Speaker 1 0:00 Good afternoon and welcome to today's webinar, how to measure and communicate your impact and value presented by Autumn. My name is Sammy Spiegel, autumns professional development manager and I will be your staff host for today. All lines have been muted to ensure high quality audio and today's session is being recorded. If you have a question for our panelists, please use the q&a feature on your zoom toolbar. If you have a technical question or comment, please feel free to use the chat. Should you need closed captioning during today's session, the Zoom closed captioning feature is turned on and available on your toolbar. Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank autumns online professional development sponsor Marshall Gerstein IP, we appreciate your ongoing support. I now have the pleasure of introducing you to today's presenters. John Frazier's consulting business Burnside development and Associates focuses on academic technology transfer, commercialization and startup formation and financing. John has provided tech transfer expertise for clients in Chile and India, and others through WIPO. He teaches academic technology transfer and for Southeast Asia countries. John has served as an expert at the Serbian Innovation Fund as an end as an entrepreneur in residence at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. John is a past president of the autumn board, and worked as VP for Research and Economic Development at Florida State University. Tony Raven served as chief executive of Cambridge enterprise, the research commercialization office of the University of Cambridge for 10 years. Under his leadership, academic consultancy grew 90% spin out numbers 250% and spin out investments 750% including two unicorn exits in his last year. He was central to the creation of tenue, a partnership of 10 world leading tech transfer offices in the US, UK and EU to develop and share best practices provide policy advice to UK and US governments and develop future leaders. Tony started his career as a highly cited researcher in photonics and inertial confinement fusion at Oxford and Osaka universities. He then joined PA Consulting before founding three startups that went on to exit for a combined $1.3 billion after exiting his third startup, Tony joined Southampton University where he grew their research and innovation services and established with IP group their university investment model that has now been replicated in over 30 universities worldwide. He also created set squared and now six University collaboration to incubate and accelerate local spin out and startup tech companies that has been repeatedly ranked as the number one university business incubator globally. In his retirement Tony chairs the spinouts Denmark International Advisory Board is on the advisory and investment committees of the UK Government Office for technology transfer, and as a visiting fellow with Cambridge University's commercialization and innovation policy Evidence Unit. He is a fellow of the Institute of Physics and a member of the director, member of the Institute of directors. Vijay Vijay evergarden is a technology management professional a registered technology transfer practitioner with three decades of engagement in innovation, translation and economic impact creation, intellectual assets management and innovation policy advisory. He combines his academic background and the life sciences, strategic management, finance, IP and translational research to provide global corporations and public institutions vision and strategic direction to lead in their chosen spheres of engagement. In his capacity as chairman and CEO of the South Korea management consultants, he supports private enterprises in staying on the edge of innovation led competitive advantage with South Korea's presence in the USA and emerging regions of Asia. Vijay has extensively engaged in long term advisory to innovation hubs, Innovation Ventures, and large corporations in spearheading change to contemporary innovation and market delivery. Welcome John, Tony and Vijay, we are so excited to learn from each of you today. And with that, I will pass it off to John to get us started. Speaker 2 4:05 Thank you, Sammy. No, let's see i Unknown Speaker 4:15 You can see that looks great. Perfect. Okay. Well, Speaker 2 4:23 good afternoon. For those of you on the East Coast. Good morning for those of you on the West Coast and good evening to where Vijay is in India. I've invited Tony and Vijay to join me on this webinar. Because I've been very impressed with what the British have been engaged in in terms of measuring impact and value of research where they've come up with the mechanisms case studies over the years and Tony will make spend on them. Unlike America, where the tech transfer activity is fairly stable in the sense that many people that have offices have had them for a while, India, the fifth largest economy in the globe, the tech transfer activity is expanding, left, right and center. So I wanted to invite Vijay to talk about that. Unknown Speaker 5:29 And again. Speaker 2 5:33 So I won't dwell on this semis just remind people that the size of the activity United States is roughly 4000, universities and colleges of which 146 are research intensive, according to the Carnegie classification, and those institutions and some others, including hospitals, communicate their results for the annual autumn survey every year. So that this is a way that the measurements are done. And the communication previously has been done via our annual survey. I gotta get my personal view here. I've been in the game a number of years, and in spite of what we do, many of our key stakeholders really don't appreciate and understand. And autumn almost every year, we have a workshop on how we can better communicate or why why our bosses don't love us or something along the line, which points out that were not consistently communicating and getting through. So that's the rationale for today's and part of the reason I happen, my view is that elected officials, senior leadership, have turnover in their positions, they have very broad scope of responsibilities of the tech transfer is only a very small part. And therefore when they leave any understanding that was residual in their office leaves with them usually. And so that's part of the reason we need to constantly communicate and talk about the benefits, impact of what we do. From our community, it's also my view that we practitioners have previously communicated using our transaction metrics, you know, number of disclosures, patent licenses, royalties. And then later, with a better world report, we started using stories as well. In my view, this is fine as far as it goes. But using the transaction metrics has limited us severely in the way that we communicate. And so I want to talk about why that is and how, what we can do about it. Previously, when we use transaction metrics to talk to an audience, I noticed that we are forcing the audience to understand the mechanisms of how we practitioners actually do things. And the audience is distracted. From our message. They're asking themselves, why are disclosures and patents so important, rather than listening to the impact, they're worried about our jargon. And in reality, the audience doesn't concern themselves with the mechanics of how we do things. Speaker 3 9:08 What they do care about is how we can communicate our activities Speaker 2 9:15 that can help them do their job of achieving their goals and advancing their own careers. That's what they're interested in. We need to recognize that and address it. So I've learned over the years and I suggest to the audience here that the way I measure and communicate is the following. I figure out who's in the audience, I tell them the benefits of our activities or their job responsibilities. Speaker 3 9:51 Then I use a story or two to put a name and face behind The explanation. And then lastly close using the metrics, Speaker 2 10:10 I found that particularly skeptical people, like the stories, but you know, they say, John, that's only one off the mean, what's the scope? What's the impact, and we must use the transaction metrics show the scale and scope of the impact of the benefits across the country. But this shouldn't be all that difficult to understand. It's simply a matter of talking about the benefits to the audience first, then some stories and put a name and face behind the explanation. And then the metrics that show that indeed, this can scale to impact the economy in a big way. So where I find the impact of the value when I'm talking to people inside the research institution, Unknown Speaker 11:08 when I'm talking to researchers, I talk about Speaker 2 11:12 help them being engaged with the tech transfer office can help you accelerate your research career by connecting you with new partners, new important challenges and new financial resources. That's the benefit. And obviously, when you think about it, you can begin to say, Well, okay, if we're influencing the researchers in that way, maybe there are other ways that we can measure our impact rather than simply the transaction metrics. What is the impact on the researchers? Do they? Are they more successful in raising grant money? Are they more successful in terms of publication rates? So again, the measurement is something that needs to be addressed once you talk about the audience and the benefits to the audience. Talking to senior university leadership, I've always explained how it enhances the reputation institution Unknown Speaker 12:23 by showing outsiders usually Speaker 2 12:28 that the researchers are addressing real societal problems. The old concept of an ivory tower is fading fast. Talking to people outside the research institution, government, it's a case of demonstrating a productive response to the challenge from the state and the federal government to do what you're doing in terms of educating the next generation, but help also where you can by improving the economy and building an innovation culture. Speaker 3 13:14 When you talk to local or regional communities, Speaker 2 13:19 you're talking about achieving results. And what people don't realize I was in Tallahassee, which is a community of about 185,000. In North Florida. They didn't realize that the university brought in $200 million dollars a year or research money from outside the state. There were royalties came in from local licensees. Unknown Speaker 13:45 And also, Unknown Speaker 13:47 we created employment through spin out companies. Unknown Speaker 13:53 I must tell you, that Speaker 2 13:56 once I was in front of the Chamber of Commerce to Tallahassee, and it's a lunch hour type meeting, I was explaining what we did in the office and people looking at their watch and thinking of man, when is this guy going to be done so we can get something to eat? And I realized, Okay, I'm going to have to explain things a little differently here. So I asked people in the audience for about 35. How many of you have had your kids go to the local University of Florida State University? Unknown Speaker 14:28 There was hands went up. Speaker 2 14:32 How many of you have had the kids upon graduation? Speaker 3 14:37 Leave the community to go to the big city. Many hands went up. Speaker 2 14:44 How many of the kids once they went to the big city, got married. While there is a family decided the big city wasn't the place they wanted to do that. They wanted to come home. Number of hands went up. So he said spinouts offer more employment opportunities for your children to come back to the Tallahassee Community. Unknown Speaker 15:07 Well, let me tell you, Speaker 2 15:12 everybody leaned in and listen very, very carefully, because I was able to explain the benefits of what we were doing to the local audience. So from that, as well, there was a discussion later, I learned a number of people were looking at coming together as Angel financing series, which they did informally over the next several years. Speaker 2 15:47 So when you talk to corporations, the partners that we're interested in working with, they can access new product opportunities. The opportunities are very high risk, of course, but such expenses, at least in the United States are tax deductible. They can collaborate with creative people, the academic world, at a cost is much less in contracting with the private sector, they can test our product opportunities. And also by accessing an academic collaborator, you access their network, which is usually global. And therefore, you can learn fairly quickly what else is happening in the area of technology that they're familiar with, that you're also engaged in, as a corporation, and find out where the competition is coming from. So again, major benefits. Having done that, I present some stories. Obviously, the autumn Better World Report is a great place to have 500 stories, that you can access the database, download stories or PDFs locally in your own region, and use that to communicate explicitly what's going on. The people are very interested. Unknown Speaker 17:14 And then as I said, Having Speaker 2 17:16 done that, I wrap it up by presenting the metrics either for your institution for or what we did in Florida was across the state. And then we use the National Audit statistics as well, to show the skeptics, that this activity is more than just a one off, it's very scalable, and it has a meaningful impact. It Speaker 3 17:39 can be measured, and it has been measured. Speaker 2 17:42 Many of you know I'm sure that Ottoman bio, several years ago, did a study on the impact of licenses, and have been updating it almost every year. The summary is that I'll just read this here, the estimates of total number of person years of employment supported by these academic licenses, product sales range 2.6 million to 5.8, over the 22 year period. These are significant numbers, the contribution of the licensees products and into the marketplace to the gross domestic product. You see the numbers here. Again, these are big numbers. Unknown Speaker 18:30 And Unknown Speaker 18:33 just for your information on the audience, Unknown Speaker 18:36 earned royalty rate Speaker 2 18:39 of 2% was used for the high end and 5% was used for the low end to give a sense of the range of the impact. So these are big numbers. I will caution you, however, that when you look at 22 years of the gross domestic product summed over 22 years. Our contribution is quite modest, frankly. However, Unknown Speaker 19:16 in isolation, it's very significant. Speaker 2 19:23 is another element here I wanted to do. Edward Mansfield, an academic at the University of Pennsylvania, published papers in the 80s and 90s. And you can find them and he was very concerned about the impact of academic research on industrial products. And one of the conclusions one of his studies was that when a company invests a new product, they will capture only about 25% of the benefits of the investment, the financial and other benefits To the company in terms of increased sales, increase stress on the branding. And society, he determined captures twice as much 54%. And the rest, obviously another 25%. Speaker 3 20:18 to diffuse the measure, the point being that Speaker 2 20:25 when we license and a company brings a product into the marketplace, they capture the benefit for their company, to a certain extent, society benefits as well. So that when you are measuring and communicating the impact of licenses, it's not only the royalties and the company impact, but Edward Mansfield pointed out there are impacts to the society, Weis as much beyond the investment the company made. So here again, we need to expand how we think about measuring Unknown Speaker 21:13 our impact. And then, Speaker 2 21:16 at the end of it, when you've talked of the benefits, the stories and the metrics, you want to make sure that people are going to be very interested. And they'll likely see this great, how can I help you. So make sure you have an ask for the audience. Anytime I make a presentation, I want to make sure I have an ask so that it leads to something tangible to benefit everybody. Unknown Speaker 21:45 Again, as I've said, Speaker 2 21:50 metrics are the one thing that we use to use as pretty much the sole way that we communicated. And that's getting out of date. It's important to use the metrics, but I think I've shown that you need to talk about the benefits of our activities to the audience, then the stories and then the metrics to show that it's very, very scalable. Unknown Speaker 22:17 All right. So let me just move ahead here. And Speaker 3 22:31 this is a chart created by Kevin Cullen. Speaker 2 22:37 He looked at the way that research gets off campus out into the community via what he called the knowledge transfer channels, the formal papered mechanisms, okay. And again, this is a broader look at the knowledge transfer flow, and perhaps a little broader than we use in America. The study was done in the UK in Australia. And the amount of deals done in a particular year were normalized to 100%. And it turned out for a number of universities, when you total them all up, the number of IP deals were very modest two to 8%, compared to contract research, collaborative research. Kevin moved to Australia, Sydney repeated found the same results. Unknown Speaker 23:41 So Speaker 2 23:44 when you look at this, is it any reason to wonder why the Vice President of Research who has a wide scope of responsibilities might not be giving the T to his highest or her highest priority? Simply because it's been shown the number of transactions, the number of dollars is relatively modest Unknown Speaker 24:03 overall. Speaker 2 24:06 So again, stressing the point, you need to, in my view, talking about the benefits for the particular audience, reinforce their understanding by using a story or two and then use the transaction metrics to show how this activity scales across the country. Now, my last slide is an out of the box kind of suggestion. Unknown Speaker 24:35 We are Speaker 2 24:36 those of us engaged in this activity either have a science or business background usually. And my suggestion is this surely, within our community, there are a few people who have relatives autumn in Madison Avenue, Madison Avenue, New York's is the advertising capital of the world. And what I'm saying is these are marketing People, these are communication people, it'd be very interesting to gather together a little focus group of people from Madison Avenue and ask them, how do we communicate our impact the value of what we do? Unknown Speaker 25:15 My guess is Speaker 2 25:18 they'll come up with ideas that would never occur to us because we're too close to the activity. And quite frankly, they're the business of communicating and appealing to the emotions of the audience as well as the facts. Now we tech transfer people don't tend not to do that. Unknown Speaker 25:38 We don't use emotions, Speaker 2 25:41 we tend to be very factually oriented. So my point here is very interesting. To get a group of people from Madison Avenue to take a look at what we do and talk to us about how they would package and communicate Unknown Speaker 25:54 to impress audiences. That's it. I will stop sharing. Tonic. Speaker 3 26:15 Hopefully, slides are up. Can you hear me? Yes. Good mutes off as well. So. Speaker 4 26:25 Okay, thank you is through sort of really the honor to be invited to talk today? John has covered it very well, I think my concern about emotions and like, I've always seen this more social science, what are people's motivations, drivers, etc, in this, but I'm gonna stay away from that, because what I wanted to talk about is the way in the UK metrics have been used very positively. In a particular application, which is in talking with government. So I'll skip over this because somebody spent far too long reading out my CV, read it on the handouts, if you wish. And just to set it in the context that John did. In the UK, there are approximately 157 universities versus 4000. In the US, we don't have the Carnegie classification numbers. But we have a Russell Group, which is 24 universities, which receives 75% over the research funding from the government. And there are a pot approximately 130 respondents to a survey on our performance, our metrics, in tech transfer, of which about 110 received direct funding for knowledge exchange from the government funding, which is called high for higher education innovation fund. So we get directly funded. And in the UK, we talk about knowledge exchange is not tech transfer. tech transfer is that small bit in the blue box, which the numbers there are the percentages of academics who are engaged in it. So we're dealing with sort of three to 6% of the academic community, there are all these other things like me conferences, given the invited lectures, having museums and art galleries, doing consultancy services and joint research, which sit outside which sit within the knowledge exchange, but outside the Technology Transfer license. So, and one of the things now I think is useful is that over the last 20 years, much to all our surprise in the UK, we've now got to a point where our metrics are comparable to those of the US I can see those in terms of both the spin outs per dollar of research then the amount of IP income as a proportion of our research income, the percentage of research, which is industrially funded. And also the UK universities are up there now with the top view us funds in the amount of capital their spinouts raise. In that I really want to pay tribute to John and others like Patrick Jones, because I can remember in 2001 2002 people from Morton, when we were really nascent in this job came over spent a lot of time with this in the UK, helping us to understand and learn how you did technology transfer and inform the development of our own practice and that continues on today with both autumn and organization type 10 But during those 20 years, the UK has consistently and increasingly funded both university research and it funds The knowledge exchange activity of the universities. Unknown Speaker 30:04 But it comes Speaker 4 30:07 with a but that funding comes with impact expectations for government, trust me, it's an answer from the university is not an acceptable answer. For evidence government's expectations are being met. Government is very clear that what research is done is really for the academics to decide. But they do want to see that out of all the research investment they're making, there is impact on society and the economy, feeding back to justify it. And that's a big move from when we used to be doing a search because it was the thing that a civilized society did. We've gone through a range of approaches from metrics to story to demonstrate to government, that its policy objectives are being met, and it's getting value for money. And I think this is where this might be of interest to yourselves. Because now, for the first time, the US government investing its $3 billion in tech transfer under the chips act, you might expect similar Evidence Requirements being introduced by the people providing that money to say, are we getting what we want. And I know that has happened in a number of countries where government funds the tech transfer function. So I'm going to talk about two things. One is about research. And its impact, on the other hand, is about knowledge exchange. So first attempt was around 2006. And what they did was in every research grant application for government, for the funding bodies, it should include the potential impact of the research if it's successful, and that was put in there to encourage the academics to think about impact when they were putting in their grant applications. But then I sat on a number of these awarding bodies research grants are awarded by an expert panel of academics, who completely ignored the impact section in the award in awarding funding. So essentially, it had zero impact on attitudes and behaviors towards this activity. And there was a very interesting conversation on one of the BBC Radio sort of current affairs programs where they have a minister and the leading academic talking about this and the investment for impact approach. The minister said, we need to know the money we invest in research is creating the impact they're looking for. The academic said, but I can't predict what impact my research might have in the future. So the minister said, Yeah, I can understand that. So don't tell us about the impact of the research we funded 10 years ago is having today show us that what we have invested in the past is actually having an impact today. And that's been sort of kind of a central plank since of the whole approach to this. Now in the UK, we have, we have a system called the dual stream research funding. So research grants are individually funded by research funding bodies at 80% of the full economic cost. And that's about $10 billion a year in research grants. So obviously, the universities use money on that event, we have quality related research, which is not an individual grant funds input the whole university top up based on the assessed quality of the university's research. And that's about $2.3 billion in CS a significant component of it, that's supposed to make it on average, across universities, financially breaking even and encourage them to actually do quality research. And then on top of that, we have the higher education in the fund innovation fund, to support research, translation to impact and that's economic, social and environmental impact, and that's about $300 million. Now, and the move on from 2006 was introduced the research impact assessment in 2014. And that has an that's now become what's called Research Excellence Framework, or the ref is assessed by expert panels based on 34 units of assessment, which are technical units, which are different from disciplines. 60% of that QR funding is based on their assessment of the research quality of the published research that is submitted 25% of it now 20% In 2014 2021, that was 25% is based on impact case studies, and 15% on what's called research environment. So you can see for somewhere like Cambridge, that 25% was worth about $30 million a year. Have their research. Interestingly, one good impact case study is worth monetarily about four papers in nature. So you can immediately see how that might start to attract the interest of academics to say, well, we've got to do this to make sure we get our research funding to do what we want. And again, research impact. This are the definitions that covers any, if any impact outside of academia, which could be political, educational, health, societal, environmental, legal, technological, cultural, or economic. So it's a very broad definition of what research impact is. What's the outcome of that the recent one, sorry, this is 2020 157 universities were assessed just under 2000 submissions, 76,000, academic staff just under 200,000 Searching outputs, just under 7000 impact case studies. And then there were all these panels, you can read the numbers, and they were graded as worldleading, four star internationally Excellent. Three Star recognized internationally to star recognized nationally, one star and unclassified from those stars. Where did that become important? Because the allocation of that QR funding was based on that the star ratings and very heavily weighted, so if you've got four stars, who are waiting for, you got three stars, you've got a rating of one. And if you've got anything else, you've got nothing. So if all your research was to star and below, you got no QR funding, if you've got a lot of five stars, we're heavily favored in the allocation of QR funding. And that's why it really helped the academic and get engaged. And it did produce some really interesting stuff. So if you analysis has been done by researchers of all this, and you can see, the circle is the unit of assessment, it starts on the top going around the top right quadrant is Life Sciences, then physical engineering, sciences, and then arts, humanities and social sciences. Then you see, if you're looking at spinouts, on the left patterns in the middle, or licenses on the right, you can see where which units of assessment, it comes from its life sciences, physical and engineering sciences, additional blips, in arts, humanities and social sciences. You look at where this policy advice to government come from, you can see there's lot more in the humanities and social sciences coming up. So it does provide you some interesting things to talk to government about where and how these different things impact on what they do. So that's the search impact. But also we have high funding, and the question there is the same as research, we're spending $300 million a year with you, is it having an impact? Are we getting what we want out of it? So initially, it was metrics through what's called the higher education, business or community interaction survey. So we started as TT O's in 2001, using the autumn template, and then publishing those and then government said, that's a good idea. We ought to do that. And then they took it on themselves and wrote their own templates completely. for what's called the headset survey. We started in 2003 is a non mandatory return for the for national funding councils. So English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Ireland are those four acronyms. But when I went to the university, I was in at the time and said, We need this data, they said, is is mandatory is a statutory and said no. They said, Well, we're not wasting time collecting it. So we have a real problem there. And eventually they moved it to a statutory Return of the university for the higher education statistics agency. And now it's it's a well supported set data set. Now the high fund in the CTE funding is allocated formulaic ly based on on that data. And there's a bottom up allocation model, which is I think, something this is where our communication, our interaction with government on policy, advice and evidence has been so important, because there was a lot of, oh, we just allocate it and tell you what you're going to do with it. But we persuaded them to go for a bottom up allocation model. So what they do is they say, this is how much the formula is allocated to you. Tell us what you're going to do with it. And if what you're doing with it, we think it's sensible, you've gotten the money can go into it. And also if things change, come back and tell us and we can change what we're doing but don't keep us in the dark. So it is allows every university to be independent. and play to their strengths rather than try to set a one size fits all straitjacket on everyone. Speaker 4 40:07 Now, the next iteration has been called the knowledge knowledge Excellence Framework, non solid knowledge exchange framework, not the knowledge Excellence Framework and knowledge exchange concordat. So the first one is basically taking what's the current sepsis visa data, starting rather than looking at all universities together, to group us so that we we are being compared to peer to peer, the K column chord that then guiding principles that the university sets and signs up to, which are required to be signed up to from the top of the university, because the continual complaint from government is, you're doing this quite well as tech transfer offices, but the university leadership really isn't engaged and really doesn't get that we're doing this impact. And so the Concord gap Concord that is focused on them to actually make force them think about this. So this is now it's just been published this morning. So this is from love from earlier data. This is sort of thing you get back as a university. And this is one I've taken as an example. Part of it is saying what you want to be good at, and you don't have to be good at everything is the big message, but be good at what you want to be good at. And so this is a university, you'll see it's good at it and commercialization top 10% Public and Community Engagement, working with business working with the public and third sector, not quite as good, but good in top 20% in research partnerships, but local growth and regeneration, it's in the bottom 30%. Well, this is a university in a very vibrant economy. So it doesn't need to do a lot of local growth and regeneration, skills, entrepreneurial enterprise and entrepreneurship, it doesn't need to do a lot because actually, in that vibrant economy, students and everyone else are very engaged. And there's lots of provision from other channels. So it shows some how you form you can look at a form with others. But you're not looking for 100% filled in circle, you're looking for your strengths to be looking really good in there. But and I'll say this is a big buck. And this is where we come back to John. All these themes are data for a great for people in government, and what I call the policy wonks and for encouraging engagement and incentivizing university teachers and their academics. But there are a lot of other people out there telling government. As we all know, our job is very complex was making said for every complex problem, there's an answer to simple and wrong. And we get a lot of people from outside our community from venture capital from consultancy organization said they're all doing it wrong, just get them out of the way, let us do it. And we'll do a far better job. So a few good stories and soundbites, simply told are far more effective at influencing politicians and policy than all of that data. In my experience, and let me give you an example. When I arrived at Cambridge, we had David Cameron, who has just arrived as prime minister, we have what is called the building dental club problem. This was an elite club at Oxford University for very wealthy students who have come up through the top private schools in the UK. And in the picture, there is the Bullingdon Club. The top row circled is David Cameron, former prime minister in the bottom row on the right circle is Boris Johnson, who's just stepped down as prime minister. Politicians didn't want to be seen in Cambridge because it was this in the university toxic Bullingdon Club images, it didn't play well to the general population. We took four simple figures, not the laptop left hand one has been added later. But we we got together the data 18 billion in turnover from the Cambridge knowledge intensive firms, over 5000 of them 70,000 people employed. And we got everyone in Cambridge, just to give those three numbers every time they spoke someone. And pretty quickly, the politician said hey, there's really interesting stuff, they wouldn't come to university, they started going to the startup company somewhere this was all happening. And then they started after two years, they started to come into the university as well. So we changed the whole narrative with three simple numbers. But if you make it too complex, our politicians are looking for short sound bites, which they can say to sort of elevate their their profile. That's what I find is has been the most influential, those types of things, those case studies and stories simply that made the biggest difference to And bringing our government on board to what we're doing and continuing with somebody. So without taking enough time, so I'll shut up and and on if I may to Vijay. Unknown Speaker 45:16 Thank you, Tony. Let me just Lord. Unknown Speaker 45:32 Good evening. Speaker 5 45:32 Good afternoon to all the folks there. Thanks again, John and autumn. For this opportunity. I would like to look at, you know, in a broader context, how India has evolved, I'm going to skip the introduction about me as savvy as really given a brief about that. Having evolved from being a kind of socialistic economy, way back, you know, 40 years ago to a country with economic trust, and what has actually been the contribution of academic research for that. You know, it till about the early 90s, India was a Nygaard, it was kind of a socialist economy with the Democratic political framework, kind of, you know, combination that never allowed economy to move forward. Considerable party control. State production was the driver, not the private enterprises. There were very specific dedicated public research institutions, which were fundamentally responsible for basic industrialization of the country, there's no doubt about it. This was to solve substantial focus on building capacity in atomic energy, in space sciences, and things like that at the time. The basic fact is public sector drove the research and it is all for making sure that India got basic essentials of life in place. There was one organization created in 1956, National Research Development Corporation, you know, some of our policy planners, but even those days that we need the organization that would be the, you know, anchor for tech transfer, and NRDC was mandated to do technology transfer of all the public research results. So they're still their National Research Development Corporation. It stayed, you know, over the last Unknown Speaker 47:36 60 years. Speaker 5 47:39 Economic growth is, you know, taking a turn after 91. And when the markets opened up, for global community to step in. And since then, it's been an unprecedented growth, average of six to 7%. year on year. And that's taken India to the fifth largest economy, as John indicated, you know, the 20 fold increase in GDP is unprecedented, probably, you know, only trading in China in that respect. So, it's been a economic growth that had tremendous amount of intensive year after year growth. One of the elements that really is the effect of it or even a contributing factor to that is intensity in investment in research. You know, the Indian research was in 90s, at around 30 $40 billion annually. And from there, it moved tenfold to about two $70 billion roughly about point 7% of GDP. Now, that really contributed to substantial, you know, economic advancement, we can also see that, you know, India emerge third in global scientific publications, and these are truly going by, you know, God, but John reflected in Australia and UK, the knowledge transfer was primarily through publications, that was the primary channel that really contributed, you know, economic impact, an account of the research results. The pedal research, you know, which was sold research organization earlier, we would be for also universities to engage in intensive research. So, we have about 600 Odd research institutions within the country, spearheading, you know, public research. Added to that the extramural research investment in private research, provide emphasis for collaborative research between public and private entities. And this has been a phenomenon the last couple of decades as well. All of this was, you know, in a way triggered, and in a way complemented by national policy on innovation, that really reflected, you know, partnering with the private sector, creating intellectual assets from research results to the US are on the way, frameworks that facilitated this. Because the government intention is now to go to 2% of GDP for research investment by 2030, which only accelerate this process of impact creation. One of the things we, you know, the point is that, while of course, the publications were primarily knowledge transfer channel, the focus on IP got accelerated the last 15 years, especially the last 10 years, I would say, and we can see the surge in IP piling in India, you know, going up from 14,015, to close to 56,000, just in five year framework, a six fold increase in five years is unprecedented again, and there's this is actually a significant surge of IP filing by public institutions in the span as well. You know, public institutions are about four to 5% of total IP filing has now moved to close to about 9% As of today. And this is in all spheres, you know, when it comes to patent filing in physical sciences, biological sciences, material sciences and several other fields that are dominant interest in public sector. India never had a legal framework on on tech transfer and IP ownership as well. But the emergence of intensity in research resulted in a number of funding bodies, formulating their own policy on on, you know, IP creation, technology transfer and the benefit sharing models that actually provided great impetus to to even accelerate technology transfer, you know, in a number of institutions. Some of the national bodies, of course, created tech transfer offices about 15 years ago, and they are of course, doing excellent job today, in terms of facilitating technology transfer. The surge in IP filing resulted in a number of institutions creating what they call an intellectual property management sell. These are quasi technology transfer officers that are more involved in IP protection, IP price occlusion, rather than actively engaging in licensing themselves. But they're also deeply involved with contract research management, which is primarily their focus interest, about 20 Odd institutions created technology transfer offices in the last few decades. While NRDC continues to focus on technology transfer, the sponsored research was very, very important contributor to prosperity, I would say in Indian context, this is primarily because, you know, the Indian economy is based on a hotbed of small and medium enterprises. They contribute to two thirds of their economic contribution. When you look at their research investment, you know, they depend more on external research than on their internal research. That's true of institutions in really thrived on providing that support sponsored research framework, and the brand Papaji sponsored research key became became you know, really about 20 fold in the last last 20 years you know, close to a billion dollar investment with primary top 10 institutions provide a solid kind of model for them to engage with the industry and provide the needed support for for accelerating innovation. The terms are very, very liberal for for sponsored research, asset creation, as the sponsors generally get in a right of first refusal for them to deploy it and very, very, very, very nominal monetization Unknown Speaker 54:28 framework. Speaker 5 54:31 Now, the the impact element, you know, as always been a factor, if you look at it, the acceleration of public research happen because they saw a tremendous impact and public research creating you know, better livelihood for for communities. And this is all you know, always reported to Parliament, the the Indian Congress, in terms of armacell impact has been there on livelihoods. It look The field of agriculture India was you know Lagarde in, in food production India was actually in your mind, the 1950s. But today we are one of the largest food producers third largest food producer with the significant exports. You know, in fact this year with with all the Korean War, India's one of the key contributors to some of the cereal crops for global communities. The reason has been consistent investment by academic research and, you know, bringing improved cultivars, you know, bringing in technologies playing, cutting edge molecular sciences, I think this has been very well demonstrated and this is one of the reasons why not the surgeon investment in public research for agriculture has happened. Similar way in public health, you know, India is one of the leaders by volume in producing, you know, pharmaceutical products third largest globally, very, very self reliant in healthcare. The per capita investment in healthcare is one of the lowest in the country while covering more than billion population today, world's largest vaccine maker, world's largest producer of generics, India's very, very strong researching art and biologics and biosimilars in cutting edge products that are going to be next gen products today. But then among the G 20 countries, India as most affordable in terms of health care, primarily again, you know, due to very, very significant public research contribution, and this again, very well recognized by the government, that sustained investments in public research for for healthcare, in COVID. Of course, India excelled in providing vaccines for the whole world, beyond producing, you know, 2 billion vaccines for itself, it provided another 2 billion for most of the emerging countries in Africa and rest of Asia and of course, South America as well. So, these are I think, an India's also with the line noise producer of the COVID diagnostics, and substantial part of it came from public research at a time, then, you know, the vaccines came out in the world. In the United States, same time, almost India was in a position to release the vaccine for their own communities. So if you look at it, you know, these are just one institution Council past scientific investment research, you know, compatibilty NSF and United States, their own funding and investment as has resulted in a number of generics generics that are worldwide today dominant generics today, you know, providing India close to a quarter of the export markets. And there are a number of other institutions which have been, you know, primarily responsible for institutions to industry to secure access to technologies in pharmaceuticals. Now, if the CSIR, which has contributed so much to Indian pharmaceuticals, you know, their patent filing has been fairly decent, I would say, with 1286 crimes and you know, 2020 PCT filings, the license packs have been 158, about 15% or so, which is not bad, actually. Personally, the license is about 12.29%. But the monetization, you know, would never be compatible to what what I will probably look at transaction monetization in our states today, mainly because I think their objective was to deliver innovation to markets in affordable manner, not looking at return on investment by way of royalty revenues there. So this has been a sign of a very, very common phenomenon Unknown Speaker 58:58 across institutions. Speaker 5 59:03 The competitive areas like life sciences today, the another major impact creation that's now felt across the country is the academic contribution to creation of startups and spinouts. India's today, again, the third largest unicorns in the world, and of course, so they are not all from you know, physical sciences or biological sciences. Some of them are Information Sciences today 3500 startups in life sciences 1250 patents, you know, the impact has been that India has also been the fourth largest recipient of these startup innovation investment by the VC and private equity. This has been a follow on funding that laying on a bed of investment by public institutions. Bye bye I buy technology licenses from the academic institutions. So this provided kind of a very solid grounding or foundation for for, you know, incubate these to build their venture and secure, you know, follow on funding, again, the impact on workforce employment, you know, that's been that's been phenomenal. The academic institutions today are the, you know, entities housing, these incubators, about 75 of them in life sciences and about 400 of them in all, all spheres of innovation. And that's really propelling innovation in the country significantly. So going forward, as I say, you know, from where it stands today, knowledge transfer being, you know, through publications, and, you know, very, very nominal technology licensing fee, there's a greater move to, you know, Indian institutions to look for providing their innovations to global communities across look for greater monetization is, again, because of a trigger, if you look at India's been the major in licensor in the world today, you know, our own office today has been responsible for numerous licenses from our academic partners in the United States to Indian entities, these are cutting edge innovation, you know, that's been really gaining tremendous amount of royalty revenues to public research in the United States, they need a solution, see a parallel there, they now realize that, you know, economic benefit can tag along to delivery a public road, and therefore, you know, their their urge to monetize this integration is far higher. And that's where the Technology Transfer offices are surging ahead to see how they can combine public impact with economic returns, that can make them more sustainable, to engage in technology transfer going forward. Now, as we see 2025, technology transfer offices doing well, in their own sphere, there's also been a major effort to create regional technology transfer offices, which are pan Indian. And, you know, I have to recognize that John has been a great contributor to mentoring those. These are, you know, regionally spearheading institutions to understand the power of delivery of innovation. They understand the power of monetizing doors, and looking at the way the technology transfer process can be compatible to to institution institutional objectives, and also meet with industry needs, that are really the forefront of economic growth today. So I think the the professional presence of the Technology Transfer managers in those offices is really the driver for these officers to provide the right kind of environment for technologies to be more deeply deliver going forward. So I would say in conclusion that I think, you know, the, the recognition of academic research for for what India is today, in terms of its self sufficiency is pretty significant. But the the cluster is now to see and tag along that recognition with the tacit monetization that will probably propel the technology transfer to greater heights as we go. Unknown Speaker 1:03:45 Thank you. Thank you, John. Speaker 1 1:03:55 Thank you all so much for such a great presentation thus far, attendees. As a reminder, you're welcome to submit questions into the chat or into the q&a field. Before we are while we wait for some questions to come through, Tony, John and Vijay, any, excuse me, any responses to each other's presentations, points that you want to specifically call out as key takeaways for our attendees. Speaker 2 1:04:23 I will make a comment. Tony is referred to the chips Act in the United States. It has authorized in the language $3 billion for tech transfer offices. Authorized but not budgeted. There's no money yet. It'll be in the normal budget. I believe. Tony is absolutely right. For the first time. In America, the tech transfer activity will be directly financed, there'll be expectations And the thing I invited Tony to address is the fact that the Brits have been actively discussing how to measure and communicate the impact of research, first of all, and now the impact of knowledge exchange and knowledge transfer. So there are Unknown Speaker 1:05:24 when Speaker 2 1:05:26 money shows up in America for this activity, there's lots to learn from the Brits, they've been there, they're worked with it. Similarly, in India, the tech transfer activity is expanding the regional tech transfer offices, indeed, there's an awareness that this activity contributes to the economic benefit of the nation. So I think there are two, there'll be lessons learned that we can use here in America Unknown Speaker 1:06:03 Yeah, I, Tommy, I Speaker 5 1:06:04 would rather, you know, perceive that the impact story should percolate across the world, you know, these are models where countries can learn on how to articulate, you know, the, the, the economic impact, because the tech transfer is really global today, not necessarily local or regional. And the benefit of knowledge transfer should be widely be, you know, cross pollinated. So that, you know, policy planners and innovators industry can really, you know, learn from that. Speaker 4 1:06:50 And I think sort of to add to that, quickly, what John said, I think, if there's one takeaway and two on this one, though, it's, it can be difficult to visualize government relations officers in many of the universities who have particular focuses is make friends, with the people in government get ahead of the curve, so that you can shape what they do to you rather than having it done to you as a complete surprise. And you can either do that through building relationships with not just the politicians, but also the civil servants, the government administrators who actually put together all the policy papers, collect the evidence and make sure that you support them in that process. And you can actually sort of help to shape the environment. I have I have worked with countries where sort of the university have said, we're not like doing that. Atkins, Robson said, we're not like that university will talk to government about research and teach you and to get out of the way. The answer to that is well find events, the government, people are going to go to those events and bump into them accidentally and talk for them, but find ways actually informally to do this thing in a defensible way. Because I think I've seen off too often that sort of, we've had a number of things coming down the pike, their government, people have said to us, Look, this is the way people are thinking, we've been engaged and said, well, actually, this won't work. And this is why it won't work. And let us help you put the case together. And we've headed these things off. We had one notorious one where that didn't happen. And it caused a change in taxation, which caused the complete freezing of the activity, because academics were taxed on the value of their spin up company shares at the point of formation, and have to pay the tax that year. And of course, nobody wanted to land big tax bills with no money to pay for them. So there are these things, if not careful, these things become the left field. So the one takeaway is build those relationships, keep keep the interactions going. So you hear what's coming down the pike. And you can actually help to influence what eventually transpires? And that's the same with India. I mean, I've had a number of Indian ministers come to Cambridge to say sort of launch and do exactly the same issues. Yeah, we're not sure we're getting the value. We think we should be getting out of this. What should we be doing? Speaker 1 1:09:40 Thank you all for sharing those kind of final, final thoughts and pieces. I know we're coming up on a quarter after on the hour, and I do want to hold everyone to time. So on behalf of autumn I would just like to thank you Vijay, Tony and John for such an informative presentation and attendees. Thank you all for joining with us today. I As a reminder, a recording of the webinar will be available for viewing on the autumn Learning Center within a few days of this event and is included in your registration, slide handouts and a certificate of attendance can also be accessed there. And please don't forget to complete the webinar evaluation which will open when you close out of this session that really helps us to serve your needs in the future as we continue to build our online PD programming. So with that, once again, I will say thank you and I hope that everyone has a great rest of their day or evening based on where you're joining us from and we look forward to seeing you all soon. Transcribed by https://otter.ai