Should There be Profit in Knowledge? A Century of American Debate

 

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

I recently hosted a talk by Geoff Smith of Ascent Biomedical Ventures entitled: Should There be Profit in Knowledge? Geoff is a fellow Williams College alum and recovering attorney who, like me, got ensconced in the world of launching companies and venture investing in the mid-nineties.  He’s a Managing Partner at Ascent which is one of the few truly seed-stage venture funds in New York operating in the biomedical tech space. He also happens to be a Scholar at Rockefeller University where he founded and teaches the University’s Science & Economics Program. (See here for his bio: http://bit.ly/gbnAC)

One thing I learned about Geoff during his talk is that he’s really a very deep thinker about public policy as it relates to university tech transfer. His lecture covered the evolution of the intense American debate in this field over the last century, from the time of the World Wars up through the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, taking us right to the present day. His analysis wove in the scientific norms of Sociologist Robert K. Merton,  the effect of the Ransdell Act of 1930, and the pioneering work of Vannevar Bush (one of the gentlemen pictured above), who drove so much of the ground-breaking government policy in this field. Lastly, I'll say that Geoff’s conclusions were not what one might have expected from a venture capitalist. He has a real reverence for the singular importance of basic research to our society.

I left the talk and ensuing discussion with both a deepened historical perspective and greater appreciation for the transformative effect on our society that a century of American policy evolution in university tech transfer has wrought.  I also emerged perhaps with a keener understanding of its boundaries.  Fascinating stuff and many thanks to Geoff.

 

For Part Eight in this Series, click here

Comments

[Daniel Behr]

Age-old debate - but hard to ignore the reality that companies won't spend huge amounts of money turning technologies into products unless they have things like exclusive licenses, and it is then OK for the university to get a fair share of future value which gets fed back into the university's research engine to drive the creation of new technologies. However, you left us "hanging" with the teaser about Geoff's conclusions - care to share them?

[Dave Lerner]

Indeed, Dan- agree with you. In terms of Geoff's conclusions, he presented a very eloquent case for the importance of allowing basic research to flourish untainted by commercial interference within the academy. He quoted Vannevar Bush in this respect, something along the lines of great discoveries often coming from unexpected sources. It was great stuff. Another quote I recently found of Vannevar's: “Science has a simple faith, which transcends utility. It is the faith that it is the privilege of man to learn to understand, and that this is his mission.”

[Daniel Behr]

Important not to confuse commercial "interference" with commercial "guidance". I agree that basic research should be untainted, but I also think it's a benefit to all if some basic research is guided by the need to solve real world problems. Sometimes (not always) the insight into those real world problems can come from industry. Some level of commercial input can be a very good thing. As one of our prominent faculty members says, "I could work on 100 interesting research projects but only have resources for 10. Those 10 might as well be ones that help solve real problems." Of course there will always be mega-themes of real-world problems with infinite opportunities for basic reasearch - energy, water, nutrition, health, etc. Bottom line in my opinion: the academy needs to have a healthy balance of research initiatives - some completely "unanchored", and some anchored in commercial reality. The two will feed off each other.

[Chris_Shea]

Just saw an article titled: "At Stanford, research surpasses investments as top revenue source" The link is below but the reason I bring it up is in this difficult economic environment, the problem of scarcity is more acute. The question I have is whether Stanford is selling out or being practical? Obviously, the research being sponsored is expected to create some value to the sponsor. Is this a slippery slope or a more efficient way to allocate resources?
A follow on question is: Should a greater emphasis be placed on technology transfer as a revenue source within the higher education ecosystem?

http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_12505712?source=email

[Dave Lerner]

Chris- Thanks for your questions. I actually don't think Stanford is selling out. This is the traditional means by which university labs can function. The government has actually been the most prolific source of this type of funding historically. The fact that the endowment lost a lot of money is sort of a non-sequitur in my view. As for your last question, I'll soon be posting my thoughts on this subject.
David

[Chris_Shea]

Hi David:
Thanks for the response. I don't think Stanford is selling out either. In fact, I think some free market discipline is a good thing whether the research funding is from private sources or the government. I look forward to hearing your thoughts regarding increasing the emphasis on technology transfer.
Best regards,
Chris