Happy New Year to you!  I hope this message finds you tanned, rested and ready or at least rested and ready.

I will take a few minutes to make a few predictions about technology in Tennessee in 2010.  Nothing earth-shattering, but just a few random thoughts that I will come back to review from time to time.

Here we go:

1.  There will be additional corporate relocations to the Clarksville and Chattanooga area relating to the Hemlock semiconductor and Wacker Chemie.  This is a no-brainer.  We were blessed to have these announcements in the last 15 months and the residual effects are just now starting to take effect.

2.  TnInvestco will be successful in helping some new startups to acquire funding, but there will be questions about where the funds are being expended.  These will not be concerns about anything illegal or immoral, but there will be questions about what types of ventures will be funded.

3.  The success, or lack of success, of our universities in licensing technology effectively will be further questioned.  Tennessee has several universities with licensable technology that could be used to start new ventures, but there is considerable difference between the schools who are “easy to deal with” versus those who are not as easy to deal with.  Schools who choose not to license valid technology are leaving money on the table.  I wonder why…

4.  The continual funding crisis of Tennessee’s public universities will start to have a discernable effect on the ability of our institutions to get things done.  This is inevitable.

This is all I have for today.

We need to find ways to create new jobs in our state, and traditional, low skill manufacturing is not the answer.

Technology holds the key to our future.

As they say in the media, there’s “breaking news” at Griffin Integrated Marketing!  Starting today, we are changing our name to Griffin Communications Group (Griffin).  This is an exciting time of growth for our agency.

So, what is Griffin Communications Group?  It’s an evolution.  We remain a full-service communications firm that specializes in branding, strategic planning, public affairs, advertising, design, public relations, crisis communications, social media and more.  But, our focus will be different.  We will shift from a generalist agency into a niche firm that concentrates on select global industries, beginning with aerospace.

Our aerospace division will operate as Griffin Aerospace Communications.  We have more than a decade of experience developing strategic communications platforms for government entities, private sector companies and non-profit organizations within the aerospace industry – from civil to commercial to military space.  Plus, our Managing Director Gwen Griffin has a rich career history in the industry that began in 1985.

Just take a look at our current aerospace client roster:  NASA’s Constellation Spacesuit Systems Contract (Oceaneering), the Coalition for Space Exploration, United Space Alliance, Blue Origin, Astrotech/Astrogenetix, Space Florida, The Conrad Foundation and MEI Technologies, Inc.

Our past clients are just as prominent:  NASA Johnson Space Center Technology Transfer Office, Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program, Florida’s Technological Research and Development Authority, World Space Congress 2002, Cimarron, Inc., Space Center Houston and The Challenger Learning Center for Space Science Education.

But, we won’t stop with aerospace.  Under our new strategic plan, Griffin will add two more specialized niche practices in the next 12-24 months.

As we begin this evolution, we remain committed to all of our clients.  Our emphasis on exemplary customer service will not change.  Making sure we provide fresh ideas that generate powerful results remains our top priority.

Any questions, post a comment below, send us an email at info@griffincommgroup.com or give us a call at
(281) 335-0200.  Piqued your interest? Then, make sure to check out our site, become our friend on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Here’s to the future!

The VC, The Professor, And The Valley Of Death.

This is a fascinating article and one that I KNOW will promote heated discussion in many circles.

I like the fact that this article contains real-life numbers to back up something that I have heard many say for years.  Our country has a lot of great research and marketable ideas that are NOT making their way into the world of business.  This hurts all of us!

We need to find a way to simplify the way that marketable research gets out to help mankind and is not bottled-up in the lab.

I cannot wait to hear more about this.

…and we’re off to a crawl

cross posted from Grist.

Coming right off the heels of the UN General Assembly in New York and the G20 in Pittsburgh, the world has taken its next step on the road to Copenhagen: the Bangkok round of negotiations for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This morning the Thai Prime Minister opened the session by saying “There is no plan B, if we do not realize plan A, we go straight to plan F, which stands for failure.”

So, no pressure.

With an invigorated sense of skepticism, civil society, governments, and of course business interests are here to try to hammer through obtuse and contradictory text to create something that can be of some use on the table at the Copenhagen meetings this December.

The UN press office was quick to hand me a defensive-sounding media release stating ‘Negotiations set to pick up in Bangkok as a result of New York Climate Change Summit’ – hoping to put a positive spin on the process. Sure, the New York summit yielded lots of big talk about Climate – unfortunately very little in the way of meaningful targets and commitments, as pointed out (to much applause) by a Sudanese delegate this morning.

The reality of the US being able to meaningfully commit is grim, as illustrated by the statement released by John Podesta and Rajendra Pachauri, this Friday. Despite Obama talking a good game (which in itself is a welcome departure from the Bush years), he still failed to put forward any details. Hopes previously pinned on Obama have been deflated by stalled domestic legislation that NASA’s Dr. James Hansen said, if implemented “would do more harm to the environment than nothing at all.”

On the flip side, many people here in Bangkok have been encouraged by China’s announcement at the NY summit that it is increasing commitments on carbon reduction. We all know though, that responsibility to lead with these negotiations lies on the global North to make bolder and serious commitments. India and China are moving, and the classic US approach trying to pin blame on them is increasingly seen as excuse-mongering even to those who may have bought the line before.

From where we stand now, it looks like Copenhagen will be a greenwash. But civil society here in Bangkok is not taking this as a moment to despair but as a higher call to action for just and equitable ways to meet meaningful targets. Peoples movements and activist networks from across the globe are taking this opportunity to build and organize, invigorating local solutions back home, regardless of what ends up on the negotiating table. And so we keep pushing. If we temper our ambition along with our expectations, governments will feel more emboldened to backslide and allow the treaty to be an industry giveaway. Lets keep pressure up.

Here’s an inspiring quickie of organizers in the United States working for community based solutions to the climate crisis:

In the coming days the Indian negotiators are having a tough time juggling between various meetings and keeping abreast with the media chasing them. But the most important events coming up are:

1. 22^nd to 24^th Sept: An International  technology transfer conference organised in Delhi for key negotiators to come to consensus about financial mechanisms and funds coming in from annex 1 countries and come to some sort of a bargaining on technology transfer.
2. GEF meeting in New York: The Global Economies meeting in New York will be well attended by the Indian delegation who will be lead by Shyam Saran. R R Rashmi the Joint Secretary to the Environment and Forest Ministry will also be seen next to a representative from the External Affairs Ministry.

Kudos to my small little team in Shri Ram College of Commerce which will help me reach out to a greater audience and liase with journalists and vernacular media at a touch of a button!

We will be basing our outreach on the following , so you all will get to hear about us more!:

1. Informing a network of NGOs whoch work related to combating climate change
2. Pushing for the blog posts to be translated in local languages and read out in radio news programmes and in vernacular media .
3. Engaging with youth networks through IYCN, YP and college unions across the country.
4. Local media and national TV partners.

We hope this time the people who really need to know have access to the relevant information!

Jai Ram Ramesh has briefly stated what the Indian Stance will revolve around for the Bangkok as well as the Copenhagen negotiations. The thrust will lie with the following three points:

1. REDD : We want to be given benefits for conserving our forests and reforestation activities. We can successfully mitigate 11% of greenhouse gases with the help of the great carbon sinks we have across the country. Apart from that we plan to step up afforestationa nd reforestation activities. States doing well in this regard will be given added incentives.
2. CDM: We would like the CDM to continue post 2012 since it has really done well in India. By statistics we have 31% of the CDM projects registered officially from India . Given the success we would like to expand it further in the coming years.
3. TECH TRANSFER: We expect technology transfer and financial transfers from the annex 1 countries to aid us in shifting to a low carbon economy. Being a developing country we do not have the financial resources to put binding commitments on reduction of GHGs.

All said and done, we want to know what would happen if India and China do not take any binding commitments and the annex 1 do not commit either? What would happen if we are not able to meet the agreement in Copenhagen?
In that case, we will just have to start mitigating faster , we will protect those who are vulnerable and try and switch a low carbon economy as soon as possible. We will definitely have to push up out adaptation programmes and get ready for stronger effects of climate change yet to come.

“Publish or perish” has long been the motivating force driving those working in the rarified air of academia. But for technology transfer offices, the people responsible for commercializing the discoveries that result from academic research, the driving force is “PATENT or perish.”

Taking research and entrepreneurial ventures developed at a university beyond the ivy-covered walls into the commercial world is the mission of the University of Colorado’s Technology Transfer Office.

An 8th Continent Project Chamber member, the TTO is responsible for managing all the intellectual property generated by research done on the campus. The mission of the Office is to aggressively pursue, protect, package and license to business the intellectual property generated from the research enterprise and to serve faculty, staff and students seeking to create such intellectual property. Considering CU’s reputation for world class scientific and technology advancements, this is indeed a big job. According to Kate Tallman, Director of Technology Transfer for CU Boulder and Colorado Springs, over the last five years the TTO has helped start new ventures at a rate of about 10 a year. In 2007/2008 the Office received nearly 250 inventions from within the University system.

Tallman said that the TTO primarily provides administrative support—IP administration, policy development, compliance, and financial management—and oversight to the campus offices. The four campus offices receive and process invention disclosures. Specifically, TTO provides the following services:

• Advises faculty on IP issues
• Fosters inventor participation in the technology transfer process
• Educates campus researchers about the technology transfer process through a variety of means including seminars with guest speakers
• Solicits and analyzes invention disclosures from faculty, students, and staff
• Analyzes commercialization feasibility of university intellectual property and subsequent strategies
• Licenses “tangible research property” for commercial use
• Licenses patents and copyrights for commercial use

As Tallman pointed out: “Taking research or inventions and helping the people developing it to the patent stage is a huge asset. We help our faculty make their research discoveries commercially viable and into something that someone would want to invest in while at the same time protecting their stake in the technology. Having a patent allows researchers to profit from their intellectual contributions and it increases the chances of commercialization.

“Inventions, scientific and technological advances seldom occur within the context of a well defined problem; rather it is typical for faculty to develop technology ‘solutions’ independent of market-defined needs or problems. Most university IP is considered ‘raw technology’; it is incomplete, unrefined, and years from being formulated into products or services ready for commercial markets,” she added.

Licensing new technology to innovative companies also creates significant economic development benefits. University IP frequently becomes the proprietary foundation of new companies – a process and outcome well understood in Colorado’s entrepreneurial, technology centric community. Furthermore, because many top scholars in scientific, medical and engineering fields desire to create impact beyond the laboratory and classroom, the TTO helps the University attract and retain these talented people. It for these reasons that technology transfer is increasingly integrating into the academic culture and becoming understood by the Colorado’s technology community.

Some of the more note-worthy companies that have benefited from the TTO’s assistance include Cold Quanta (an 8C incubator startup focused on of Bose-Einstein condensate generating devices and systems,), Colorlink (which was acquired by RealD for its advanced 3D projection technology), and Myogen (which went public and was subsequently acquired by Gilead Sciences for its heart therapeutic technology).

Tallman pointed out that because of the University’s long history in the area of space innovation, being a part of the 8^th Continent Project is a natural fit.

“When we have a new space-related company that needs the TTO’s help, we can tap into the 8C incubator and have access to a network of individuals and entrepreneurs of all kinds that can give us a keen understanding of what technology works, where it might go, how it might apply,” she said. “This feedback and networking is invaluable; it saves time and keeps us focused.

“Not all scientists or academics are entrepreneurs, and they do not need to be entrepreneurs because 8C allows them to access a community of entrepreneurs who know what it takes to turn their invention into a business.”

I ran across this interesting bit of news at TheScientist.com and it gave me pause for thought. The article details a new partnering opportunity for researchers at academic institutions where Lilly will provide free phenotypic assays of any compound they receive that is designed to target diseases in the company’s main focus areas. Alas there is a catch, which is that Lilly will get rights of first refusal on any commercialization for the IP.

For those of you who may not know my formal education is in business and similarly I grew up working in the family business and cooking up business models and plans for fun. (some good and some probably not so good) I was intrigued by the business model presented here and how it reflects the changing landscape of medical research and new drug discovery.  I believe that as time goes on we will see more of these kinds of collaborations. First because it is much more cost effective and efficient for big pharma to buy IP than to develop it themselves. Second, this arrangement gives the company a relatively low cost way of securing rights to commercialize IP early on, which in turn may provide additional cost savings benefits depending on the arrangement.  Third, it provides a tech transfer pipeline that should help promising IP find its way from university labs to the commercial market.

Although this seems to be a win/win proposition for both the pharmaceutical company and the academic researcher there are a number of larger considerations that might bear discussion.  For instance,  the American taxpayer might end up subsidizing new drug discovery and by default subsidize the profits of the pharmaceutical company. This already happens in an indirect manner, but none the less it is an issue worthy of discussion.  As a counter point, might this new development  model eventually result in a net savings to the health care consumer? (That is of course assuming the drug companies pass along the savings to the consumer and don’t use it to pad their profit margins. ) Would that not result in a public good that ultimately justifies the taxpayer subsidization noted above?

Thoughts on any of this or other issues with this model worth discussing? Comments and feedback are always welcome so fire away!

If you have an interest in R&D opportunities or licensable patents and/or want information about any of the ~120 U.S. Dept. of Defense  (DoD) research laboratories in the U.S., you may want to bookmark dodtechmatch.com. 

From this site you can search for or browse for opportunities (from SBIR, FedGrant, FedBiz, or TechNeeds), patents, and DoD labs or RDT&E facilities.  You can also register to receive daily e-mail updates on opportunities by specific topics.

You might enjoy scrolling through the list of “hot technologies”, which are technologies identified as having significant military or commercial value.  There’s a point of contact listed for each, to provide additional information about potential partnerships.  Here are a handful of the 50 “hot technologies”:  in-water hull cleaning sampling device; collaborative environment and electronic whiteboard; rapid clotting technology; night vision goggle manufacturing support; fixture that can stretch & twist materials in multiple dimensions simultaneously; there are 45 more.

The site has some other features as well.  Take a look.  You might want to add this portal to your technology transfer toolbox. — nks

Need more information?  Perhaps I can help.

www.nksinfoservices.com

There is a nice quote in Wikinomics which I like,  particularly the bit about walled gardens

“What was different? The losers launched web sites, the winners launched vibrant communities. The losers built walled gardens. The winners build public squares. The losers innovated internally. The winners innovated with their users. The losers jealously guarded their data and software interfaces. The winners shared them with everyone.”

The quote is largely referring to new-style on-line business and the importance of engaging users and helping them to establish communities, but it seems to me that this is also very relevant advice for the modern University. Universities make money from Teaching, Research and Technology Transfer. They are usually good at teaching and can turn a profit, because they generally know what they are doing. Research Contracts bring in cash, although less than they might if they got their overheads down. However, most Universities lose money from spin-out and licensing, and this is bad for them, bad for the academics and most importantly, it is very bad for the community in which they live.

Why is this? They build Walled Gardens.

In a recent report by Hefce (Higher Education Funding Council for England) which summarises the financial performance of English Universities, showed that a 22% increase in funding in IP protection (to over £20M) had led to a 1% increase in income. Note — income, not profit. Most Universities run their IP protection activities at a loss, and I bet that very few University managers assume that this situation is likely to change when they are putting together their spending plans. Amongst the asinine comments that I pulled out of the article were …

… most IP is junk, … in order to get the full benefit of the important stuff a lot of investment has to be made …
Anyone want to buy more lottery tickets?

… the fall in income … was not yet a concern because it could be 25 years for the investment to pay off …
25 years?? Could pay off?

The strategy of “investing” in IP protection that can be sold to make money for the University is deeply flawed. It fails in its primary objective of making money and stifles innovation. A recent opinion piece by Andy Neely of the Advanced Institute of Management said that more than half of business people surveyed blamed University policy including issues of confidentiality, ownership of intellectual property as well as commercially unrealistic expectations for creating a barrier to fruitful cooperation with business. The “Triple Helix” model for regional development argues that it is the combination of three partners, Universities, Government and Business that is the engine for economic growth. The Walled Garden strategy of the Universities means that the supply of ideas for innovation-based growth is limited to what the University gatekeepers sitting in Tech Transfer offices will let out.

It seems to me that the public Universities are funded by the taxpayer and their public duty is to deliver what the community wants most, growth and jobs. The walled garden strategy does not deliver this and the Universities fail in their public duty to support their communities.

A great Civic University should be a public square, not a walled garden.

Source: Global Innovation Network, UK

Commercialisation – Turning Science into a Business

Speaker: Adam Podmore, UniServices Business Manager in Biotech/ Pharma

Adam provided a view of science commercialisation using the ‘UniServices’ approach as an example. While I had come across most of the content before in other commercialisation/ funding workshops, I found their process for analysing new inventions/ideas quiet insightful. This matched with the activity provided students with a great introduction into the world science research commercialisation.

Facts about UniServices

• conduct contract research on behalf of external parties  while also commercialising the IP generated within the University
• Predicted to generate $140 million in 2012
• Have spun out 23 companies, approx 7 being in the biotech area. They are aiming to achieve 3-4 more a year.
• Employ a stage gate model (refer to figure below)
• Inventors take 33% of the benefits extracted from the IP. For students, the reliance is on their supervisor to see their IP interests are managed and accounted for.
• UniServices have created a seed fund based on superannuation funds from Australia in order to get companies across the ‘valley of death’.
• Funding is given for proof of concept studies $5-15K, Stage 2: 10-100K allowing prototype development/ in vivo data to get get ready for the industry. This is followed by seed funding and development of a full business plan resulting in the spinning out of a company of licensing of the technology.

Figure: The Stage Gate Model to Commercialisation for UniServices Ref: UniServices Intranet

Analysing ideas- To analyse whether to invest in research of a commercial nature, UniServices employs 5 areas of criteria to score a proposal.

• Business strategy – does it fit the business profile
• Technical success – resources required, manufacturing capacity and skills capability
• Does it have commercial success – its market, competitors, uniqueness
• Reward – investment required? What will be the return? How long will a return take?
• The X FACTOR

Funding avenues for biotech

• basic research grants
• spin out a company and raise investment or license – is the the company based on a platform technology? More likely to spin out rather than license if the IP is a platform technology with multiple applications.
• Seed funding – typically earlier than VCs ranging from 100k- 1mill
• VC – Series A 10mill (can be instead of seed), Series B 30mill (typically for phase 2, trying to achieve a 5x return)
• IPO – a hard road to take
• Trade Sale – favoured exit strategy

Example: Proacta – the makers of PR-104, a small molecule prodrug targeting hypoxic tumours.

‘04 – 8million Series A funding from GBS Ventures, Genetech/Roche, No.8 Ventures/ Endeavour Capital

‘07 – 35million in Series B funding from Claris and Delphi Ventures

ACTIVITY:

Assess whether we (controllers of a seed fund) would invest (1.5 million) in a new small molecule anti-cancer compound, SN28049 . A profile of this technology can be found at: http://www.uniservices.co.nz/pageloader.aspx?page=1487d8d0d82

Based on point scoring scale using the criteria under ‘analysing ideas’ our decision was – ‘Yes, grant funding but in the form of milestone payments’. The team has a strong proven ability to commercialise successful chemotherapeutics. The drug itself exhibits a strong profile in both toxicology and efficacy data with clear benefits over competing drugs.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008 – Yesterday the Rt. Hon. John Denham, UK
Secretary of State for the Dept. for Innovation, Universities and Skills
announced the publication of the new Lambert Tool Kit for Collaborative
Research.         

Yesterday the Rt. Hon. John Denham, Secretary of State for the Dept.
for Innovation, Universities and Skills announced the publication of the
new Lambert Tool Kit for Collaborative Research.
http://www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/denham_innovate_08_071008.html
<http://www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/denham_innovate_08_071008.html%20>

For further details and links to the new site CLICK HERE
<http://www.ginnn.com/blog/5121/new_lambert_model_collaboration_agreemen
ts.html>