises the seven research councils, Innovate UK and Research England—the Government anticipates that businesses will be given “a much clearer understanding of the opportunities” available from the “intellectual property [ … ] being generated [ … ] in our research community”.9 Furthermore, it is hoped that “proximity and cross-fertilisation between the SMEs that use Innovate UK’s services [and] the academic community [ … ] will stimulate more commercialisation”.10
5.Over the last 15 years, there has also been a succession of high-profile, often Government-sponsored, reviews examining the relationships between business and universities. Dame Ann Dowling’s report on Business-University Research Collaborations, published in July 2015, identified 12 such reviews, including her own.11 The sheer volume of work on this area, however, does not appear to have swept away the barriers to technology transfer. This became particularly apparent early in 2016 when we held a short inquiry to examine research and innovation in graphene. That inquiry raised general issues about the role of universities in the commercialisation of research, many of which went beyond the specific case of graphene (see Annex). As the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Sir Andre Geim, explained:
Historically, universities have two major remits: one is education and the other is bringing basic knowledge [ … ] Now we have a new situation where universities are going from asking questions to being held responsible for commercialisation, which has never previously been a remit of universities. There is nothing wrong with that. As universities we are publicly funded organisations, and of course it is Government and the taxpayer who own the remit of the universities, but because it is a recent situation this remit is neither adequately funded nor does it even have a legal basis.12
Our inquiry
6.We decided to look more closely at what has been described as the ‘third function’ or ‘third stream’ of universities and, in July 2016, we launched a separate inquiry to examine how higher education institutions manage intellectual property and technology transfer. Written submissions were sought addressing the following points:
- How the respective roles of universities and TTOs in commercialising research have developed over the last decade;
- How well universities and TTOs balance objectives of protecting IP and encouraging public-benefit research, and whether TTOs’ and universities’ IP strategies effectively deliver such objectives in practice;
- Any scope for individual universities/TTOs to adopt particular good practices and IP strategies from others:
- Whether funding arrangements for research commercialisation by TTOs are adequate and whether they facilitate an appropriate balance of objectives and an appropriate balance between short-term and longer-term aims;
- Whether SMEs and larger businesses are both given an equitable access to commercialisation opportunities;
- What measures universities, business leaders and Government should take to assist the commercialisation process, and to reach a common understanding of how the different stakeholders involved can engage in the process.
7.We received 39 submissions and took oral evidence from 19 witnesses including:
- professionals working in university technology transfer offices;
- entrepreneurs;
- businesses and trade associations;
- legal and finance professionals;
- the Royal Academy of Engineering;
- officials from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Intellectual Property Office;
- the Government, represented by Jo Johnson MP, Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation.
We would like to thank everyone who contributed to the inquiry.
8.We recognise that there has been a strong ‘review culture’ in the field of technology transfer and business-university collaboration. We welcome, and broadly support, the recommendations made in Dame Ann Dowling’s comprehensive review of Business-University Research Collaborations and do not seek to rehearse all of those recommendations in this report. Rather, in light of the developing Industrial Strategy, and the establishment of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, we have instead identified three aspects of the problem that need to be prioritised, and urgently addressed, through the new Industrial Strategy. Chapter 2 therefore considers how business demand for technology transfer might be increased while Chapter 3 focuses on the geographical context in which technology transfer occurs. Chapter 4 looks at funding and support for commercialising research, with conclusions drawn in Chapter 5.
1 World Intellectual Property Organization, What is Intellectual Property?
2 Brady, C et al, UK University Technology Transfer: behind the headlines. A note from the UK’s leading university technology transfer professionals, April 2015
3 Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2012–13, Bridging the valley of death: improving the commercialisation of research, HC 348
4 Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2012–13, Bridging the valley of death: improving the commercialisation of research, HC 348, Ev 140, para 27
5 “£220 million for cutting-edge new technology”, HM Treasury and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy news story, 1 October 2016
6 CBI annual conference 2016: Prime Minister’s speech, 21 November 2016
7 “PM announces major research boost to make Britain the go-to place for innovators and investors”, Prime Minister’s Office and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Press release, 21 November 2016
8 Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2016–17, Setting up UK Research & Innovation, HC 671
9 Q289
10 ibid
11 The Dowling Review of Business-University Research Collaborations, July 2015, p11
12 Oral evidence taken on 26 April 2016 HC (2016–17) 960, Q69 [Sir Andre Geim]
10 March 2017