Commercialisation of University developed research projects: How are we doing in Australia in 2020's?

This series of papers will examine the Commercialisation of University created biotechnology research projects- here, we discuss some overarching concepts included as the top ten best and worst practices in the 2020s.

In the US, it is often observed - the commercialisation of university-created biotech seems more organised and productive than in Australia.

Why is there a better conversion with commercialisation to start-ups in the US?

There are several reasons why commercialising university-created biotechnology might be more organised and productive in the US than in Australian to American universities.

Some key factors include:

1. Funding: US universities and research institutions often have greater access to funding from both public and private sources. This supports research and commercialisation efforts, enabling these institutions to invest more heavily in the resources and infrastructure required for successful commercialisation.
2. Research ecosystem: The US has a highly developed research ecosystem, with many renowned research institutions and universities. This concentration of talent and resources encourages collaboration, partnerships, and knowledge exchange, which can accelerate commercialisation efforts.
3. Entrepreneurial culture: The US has a strong entrepreneurial culture that encourages risk-taking, innovation, and the pursuit of new ideas. This mindset, combined with the availability of venture capital and other funding mechanisms, has contributed to the success of many US-based biotechnology start-ups.
4. Industry connections: US universities often have well-established relationships with industry partners, providing a valuable bridge between academia and the private sector. These connections can help researchers bring their ideas to market by providing access to expertise, resources, and investment capital.
5. Intellectual property (IP) protection: The US has a robust intellectual property system that incentivises innovation and commercialisation by providing complete protection for inventors and researchers. This can make it more attractive for start-ups to invest in developing and commercialising new technologies.
6. Government support: The US government has historically provided significant support for research and development, directly and through incentives like the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. This support has fostered a conducive environment for start-ups to grow and commercialise their innovations.

While these factors contribute to the US's relative success in commercialising university-created biotechnology, it's important to note that Australian institutions are also working to improve their commercialisation efforts.

They increasingly focus on fostering partnerships, securing funding, and promoting an entrepreneurial culture. As the biotechnology sector continues to grow and evolve, universities worldwide will likely continue to refine their approaches to commercialisation, leading to increased success in this area.

In 2023, the commercialisation of university-created biotechnology projects has seen remarkable successes, although significant hurdles remain. Researcher-founder-led start-ups face these unique challenges and opportunities as they work to transform their ideas into successful ventures.

Here are the top ten best and worst practices identified in this process:

Best Practices:

1. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Promoting cooperation between researchers from different fields ensures a holistic approach to problem-solving and innovation. Some universities excel in this arena. Establishing technology transfer offices (TTOs) - TTOs can provide valuable support for IP protection, licensing, and collaboration with industry partners.
2. Intellectual property protection: Early and adequate IP protection is crucial to secure exclusive rights and encourage investment in biotechnology projects.
3. Industry partnerships: Establishing solid collaborations with industry stakeholders can accelerate product development and facilitate access to essential resources. This is often done well at the university level. In addition, building relationships with experienced mentors and expanding professional networks can provide valuable guidance and opportunities.
4. Incubators and accelerators: Universities should (and do) regularly support biotechnology projects by providing incubators and accelerators to facilitate their growth and development. Fostering a culture of innovation: Encouraging creative thinking and risk-taking can help generate groundbreaking ideas and drive commercialisation efforts. Entrepreneurship education - Providing researchers with entrepreneurial training can empower them to transform their ideas into successful commercial ventures.
5. Strong management teams: Building a diverse and experienced management team is critical for successfully commercialising biotech projects. Assembling a team with varied expertise can improve problem-solving and decision-making. This can be internalised in the university, or contacts can incorporate this early into a start-up. Team building is central to success.
6. Effective communication: Open communication is often well supported in the University arena - between researchers, industry partners, and investors is crucial for aligning goals and expectations. Clear communication of goals, expectations, and progress is vital for aligning stakeholders and maintaining momentum.
7. Funding opportunities: Securing diverse funding sources, such as grants, private investment, and government support, helps ensure the sustainability of biotechnology projects.
8. Regulatory compliance: Navigating complex regulations can be challenging, but compliance is necessary to ensure the safety and efficacy of biotechnology products. Early uptake of this is a promising sign for possible success.
9. Market research: Conducting thorough market research is often successfully done and can help identify unmet needs and guide the development of innovative biotechnology products.
10. Entrepreneurial training: Providing researchers with entrepreneurial activity can empower them to transform their ideas into successful commercial ventures. A solid understanding of business principles and market dynamics is essential for researcher-founders to succeed.

Worst Practices:

1. Insufficient IP protection: Failing to protect intellectual property may result in the loss of exclusivity and limited market potential. Securing IP rights early on can protect the start-up's innovations and enhance its market position.
2. Lack of industry engagement: Neglecting discussion with industry stakeholders can limit access to valuable resources and hinder commercialisation efforts. Although the industry understands very well the issues with early university-led research and will typically not want to get involved too early. Then they may be only interested in the IP and internalising this in their corporations. That seems fair.

3. Poor project management: Inadequate time management can lead to inefficiencies, delays, and project failure. This is particularly relevant when Researcher academics take on the start-up's Founder /Sole Director role while continuing full-time roles as the university department head or lead. This is a major problem waiting to go south and relates to time management and over-commitment.

   • Balancing research activities and start-up responsibilities is crucial for ensuring progress. In addition, developing robust financial plans and managing resources effectively can ensure the start-up's sustainability.
   • Lack of focus - Failing to prioritise tasks and goals can lead to inefficient use of resources and limited progress.
   • Insufficient business knowledge - Neglecting to develop business acumen can hinder the start-up's ability to navigate the market and attract investment.
   • Overemphasis on research - Prioritising analysis at the expense of business development can impede the start-up's growth and commercial success.
   • Inability to delegate - Attempting to handle all responsibilities alone can lead to burnout and hamper the start-up's progress. We will look at these reasons for failure in future papers.

4. Inadequate funding: Lack of early financing can result in stalled projects and missed opportunities for innovation. Early commercialisation can be extremely difficult to attract funds. Any investors should naturally be highly valued and sought after.
5. Overlooking regulatory requirements: Ignoring regulatory compliance can lead to costly delays and potential legal issues. Work may need to be "repeated" along appropriate regulatory ISO IEC processes.
6. Limited market research: Failing to understand the target market can result in products not addressing consumer needs. This is a universal problem in any start-up or attempted commercialisation from a university. Isolation from the market - Ignoring customer needs or industry trends can result in products that fail to resonate with the target audience.
7. Inadequate communication: Poor communication among project stakeholders can lead to misaligned goals and misunderstandings. Poor communication from the commercialisation sections of the university to the start-up venture can frequently occur if not addressed.
8. Insufficient supportive infrastructure: Lack of incubators, accelerators, or other support structures can hinder the growth and development of biotechnology projects. Lack of entrepreneurship education: Failing to provide researchers with entrepreneurial training can limit their ability to successfully commercialise their projects/assignments.
9. Neglecting interdisciplinary collaboration: Focusing exclusively on a single discipline can limit innovation and hinder problem-solving.

10. Resistance to change: An unwillingness to adapt to new methods, technologies, or market conditions can prevent biotechnology projects from reaching their full potential.

    • Complacency: - Becoming complacent or resistant to learning (business skills) can hinder innovation and slow the start-up's development.
    • Overemphasis on academic achievements: Prioritising publications and academic recognition over commercialisation efforts can delay the practical application of research.

At the Regenemm healthcare project, we have been collaboratively working with some biotechnology companies, some of which have been spun out of primary university-based research projects. We can see a significant need for improvement. University-based research creates fantastic world-leading research; we all accept that.

However, in 2023 there is a lot of university-lead hype (accelerators type programs, incubators) that start-ups can work with / licence this IP and become (overtime) nationally or internationally successful.

Universities, interestingly, although not surprisingly, want to start charging for these programs! Seems pretty harsh for the pre-revenue start-ups fostering such good service for the university.

Commercialising IP from a University department/program is difficult and can take a long time. Be prepared for a tortuous road ahead for potentially successful start-ups to take these concepts and run with them in the real world.

We have learnt a lot over the last few years. We will share our opinions and thoughts in a series of papers examining the transition of research discoveries to the real world of commercialisation.

NB: Ai tools have been used in forming some of CTI's written materials - opinions are personally those of the author and not necessarily those of Regenemm Healthcare/CTI and are not meant to contain any legal or specific business recommendations. Always consult a qualified legal/industry authority for any such advice.

© Copyright Creative Thinking Institute Pty Ltd. 2020 Terms and Conditions