Normally, when there's a technology I discover through publications or a competing or start-up company, I have to make a critical decision for my company:
a) Make a better version of the technology,
b) License the technology, or
c) Collaborate.
There's a d): keep it to myself, but let's assume that doesn't exist. Each of these has pros and cons (obviously), and a couple weeks ago I discovered a technology that will be very cool in one of my products. And I know that with my involvement, it will be much better (one of the best things about the internet is that I can be cocky and not feel bad for it :) ). Not just because of my knowledge, but because of my budget. In this particular case, it's a lab at a major state university in a different state (not one of the schools I applied for...for those of you thinking about conflicts of interest). So I'm weighing which of these options I should pursue, and since I have some experience in a), b), and c), of course I want to blog my thoughts.
a) I've done this before with a start-up that had a technology that they weren't willing to share at all. I came up with a prototype alternative using a different physical principle, but giving similar, but better, data. This method was cheaper and had other clinical advantages. The company didn't get purchased for the hundreds of millions of dollars they wanted from us (don't cry for them, they got bought by one of our competitors). My version is getting ready to save a ton of lives as we've gotten approval for sale in the good ol' USA. This was relatively cheap, and turned around in less than half the time of the company acquisition and integrating their technology.
b) I didn't have time to create a specific product, so I knew of a company that had something close-to-done. The product isn't really something complicated, just something that's necessary for the particular surgical procedure. So I led the licensing effort, and ended up with a product that got recalled after 3 months. Not a pleasant experience, and now I'm redesigning the product myself.
c) I collaborate with two university medical centers to perform animal and some human studies. But they have relatively little engineering input, they just perform the procedures and process data for us. Nothing spectacular, although I've gotten these universities over a half million bucks each per year. The one time I found a university to work with me on an actual product things never worked out because of legal. They wanted a crazy amount of overhead (500%), and our people were not okay with that. Then our legal department got mad, then my manager got mad. Not a great experience.
So, I talked to legal a few months ago, and got approval from the VP of my company. I've been allotted $800,000 over two years to allocate to this. The PI has a couple smaller grants, but nothing big. He was very receptive, and he has gotten his legal department on board. We have agreed to 400% and my company gets to keep the IP. This significantly cuts into the budget. We'll be able to fund maybe two students, but we will have enough left to do what we need.
I'm really looking forward to this because I'll be able to work with students again! Being treated like a colleague from the PI is fun, too. He doesn't really act like I'm his boss, which I appreciate. I just want to do cool science. My #2 working with me is pretty pumped about this too, because it's her alma mater for her MS and BS (she has a PhD). I'm going to try and make sure she's very well trained. If I get admission to the ivory tower, she'll need to take over. And if the academic search doesn't end well, then at least I'll have this academic exposure! Bright sides!
Do you think this is where funding is headed? With more and more government cuts, I see this as the future. If this is so, I see companies ruining the science since they are just focused on making money. Also, this would prevent a lot of publishing, therefore delaying graduations and getting the info out to the public. As more and more funding is coming from the private sector I think our scientific prominence as a nation will diminish.
ReplyDeleteIf all funding shifted towards industry funds I think the opposite of what you're saying could potentially happen. It's funny you said that because this actually came up in a talk I had with two VPs of major biomedical companies. They said that eventually industry will become more and more invested because this is where their talent will come from, and this is where the core-scientific research will go. Because of this, universities will have an upper hand because more companies will vie for time with the top researchers. After all, we HAVE to get things done or we falter (unlike the NIH, who can just cut funds and they'll always be around). If universities step up and say "you can have this IP, but we get to publish whenever we want. I think the patent-submission shift recently where it's "first to file" and not longer "first to show due diligence" will help this publishing since the patent can be filed quickly and the core science can be delivered on the same time scale as now. I think it could actually get quicker given that industry will push for more to be done to maximize the investment. It would be tougher on the PIs, but I think science would be just fine so long as the universities don't give in to every industrial demand. Super advanced research just ant be done at companies anymore, so the colleges need to hunker down to make sure the science isn't sacrificed.
ReplyDeleteI think university administration will always be afraid to play hard-ball with corporations. If your situation is to come true, we need hardened businessmen in the ranks of academia (which there never will be) to negotiate with the companies. Until then, my students will be prevented from publishing, and I will only be doing the science they want me to do.
ReplyDeleteFrom what you write about the budgets at your disposal in your current company, I wonder: won't the resources in academia that you may have be too small or limited compared to what you are used to? Not just in terms of money, but also about the personnel and the facilities?
ReplyDeleteI actually got this question in one interview! :) Regarding the transition to lesser funds: my grad experience was self-funded from very small grants. This included all chemicals, tissue, cells, etc. I used equipment that was there or paid for core time off my own grants so things had to be cheap. I got double digit pubs with barely any research funds. My current work is expensive because 1. The vendors we work with need large quantities (I could, and would in academia, make some of this stuff by myself, but it would take way too long...so we're stuck ordering 10x more of the stuff than we need), 2. Animals studies and MD time aren't cheap (MDs are mostly free-of-charge collaborators, and I intend on focusing on cheaper animal studies rather than GMP labs all the time), and 3. The timescale we have to work on is very tight (I've completed 3 dissertations worth of stuff in the past 3 years...very rapid pace. I would not be forced to work this fast in academia so paying for the rapid turnaround and the people isn't as necessary). It will be a tough transition, but I'm certain I'll manage just fine :). I know I'll also have to be more careful. I buy a lot of items "at-risk" and most of my gambles don't pay off here. I have to make the purchasing decisions very quickly so I don't have time to weigh the options. I would have to really pick and choose which directions to take research in academia. But presumably I wouldn't have shareholders and patients breathing down my neck all the time.
ReplyDelete