From ivory tower to business and marketplace

From ivory tower to business and marketplace: Versatile, collaborative research culture drives translation and commercialisation of university research

Across the globe, universities are increasingly interested in technology transfer and research commercialisation, in addition to their missions around education and basic research. Many institutions of higher education have established interdisciplinary research units and technology transfer offices that spur innovative ideas and turn them into impactful real-world applications to address today’s complex, challenging issues. The entire process—from choosing the right research areas, to bringing technologies out of the “ivory tower” and transferring them to the marketplace, to maximising the reach and impact of the deliverables—requires a solid bridge between academia and industry, as well as scientific pursuits that are connected with practical concerns.

In this Issue, Prof. Iain McCULLOCH, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Director of the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment at Princeton University, gives PAIR his perspective on some of the vital factors in successful research translation and commercialisation. Before joining academia, Prof. McCulloch spent nearly two decades at the helm of various industrial laboratories in the United States and the United Kingdom. Through translational research in carbon-based polymers, this leading materials chemist has brought critical advances to diverse fields including optics, electronics, energy and biological sensing.

“We live in a changing environment where the climate and markets are evolving in many ways,” Prof. McCulloch said. “We have to be versatile, vigilant and flexible in everything we do.”

Designing small molecules with big possibilities

Your research focuses on designing, synthesising and developing semiconducting carbon-based polymers and molecules for a wide range of applications, including solar cells, electronics and drug delivery. How did you become interested in the field of functional organic polymers?

My research interests have always been application-driven—I want to take ideas and put them to use. I pursued a path in industry rather than academia after my PhD studies because I was more interested in translating ideas into products at that point.

This impulse remains for me, even though I am an academic now. I would describe myself as a chemist who is more interested in understanding the potential of molecules, making them perform beyond the state of the art, in order to satisfy the parameters required for mass production and specific applications.

I find optical materials, photonic materials and electronic materials particularly fascinating because of their complex design criteria and potential for high-value, high-function applications. These functional materials typically have to satisfy a range of requirements in performance, stability, fabrication, reliability and more. This encourages scientists to be creative in their molecular designs. Furthermore, their applications in electronics, communications, solar cells, etc., are important to society and are areas with expanding impact.

Connecting the disconnected: Linking research pursuits to real-world needs

University research often appears to be “curiosity-driven”—new innovations are driven by the “technology push”, and research efforts follow a “bottom up” approach in which researchers focus on exploratory projects that interest them. These projects may develop further towards broader goals. In contrast, industrial research tends to follow the “market push” and “top down” approaches. If universities are to succeed in research translation and commercialisation, how can they bridge the gap between industry and academia?

Both perspectives are important to consider. University research units are small organisations seeking to address big, complex challenges with a limited number of faculty and limited research budget. Institutions need to decide on the research areas to focus on. From a “top down” perspective, they need to evaluate the existing external opportunities in terms of funding, high-impact publication, application potential, customers and industrial engagement. From a “bottom up” perspective, they must identify the institution’s internal capabilities, research strengths and collaborative potential. It is important, from a holistic standpoint, for a research project to include industry engagement. In my view, adopting a combination of “top down” and “bottom up” approaches in research planning, development and management will facilitate the most successful outcomes in research translation and commercialisation. Universities require domain expertise in order to generate ideas which are ground-breaking and capable of producing valuable outputs.

“It is important, from a holistic standpoint, for a research project to include industry engagement.”

I think PAIR has this “downstream” element in its interdisciplinary research development. The Academy’s key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring research success emphasise the generation of commercialisable technologies and not merely the answers to scientific questions, the latter of which are driven more by fundamental curiosity.

Racing against the clock in research commercialisation

KPIs highlight universities’ research expectations for faculty, but the opportunities for funding and research commercialisation may vary from one discipline to another. A research unit in a certain field may not be able to generate as many tangible outcomes as another unit in a different field. What are your views on this difficult situation?

In my view, judging the research performance of scientists at PAIR by the number of papers published is a bit disingenuous, since this is not really in line with the research institution’s mission.

I always feel that there is a huge amount of impatience or lack of recognitions of the timescales and investments required to create the culture for innovation and spin-offs and to deliver impact within academia. The actual timescale required for achieving commercialisation is always longer than expected. But this is a vicious cycle. If institutions cannot promise rapid commercialisation, they may experience difficulties in obtaining the funding competitively. Hence, there is a built-in disconnect between reality and research proposals when it comes to the timescales required for commercialisation.

“Universities need to be given the trust to conduct research activities and sufficient time to deliver on expectations.”

Also, the expectations and investments are not in line. The investments needed for achieving commercialisation at the required level are often much larger than the amounts which universities and funders are prepared to invest. Universities need to be given the trust to conduct research activities and sufficient time to deliver on expectations. In terms of trust, this also means giving researchers the room to maximise opportunities in exploring new and promising research paths. In terms of timescale, a five-year plan is a good time frame for fostering research commercialisation. Any period longer than that can result in less accountability.

Being first in a changing market: Accelerating processes through partnerships

In a fast-paced tech environment, how can universities ensure that their research activities are in line with market needs?

Our assumptions about competition in the technology industry and the threat of technological encroachment are still valid. I think universities need to engage their customers, partners and collaborators on a regular basis, but not in an overly anxious mode. Instead, they need to “check the temperature” to see if things are still the way they expected—whether the current market deviates from initial expectations, and whether the parameters used as KPIs are still relevant.

Having partnerships in research commercialisation helps mitigate risks and accelerates processes. Being first to market requires taking risks to enjoy high margins. Second-movers experience lower risks but gain fewer rewards. It really depends on the university culture and where institutions want to position themselves. Do they want to be the first? Or do they prefer to be a bit more conservative and minimise the risks?

Expanding with finite resources: Selectivity, flexibility and maximising opportunities in research

PAIR currently has 19 constituent research units and expects to establish more units under the Academy. You are currently a Senior Fellow at PAIR and a Member of the International Advisory Committee of one of the PAIR units, the Research Institute for Intelligent Wearable Systems (RI-IWEAR). In your view, how can PAIR steer interdisciplinary efforts effectively towards research commercialisation with finite resources?

I think there has to be a certain element of Darwinian natural selection in funding research, to some extent. In other words, strive for critical mass in strategically important areas. It is unrealistic for universities to fund projects across all the areas they want to pursue. Meanwhile, small seed projects help us keep the broader research landscape in view, enabling us to observe fields that are emerging. Universities need to have flexibility in resource management so that they can support research which demonstrates promising potential for further development. It is worth diverting some funding to studies that may yield unexpectedly important results and open up new opportunities. There has to be some level of selectivity, flexibility and maximising of opportunities in university research management.

In general, it is better to have many eyes than one or two eyes in solving problems. Bringing a diversity of views and technologies to problems is crucial and extremely beneficial.

Don’t let collaboration turn into confusion

PAIR is actively expanding its collaborative network in Mainland China and across the globe through its fellowship scheme, joint research projects and the establishment of joint research entities with collaborators. How can institutions ensure that these collaborative efforts are effective in yielding research translation and commercialisation?

“We live in a changing environment where the climate and markets are evolving in many ways. We have to be versatile, vigilant and flexible in everything we do.”

University-industry collaboration is advantageous, although having too many of these efforts may cause confusion. Collaboration does not mean jumping into new opportunities without any ideas and just hoping for the best. Reputationally, collaborations give universities exposure, visibility and connections, which often bring new opportunities. Collaboration that produces tangible outcomes requires good leadership and strong vision. We live in a changing environment where the climate and markets are evolving in many ways. We must be versatile, vigilant and flexible in everything we do. Engaging bilaterally with leading partners in the field of application is the best pathway towards success.

On this topic, I can share one successful example from my previous industry experiences at Merck Chemicals. Back then, liquid crystal displays (LCDs) were commonly used in calculators and watches, while cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), which produce images by emitting electron beams on a phosphorescent surface, were used for computer displays. When portable computing started, Merck saw the potential of LCDs as display panels for computers. There was no incumbent technology that could satisfy the application requirements, and so this niche application became a disruptive technology. In other words, the market is entered in niche applications with a competitive advantage in the technology.

In academia, we tend to patent ideas and anticipate potential opportunities. However, it is equally important to get more downstream traction. Thus, we circle back to the need for universities to have the market awareness, trusted network and agility to go after new market opportunities when they arise. Successful research commercialisation is not just patenting in the institution’s areas of core competence, but also patenting applications, anticipating their potential, locking in partners downstream and securing the market.