Categories
McNair Center

Interview with Dr. Armen Orujyan

Dr. Armen Orujyan
Photo courtesy of Athgo

Dr. Armen Orujyan is the founder and chairman of Athgo, an entrepreneurship platform that is in consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, U.N. Department of Public Information and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Athgo advances innovation ecosystems in Europe and Africa and has established recurring global innovation forums at the U.N. and World Bank. Orujyan earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2000 and his doctorate degree from Claremont Graduate University in 2007. In 2017, Orujyan joined the Baker Institute’s Board of Advisors.

The McNair Center’s Diana Carranza recently interviewed Orujyan about his experience in social entrepreneurship.

What is your definition of Social Entrepreneurship?
I would characterize, albeit no longer classify, social entrepreneurship as building enterprises that create both financial wealth and communal value. The approach advances the idea that “doing good” and “doing well” can and should coexist. I just call it constructive entrepreneurship. Constructive entrepreneurs create short-term value through the provision of products and services, and long-term value through enterprise operations. Their activities incorporate two characteristics: positive net income (wealth creation) and positive net value (communal value creation). To be successful, constructive entrepreneurs expand performance criteria to measure and communicate both net income and net value.

How did you get involved in Social Entrepreneurship?
While in college after doing advisory work for U.S. political campaigns, including Vice President Gore’s Presidential run in 2000, I led a human rights movement that brought over 40,000 young people and concerned citizens onto the streets of Los Angeles. Leveraging the power of social media and the convening power of youth, the movement has since turned into an annual observance, attracting in effect of 160,000 people.

The experience of passionately following a vision and watching tens of thousands of people from all walks of life join to pursue a common objective was humbling and at the same time powerful and enlightening. I began seeing that with a slight push, direction and a compelling story, not only I, but also all individuals on the margins, especially young people, can realize their potential.

The success of the movement was emotionally gratifying and intellectually fulfilling, and it paved the way for my next phase in life. I wanted to do well in life by empowering young adults avoid many of my own past challenges and encourage and aid those with great ideas.

Athgothon 5 brought budding entrepreneurs and students from over 50 universities in 35 countries to the World Bank headquarters in Washington D.C. in 2013.
Photo courtesy of Athgo.

There are three ways of living: 1. Live aimlessly, 2. Live for a purpose and 3. Purposefully live. I went with number 3 and founded Athgo as a nonprofit that provided a stage for young people pursuing common objectives but lacking direction, access or means.

We launched with a small program at UCLA with 20 students, but Athgo quickly evolved into a global entrepreneurial platform powered by a proprietary quantitative behavioral framework and with recurring Innovation Forums at the United Nations and the World Bank headquarters as well as in Europe and Africa.

Over the years, the Organization, has provided intellectual, networking and financial opportunities to over 10,000 young adults from over 600 universities in 80 countries while building support from Fortune 100 firms and cultivating partnerships with leading academic institutions and the United Nations system.

What are the current misconceptions about Social Entrepreneurship? For example, there is a general association of the term social with not-for-profit startups.
This is one of the reasons why I stopped using ‘social’ and instead use ‘constructive’ to classify our work. Constructive enterprises produce both positive net-income and positive net-value, whereas nonprofits are not structured to be profitable, essentially relying on donors’ buy-in to be successful.

What are the current main areas of focus and challenges for social ventures?
The challenge becomes incorporating both of these features, net-income and positive net-value, into project and management performance measures. While each constructive enterprise must create financial success and communal value, there are varying definitions and varying degrees.

In the case of not-for-profit ventures, how can success be measured?
The nonprofits predominately focus on producing social impact at all costs, as long as it is within the allocated budget. The concern with this is that the budget allocations for many of these initiatives are done subjectively rather than based on deep market analysis. The question has been whether the efforts of the nonprofits are established based on a ‘need’ or a ‘desire’ of the organization to produce the value.

How can ecosystems address the need of social entrepreneurs?
In order to successfully execute constructive enterprises, there must be an effective management reward structure that incorporates both communal value and financial success. Without clear definitions of how performance will be measured, management will be conflicted between competing goals.

Existing performance measures do not always support this enterprise type. Attempting to create a management reward system based on blended return without performance measures can lead to conflicting goals, which will threaten viability and undermine long-term stability.

These performance measure limitations lead some enterprises to produce superior revenue accentuation and some entities superior value accentuation. Ecosystems should have a system in place that promotes and rewards a pre-established balance between revenue and communal value. It ought to establish for companies both financial hurdles and communal value hurdles. Managers then will look to achieve a pre-established balance between revenue and communal value.

Are there niche entrepreneurship ecosystems for social ventures?
We are what we observe ourselves to be – a rock star or a rock under a star – our choice. It really does not matter where you are geographically. Companies such as Tesla, Facebook and ERI are successfully operating as constructive enterprises away from federal and state capitals. Yet, if we want to promote more rock stars, the ecosystems would need to implement favorable legal frameworks, which will reward the constructive approach. For the time being, this is still a dream.

Categories
Slider

Read the Houston Entrepreneurship Pipeline Report

This paper examines the startup training institutions in Houston, Texas, and what they are doing to open up the city’s pipeline of startup firms.

Recent academic research has shown that startup training institutions can have an enormous positive effect on an ecosystem’s growth. A good ecosystem pipeline turns out a large quantity of high-quality startup firms that have received top-tier training. Houston’s accelerators and incubators do not perform at the levels of benchmark institutions. The quality of deal flow coming from its accelerators, incubators, and hubs will be crucial to Houston’s future.

Categories
Slider

Visit the McNair Center’s Wiki

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Patents and the Cancer Moonshot

Patents and the Cancer Moonshot: How Subject Matter Eligibility Affects Research

When standard cancer treatments fail, some doctors are turning to the developing field of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy involves treatments that use the patient’s own immune system to combat cancer. Both pharmaceutical companies and the federal government see the promise in funding research in this innovative field. However, R&D in cancer treatments is a time-intensive process, and it takes months, if not years, before doctors can bring cutting-edge research to their patients.

In January 2016, President Barack Obama called for the Cancer Moonshot to double the rate of progress in cancer research. Vice President Joe Biden traveled across the country and the world (including to Rice University) to collect information on current barriers in cancer research, like inefficiencies in the patent process. However, is the lengthy patent examination process truly what is slowing cancer research?

Accelerating the Process with “Patents 4 Patients”

To help accelerate cancer research, the United States Patent and Trademark Office launched the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program (also known as “Patents 4 Patients”) in July 2016. This program aims to fast track the review of patents that involve treating cancer using immunotherapy.

Usually, the USPTO examines patents in order of their U.S. filing dates. However, under “Patents 4 Patients,” the Patent Office will grant special status to patent applications relating to cancer immunotherapy. The USPTO aims to finish examining petitions submitted before June 29, 2017 within twelve months of granting special status.

Often, USPTO examination takes a long time. Over the last two years, first office action pendency, or how long it takes to mail a First Office Action after a patent application is filed, takes an average of 16.5 months. Additionally, traditional total pendency, or how long it takes to decide whether to issue or abandon a patent, takes an average of 26.4 months. The new Pilot Program certainly has the potential to reduce these wait times. However, long patent examination periods are not the only barriers that researchers face when developing cancer treatments.

Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: A Look at Section 101

Under Section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code, “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement” is patent-eligible. Over the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has affected what is patentable. Under judicially recognized exceptions, laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas cannot be patented.

Most controversially, in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012), the Court held that correlations between blood test results and patient health were “laws of nature” and that any claims relating to these correlations were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Similarly, in AMP v. Myriad (2013), the Supreme Court held that claims relating to isolations of naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented.

Because of these decisions, the USPTO has rejected or abandoned many patents relating to cancer immunotherapy treatment on the basis that they claim laws of nature. According to Patently-O, patent rejections based on Section 101 objections increased substantially after the Mayo ruling from 15.9% of office actions to 86.1%.

For example, the USPTO has rejected patents relating to using gene expressions to predict chances of breast cancer (US20100035240A1) and using a specific protein as an early indicator of cancer (US20150072355A1) because they are applications of laws of nature. However, unlike the USPTO, the patent offices in Europe, Japan, and China have accepted these applications and granted their patents. Current U.S. patent law does not conform with internationally recognized forms of patent eligibility. Stifling the progress of research through patent rejections does not bode well for U.S. cancer patients. By refusing to protect emerging discoveries, the USPTO undermines cancer treatment research, especially in innovative fields like immunotherapy.

More Barriers with the FDA Approval Process

Even after a treatment is patented, it can take years to go through the phases of the clinical trial process. Phase I and II determine the safety and promise of a treatment. Phase III tests the effectiveness of the new treatment compared to existing standards. After successfully going through trials, companies file a New Drug Application (NDA) for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

According to DiMasi, Grabowski and Hansen (2016), clinical trials take an average of 9 years and 8 months. After a company submits an NDA, the FDA takes an average of 16 months to review it. This lengthy approval process further slows down R&D in cancer treatment.

Improving Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines

Excludability in fast-growing fields like immunotherapy is extremely valuable in the early stages of R&D. Patents provide stability and a relative level of certainty, so a more quickly granted patent can help firms stake their claim in a developing treatment. However, the higher amount of claims rejections decreases the probability that companies will be able to protect their research. Questions about what is patent-eligible material could discourage investment and deprive researchers of necessary funding.

The Cancer Moonshot initiative is eager to make the patent process more efficient to quicken the progress of cancer treatment. While Patents 4 Patients could potentially help expedite research, long pendency periods are not the only barrier to accelerating research. Many discoveries are patentable, nonobvious applications of laws of nature. Yet, after recent court rulings, the USPTO still rejects their patent applications.

In late 2016, the USPTO held two roundtables to improve the its guidance for patent examiners on subject-matter eligibility.  As judges and policymakers continue to define what can be patented, they must recognize the impact of their decisions on cancer treatment innovation.

Categories
McNair Center Women

Women in STEM: Closing the Gap

Economists around the world emphasize the benefits of integrating more women into the workforce. While we are seeing slow growth in women’s presence in many sectors, the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields at the core of innovation seem to be especially lacking in girl power.

In 2014, women comprised approximately 47 percent of the U.S. workforce. Within the innovation-focused STEM fields, women only account for about 19.5 percent. This underrepresentation of women is not only holding women back from success and achieving their full potential, but also preventing the U.S. economy from realizing the wide array of benefits which come from increasing women’s labor force participation.

Why We Need More Women in STEM

When women get involved in STEM fields, they are rewarded. Compared to similar women who are working in non-STEM fields, the salaries of women  in STEM are 33 percent higher. For men, the difference is only 25 percent. Not only are salaries higher, but the gender pay gap is also smaller. A 2011 U.S. Department of Commerce study found that the average gap is 21 percent in non-STEM jobs. For STEM jobs, this gap is only 14 percent.

Women aren’t the only ones who benefit. Companies that place an emphasis on gender equality and hiring women tend to see positive impacts on their productivity and success. For companies marketing to women, the Harvard Business Review has shown that having input from women improves their “likelihood of success” by 144 percent. Innovative firms, along with many traditional businesses, can benefit from having female perspectives to help reach female customers.

Gender diversity in the workplace also enhances creativity among workers. When researchers at the University of Maryland and Columbia University teamed up to study top leadership in Standard and Poor’s Composite 1500 list, they found that female representation in leadership positions is associated with a $42 million increase in average firm value. They also saw that companies which emphasized innovation received higher financial gains when women were in top management.

U.S. Initiatives to Empower STEM Women

The Obama Administration has made efforts to increase women’s involvement in STEM. In 2009, President Barack Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls, a team that coordinates U.S. policy, legislation, and programs to address the needs of women and girls.  The Council has made women’s involvement in STEM a particular priority. They have announced multiple initiatives, like Title IX protections for equal education, work-life balance programs, and speaking tours for successful women innovators. The administration also made efforts to eliminate the gender pay gap through the creation of an Equal Pay Task Force in 2010 and an executive order affecting federal contractors in 2014.

Obama Signs the Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls

These actions alone cannot address the full extent of gender inequality. However, they may improve the situation. Policies that encourage girls to explore their interest in STEM give girls the opportunity to develop passions in these fields. Once these passions become careers, flexible and non-discriminatory policies in the workplace can incentivize women to stay involved in STEM throughout their careers.

Women in STEM around the World

In North America and Western Europe, on average, only 32 percent of researchers, defined as “professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned,”  are women. Japan, one of the leading tech development nations, has a mere 15 percent. Surprisingly, Central Asia has the highest average proportion of women researchers, with 47 percent.

The United Kingdom ranks second in world scientific achie1512b16-women-in-science-interactive-map-researchers-un1-1vement, behind the United States. 35.7 percent of researchers in the UK are women. Within solely STEM fields, though, the proportion of women is even lower: only 14.4 percent. This trend is apparent across many of the nations with the highest investments and achievements in STEM.

Differences in gender norms affect incentives for women to enter these fields. In some regions, like India, women are expected to be caretakers and homemakers. Their participation in STEM, and the workforce in general, is therefore often very low. On the other end of the spectrum, there are certain areas in Asia where gender stereotypes regarding math and science are less prevalent. In these areas, STEM interest is greater among women than men.

Culture clearly has an effect on the proportion of women who get involved in STEM professions. A prevailing stereotype exists in American society that women are inferior to men in math and science. Although this stereotype has been proven untrue, societal beliefs and expectations can have an effect on women’s empowerment. Research by Claude M. Steele shows the effects of stereotypes on performance and self-perception. If we want to see a change in the proportion of women in STEM, we need to change our culture.

What is the Future for Women in STEM?

Remedying the gender gap in innovation fields is not a simple or quick process. It requires a combination of education for girls, policy changes that eliminate barriers for women workers, cultural changes, shifts in societal prioritization of gender equality, and much else besides. At the current progress rate, we are a long way from eliminating the gender gap. However, with concerted effort from policymakers, educators, and employers, there is hope for a fairer and more productive future.

Categories
McNair Center

A Conversation with Bob McNair

On August 29, 2016, the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation hosted an evening with Bob McNair.  As the founder of Cogen Technologies and the founder, chairman, and CEO of the Houston Texans, McNair drew on his vast experience in business and philanthropy to offer advice to Rice University students and young professionals.

In 1960, McNair arrived in Houston with $700 and a goal to break into the trucking industry. However, after he established his trucking company, the industry became deregulated, forcing him into millions of dollars of debt. Despite this failure, McNair used his new knowledge of deregulation to find opportunity in three industries: intermodal transport, telecommunications, and cogeneration. Cogeneration, or the concurrent production of electricity and heat, became McNair’s most successful investment, and in 1999, he sold his company Cogen Technologies for $1.5 billion.

When asked for career advice, McNair emphasized to students and young professionals the importance of adding value to their environments. “The most important thing is putting yourself in a position where you can add the most value, and when you add the most value, the compensation will come to you,” he stated.

This idea of adding value was behind the $8 million endowment from the Robert and Janice McNair Foundation that launched the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Rice University, one of six across the country. McNair said, “this is an opportunity for us to make a real contribution to society and to help create an environment that empowers ingenuity and creativity, unleashes the productivity of private enterprise and builds sustainable economic growth.”

Read more in the Baker Institute’s newsletter and the Rice Thresher’s article on the event.

Categories
McNair Center

Welcome to the McNair Center

The McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy was founded in 2015 with an $8 million gift from the Robert and Janice McNair Foundation. Dr. Edward J. Egan was chosen as the founding director. He designed the center to provide policymakers, scholars, and the general public with comprehensive analyses of the issues that affect entrepreneurship and innovation at three levels: federal and state policy, municipal ecosystems, and academic entrepreneurship and innovation.

The Center’s foci were naturally on the U.S., Texas, Houston, and Rice University, but it also drew and shared insights from the best practices and policies worldwide. Its philosophy was to combine grounded theory and data-driven causal design to produce peer-reviewed research that stands up to scrutiny. To this end, the center collected and disseminated data, provided open access to informational resources, collaborated with leading academic experts, built understanding, and recommended policy to harness the incredible power of entrepreneurship and innovation.

By 2018, the McNair Center had provided more than 70 undergraduate and graduate students with internships to develop policy research, had a staff of four, and was the largest social science research laboratory on the Rice University Campus. It received offers of an additional $6.2m in funding to hire three more fellows and two more staff members and to roll out its nationwide research affiliate program.