So often in my travels to various Tech. Transfer offices across Canada I am confronted with one variant or another of these two questions : "Amongst the folks you know, who is going to Meeting X?" and a corollary question "With limited budgets for travel which meeting is the one that one shouldn't miss?"
I thought that I would pose this question of one of the shops I regard as very successful in the business of commercializing the technologies of the institutions it serves during my recent trip to Montreal. The Univalor folks had one unequivocal response : TECH CONNECT was the place to be seen. They have been participating in this conference for the past four years now and felt that it attracted the companies that TTOs want to be known to, namely the companies INTERESTED in early stage technologies (yes they really are out there!).
This year in an open competition ten technologies of theirs (5 Life Sciences and 5 non) were selected to be presented. Given that the total number of technologies selected from North America was something like 90 this is impressive. By comparison the other TTOs in
Canada stacked up as follows: Waterloo 1, Laval 1, and UBC 4 THAT'S IT! This year Tech Connect will be in Boston (June 3 to 5) Next year it will be in san Diego.
Who knew!!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The R in Revolution is Silent!
The other day I pondering AGAIN the much touted revolution in innovation that is supposedly taking place in Canada when a thought suddenly appeared in a blinding flash of (misguided?) insight and I wanted to share it right away. Truth is that despite the HUGE investment from all levels of government the Innovation Revolution is not delivering on the set goals in the required timeframe. The "R" is silent and we are progressing on what is really an Evolutionary course of random selection and survival of the most politically astute grant application writers.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Network's Networth
Again today, like so many days in the past few weeks and months, I was asked several times whether I could be part of someone's network on LINKEDIN or Facebook. While it is flattering to be requested so many times I can't help but wonder if this signifies a new recognition of the philosophical fact that the network (and by inference one's REPUTATION) is everything in these changing times or whether it signals a more "tactical" (read cynical) realization that pharmaceutical companies (the top of the food chain for so many years) are now changing from their previously held positions of trust and power. Many are losing comfortable and secure jobs held over many years as the large companies re-organize and merge etc. Those same people who were so aloof and unapproachable find themselves in the unenviable position of now having to ask favors from those they might have shunned in the past.
I have leaned that if you want to harvest from the connection tree, like any other plant, you need to care for the whole thing, spend time in GOOD times to nurture it and look after its upkeep. Otherwise when you need its fruits you may find yourself out in the desert. Connection trees are self pruning If a branch is not kept alive through frequent contact it whithers and dies away. The second lesson I have learned through life is that one makes connections with people because of WHO they are not WHAT position they occupy at the time. Life is in a constant state of flux but by and large good people remaingood people. As always your comments are welcome.
I have leaned that if you want to harvest from the connection tree, like any other plant, you need to care for the whole thing, spend time in GOOD times to nurture it and look after its upkeep. Otherwise when you need its fruits you may find yourself out in the desert. Connection trees are self pruning If a branch is not kept alive through frequent contact it whithers and dies away. The second lesson I have learned through life is that one makes connections with people because of WHO they are not WHAT position they occupy at the time. Life is in a constant state of flux but by and large good people remaingood people. As always your comments are welcome.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
MediCure Down for the count?
How many times have we Canadians in the Biotech area heard about a biotech company that was full of promise one day that suddenly took a dive the next. Most of our financings, especiallly on the "early startups" are based on providing JUST enough cash to get the critical experiments done. When they fail the whole company goes down the tubes.
For some years now I have been advocating another approach and that is to have SOME funding set aside to expand the "line" of possible things or "products" that the company could be seen to be developing. That way at LEAST some chance remains to survive the inevitable downs in this business.
While visiting Winnipeg yesterday I was confronted with yet another example of the wisdon of this approach. There is scarcel a better respected person than Bert Friesen but his company MediCure had a cliical trial fail and the company that stood at more than $2 a share the day before now traded at about EIGHT CENTS. Almost a year ago.
Now I fully understand the value of keeping a tight hold on the "purse strings" of an early company and may also see where the old stereotype of mistrust of "academic types"from the VC community comes from but I think that this view needs to be "matured" somewhat by the reality that the curret model of financing by Canadian VCs simply is not producing enough successes. Maybe it is time for another model?
For some years now I have been advocating another approach and that is to have SOME funding set aside to expand the "line" of possible things or "products" that the company could be seen to be developing. That way at LEAST some chance remains to survive the inevitable downs in this business.
While visiting Winnipeg yesterday I was confronted with yet another example of the wisdon of this approach. There is scarcel a better respected person than Bert Friesen but his company MediCure had a cliical trial fail and the company that stood at more than $2 a share the day before now traded at about EIGHT CENTS. Almost a year ago.
Now I fully understand the value of keeping a tight hold on the "purse strings" of an early company and may also see where the old stereotype of mistrust of "academic types"from the VC community comes from but I think that this view needs to be "matured" somewhat by the reality that the curret model of financing by Canadian VCs simply is not producing enough successes. Maybe it is time for another model?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Yale grants Chinese License
The Sunday Feb 17 issue of Biospectrum Asia http://www.biospectrumasia.com/content/150208CHN5535.asp
had the following announcement.
"SurExam commercializes ovarian cancer detection technology in China
Singapore, Feb 15, 2008: The Yale University Office of Cooperative Research has granted an exclusive license to Chinese biopharmaceutical company SurExam Life Science & Technology for the commercialization of the university's blood testing technology for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). "
For those who are interested in expanding their reach from University TTOs and those interested in simultaneously doing some good in the world this is a very strong wake up call. Congratulations to the Yale TTO team! (Lita are you still there?) It shows us again that there may be great value to what is done in early research in the right markets. The traditional thinking is simply out the window! It is all the more ironic to me to see this article since the CECR grants were announced only DAYS ago and I came to hear that Peter Singer et al from the University of Toronto, who had proposed to do VERY similar things along these lines for all of Canada, were turned down. No doubt more informed minds than mine have made that decision but to me this was very confusing. Your comments are always welcome.
had the following announcement.
"SurExam commercializes ovarian cancer detection technology in China
Singapore, Feb 15, 2008: The Yale University Office of Cooperative Research has granted an exclusive license to Chinese biopharmaceutical company SurExam Life Science & Technology for the commercialization of the university's blood testing technology for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). "
For those who are interested in expanding their reach from University TTOs and those interested in simultaneously doing some good in the world this is a very strong wake up call. Congratulations to the Yale TTO team! (Lita are you still there?) It shows us again that there may be great value to what is done in early research in the right markets. The traditional thinking is simply out the window! It is all the more ironic to me to see this article since the CECR grants were announced only DAYS ago and I came to hear that Peter Singer et al from the University of Toronto, who had proposed to do VERY similar things along these lines for all of Canada, were turned down. No doubt more informed minds than mine have made that decision but to me this was very confusing. Your comments are always welcome.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
McMaster develops Viral Diagnostic
Today's newswire announcement that McMaster's star researcher James Mahoney's diagnostic panel had received FDA approval
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165659.htm
was, for me, a bit of a bittersweet piece of news. On the one hand it showed AGAIN how Canadian researchers take their rightful place at the top of the pyramid of creativity and innovation. Viral diagnosis is such a common problem that I would venture to guess that there is not a single reader of this column who has not, at some point or another, had a persistent cold, gone to the doctor, and been told that they cannot easily pinpoint what the cause is (even whether it is viral or bacterial sometimes) and therefore prefer not to precsribe some medication or course of action that can take care of the problem. Diagnosis traditionally took so much time and cost so much that the infection would likely be over before it was diagnosed.
Along comes a researcher from Canada (eh?) and finds a way to do this quickly and inexpensively. How wonderful!! Here's the pinacle of the glory now ... wait for the drumroll! The work is commissioned by a (then) CANADIAN company TM Biosciences.What a great story of how we can make a difference and make money at the same time. Now the "bitter..." part. JUST before this could happen the company - strapped for cash and unable to get its CANADIAN VCs to support it - was sold for pennies on the dollar to a larger US conglomerate Luminex. Today this is Luminex's success story. Don't get me wrong; I'm happy that it got out there and I CERTAINLY congratulate Luminex for its vision in seeing the potential and having the GUTS to back it. I am just sad that such guts don't exist in our country. Canadians can be happy about our inventivness and our innovation bt we should be embarrassed by our VC community.
Your thought s would be most welcome.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128165659.htm
was, for me, a bit of a bittersweet piece of news. On the one hand it showed AGAIN how Canadian researchers take their rightful place at the top of the pyramid of creativity and innovation. Viral diagnosis is such a common problem that I would venture to guess that there is not a single reader of this column who has not, at some point or another, had a persistent cold, gone to the doctor, and been told that they cannot easily pinpoint what the cause is (even whether it is viral or bacterial sometimes) and therefore prefer not to precsribe some medication or course of action that can take care of the problem. Diagnosis traditionally took so much time and cost so much that the infection would likely be over before it was diagnosed.
Along comes a researcher from Canada (eh?) and finds a way to do this quickly and inexpensively. How wonderful!! Here's the pinacle of the glory now ... wait for the drumroll! The work is commissioned by a (then) CANADIAN company TM Biosciences.What a great story of how we can make a difference and make money at the same time. Now the "bitter..." part. JUST before this could happen the company - strapped for cash and unable to get its CANADIAN VCs to support it - was sold for pennies on the dollar to a larger US conglomerate Luminex. Today this is Luminex's success story. Don't get me wrong; I'm happy that it got out there and I CERTAINLY congratulate Luminex for its vision in seeing the potential and having the GUTS to back it. I am just sad that such guts don't exist in our country. Canadians can be happy about our inventivness and our innovation bt we should be embarrassed by our VC community.
Your thought s would be most welcome.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
"Just-in-time" business model for TTOs
On my way back from Thunder Bay yesterday where I visited my friend Barb Eccles in the TTO at Lakehead University (and where, by the way, I encountered several very good people doing interesting things in nano-materials for example amongst other things), I pondered Robert S. Macwright's article in Les Nouvelles (vol XLII, #4, pps615-620). The unapologetic statement that, in his view, "academic technology transfer is a business" in the opening lines was - in a bizarre way - refreshing to me. It simply got better from there. There were some attempts to quantitate approaches that are used in one form or another by MANY of our Canadian institutions and which I had not seen so well compared face-to-face, before. I know that there are those who hold strong beliefs on BOTH sides of this table and I thought that this article formed a very good basis for the continuing debate.
There were also a number of statements that I wonder about and would like some feedback about from the readers of this blog. It is claimed that a reasonably trained TT officer can routinely get 25 disclosures in a year and translate them into 10 deals. This sounded a bit high from my experience (albeit in another system) and I wondered if there were any comments on this number (and other numbers quoted in this article) out there.
There were also a number of statements that I wonder about and would like some feedback about from the readers of this blog. It is claimed that a reasonably trained TT officer can routinely get 25 disclosures in a year and translate them into 10 deals. This sounded a bit high from my experience (albeit in another system) and I wondered if there were any comments on this number (and other numbers quoted in this article) out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
