Tag: Research

Categories
Accelerators McNair Center

MassChallenge: Connecting Startups and Big Business

MassChallenge was located at One Marina Park Drive until 2014.

Corporations and startups are moving toward early stage interactions. MassChallenge, a highly successful nonprofit accelerator, has been connecting corporations and startups since its 2010  launch in Boston. MC has several US and international locations, which accelerated 372 startups in 2016.

MC delivers positive results and has been listed among the Best Startup Accelerators by the Seed Accelerator Rankings Project, led by Baker Institute Rice faculty scholar Yael Hochberg.  There are over 1,000 MC alumni, who have collectively raised more than $1.8B in outside funding, generated $700M in revenue and created over 60,000 jobs. According to a 2016 MIT study, MC startups are 2.5 times more likely than non-MC startups to hire at least 15 employees and three times more likely to raise $500,000 in funding.

With seven years of history, notable MC alumni includes Ginkgo Bioworks, which designs custom microbes to produce chemicals, ingredients and industrial enzymes. As a startup, Gingko Bioworks raised $154M in funding and signed a deal for 700 million base pairs of designed DNA — the largest such agreement ever made — with Twist Bioscience. Other remarkable graduates of the program include Ksplice, Turo, Sproxil and LiquiGlide.

An Attractive Alternative for Startups

MC is similar to other startup institutions such as Techstars and Y-Combinator. However, the nonprofit differentiates itself by not taking equity. Entrants to the accelerator must be early stage startups, defined as companies with no more than $500K of investment and $1M in annual revenue. As part of the four-month program, selected startups receive mentoring, co-working space, access to a network of corporate partners, tailored workshops and the chance to win a portion of $2M in zero-equity funding. Additional prizes are provided by partners such as The Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) and Microsoft’s New England Research and Development Center.

For entrepreneurs in regions with mature ecosystems like Silicon Valley and Boston, MC is one option among an array of accelerators and informal networks. This  density of resources is called  agglomeration, a geographic concentration of interconnected entities increases interactions and the productivity. The MIT study suggests MC acts as a complement to the prior advantages of startups in established ecosystems by providing key resources and access to social capital  and also found evidence that startups founded in regions with higher access to early stage investors had on average higher quality ideas, but that their chances of success were not higher conditional on the quality of their idea.

For startups in nascent ecosystems the resources provided by MC can become the only option to pitch their ideas to investors and advance their company at no cost other than the time invested on the program. Of equal value is the endorsement received as a MC graduate inferring the quality of the startup venture.

A Model Built on Strategic Partnerships

As a nonprofit, MC depends on the support of a network of public, private and philanthropic partners, with the vast majority of their funding coming from corporations. Governments and philanthropic foundations fund MC with the goal to foster regional economic growth. Founders John Harthorne and Akhil Nigam, former consultants at Bain & Company, garnered early support from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, successful entrepreneurs and large corporations such as Blackstone, Microsoft and the nonprofit Kauffman Foundation.

MC could have faced financial challenges by providing accelerator programs at no cost and with no equity commitment. However, MC was able to become a bridge between large companies’ need for innovation and startups’ need for capital. Large companies have the scale of resources, customer information and market experience, but may lag in innovation. Startups, on the other hand, lack the resources but innovate with sometimes disruptive and successful ventures, frequently taking incumbents by surprise (Airbnb, Uber).

MC serves as a channel between startups and established companies to meet the need for fast-paced innovation. Companies like Bühler and PTC partner with MC to source high-potential startups for the development of advanced technology. Companies can also source tailored programs or tracks for specific needs.

A study done jointly by MC and innovation firm Imaginatik looked at how startups and corporations interact in new collaborative ways. The research team surveyed 112 corporations and 233 startups from various industries. 82 percent of the corporations considered startup interactions important, and 23% stated that these interactions are “mission critical.” Startups have a high interest in working with corporations with 99% stating it is important for them to interact with potential corporate customers, marketing channels and strategic partners.

Expansion

MassChallenge was located at One Marina Park Drive until 2014.

MC communicates its impact and vision to donors by demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of alliances between startups and corporations. A solid accelerator program, global vision, robust network and a sustainable funding strategy have set up MC for success. As stated in the MC Impact Report 2016, the accelerator is committed to running 12 locations annually by 2020, including at least one on each populated continent.

Before establishing an MC accelerator, the metropolitan area is evaluated for the quality of its research universities, urban setting, level of entrepreneurship opportunity and investment capability. As government and private stakeholders partner, a sense of shared ownership becomes crucial to consolidating efforts. This engagement guarantees that the resulting ecosystems are seen as a shared legacy.

The next MC sites are yet to be announced. Currently in five locations with global impact, MC’s 2020 vision is on a path to become a tangible reality.

The author and editor would like to thank Tay Jacobe for assistance with researching and drafting this post.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Development of Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

On May 4, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner stated his support for building a data science center. The next day, he endorsed plans for an Innovation District. How would these types of development promote entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth in Houston?

The Basics

What are Research Parks, like the proposed data science center, and Innovation Districts?

Research Parks promote research, technological development and commercialization by creating a high density of universities and research institutions within a small area. By placing many innovative researchers and developers in close proximity, Research Parks encourage growth of new companies and collaboration across fields, driving technology-based economic development.

The Brookings Institution defines Innovation Districts as dense areas that bring together research institutions, high-growth firms and startups through thoughtfully designed and resource-rich commercial and residential spaces.

Research Parks and Innovation Districts slightly differ in their implementation, but both spaces aim to accomplish similar goals; they want to create physical hubs for innovation and entrepreneurial development. Typically, developers build Research Parks on new land, cultivating previously undeveloped space. Innovation Districts, however, use old land. This land was previously developed but is no longer in use.

Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Silicon Valley is a well-known Innovation District.

Both Research Parks and Innovation Districts are generative and can be helpful in stimulating local economies. Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto and Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham are some of the most well-known examples in the United States. Research Triangle Park is the largest in the country and one of the largest in the world. Stanford Research Park played a key role in the creation of Silicon Valley.

Successful Innovation Districts include Kendall Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, South Lake Union in Seattle and Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati.

What Makes These Areas Special?

Research Parks and Innovation Districts are highly productive areas. Innovation leads to new ideas and job creation. According to the Association of University Research Parks, each job in a Research Park generates approximately 2.57 additional jobs. Thus, the more than 300,000 Research Park employees in the United States lead to 700,000 additional jobs.

Innovation Districts can also produce strong results. By placing many innovators in close proximity to one another, they facilitate collaborative interactions. As Innovation Districts vary greatly in size and productivity, an accurate estimate for job creation is unavailable.

Key Factors: The Capital Stack

Layered financial tools known as a “capital stack” are necessary to promote the development Research Parks and Innovation Districts. For a capital stack that attracts investors, an area must have access to multiple types of equity, incentives and debt to provide flexibility to developers and innovators.

Developers may be able to secure planning grants through the U.S. Economic Development Administration to create the Research Park or Innovation District. These are “designed to leverage existing regional assets and support the implementation of economic development strategies that advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.” Even though Innovation Districts are built on previously developed land, the government still issues planning grants because they “advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.”

Tax credit bonds are also common debt instruments. Instead of taking on loans, municipal governments sell bonds, which provide tax credits in lieu of interest payments. Some examples are Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Economic Bonds and Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.

Equity is also an important necessity. Investment can be incentivized from a variety of sources, like New Market Tax Credits. These give tax credits to investors who make equity investments in Community Development Entities in developing and low-income communities. Housing and Urban Development community development grants and state or federal tax relief programs can also incentivize investment.

Key Factors: Social Factors

The final piece of the puzzle to create a Research Park or Innovation District is social organization. In order to facilitate collaboration and innovation, physical, intellectual and social resources need to be readily accessible.

Networking assets—“the relationships between actors—such as individuals, firms and institutions—that have the potential to generate, sharpen and accelerate the advancement of ideas”—are essential for the development of Innovation Districts. The lines of communication between developers, researchers and sources of funding must be open and easily accessible. This synergy is enhanced in Innovation Districts through the close proximity of ecosystem participants and access to shared meeting and collaboration spaces.

The Potential for Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

Many cities have developed Innovation Districts in effort to grow local entrepreneurship and innovation. Turner’s announcement of the planned Innovation District earlier this month mentioned the 40,000 jobs created by Chicago’s efforts to spur innovation. Turner noted, “It is now time for us to be more competitive, to further diversify and expand our economy. What Chicago can do, Houston can do better.”

In 2015, the University of Texas bought 332 acres of land in southwest Houston with the hopes of developing it into a small Research Park. However, in March 2017, UT Chancellor William McRaven canceled the site’s plans for development. The Houston Chronicle cites timing and lack of transparency as the main causes for the cancellation.

However, there may still be potential for a Research Park in Houston. Mayor Turner also expressed support for the proposed data science center, urging the University of Houston to take the lead. The Chairman of the University of Houston Board of Regents, Tilman Fertitta, has spoken positively about this idea, mentioning excitement about the prospect of collaborating with Rice University, Texas Southern University, Texas A&M University and the University of Texas through the development of a data hub.

Bill Gropp, the acting director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, recently stated that there is far more demand for Research Parks than there is supply. It is clear that the development of a Research Park or Innovation District would stimulate the economy and create jobs. If Houston wants to take advantage of these opportunities, the time to act is now.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

High rates of recidivism in the United States negatively affect prisons, inmates, the government and tax-paying citizens. In 2013, the U.S. imprisoned 2,220,300 people. A Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that within three years of release, 67.8% of released prisoners were rearrested. Utah_State_Prison_Wasatch_FacilityWithin five years, 76.6% of released prisoners were rearrested.

Researchers typically link recidivism to unemployment, low levels of education, mental health problems, inability to re-integrate into society after prison, impulsiveness, association with other criminals, family instability and as well as other factors.

High levels of recidivism costs states millions of dollars; A Pew Charitable Trusts study estimated that if 41 states cut their recidivism rates by 10%, they would save $635 million. On top of the monetary costs for the states, recidivism rates have a negative effect on families and communities including family instability and a higher probability that a family will live in poverty. Solving the recidivism issue would not only save the government and taxpayers money, but it would also improve the lives of former inmates and those around them.

Entrepreneurship Potential of Inmates

A variety of entrepreneurs and public service organizations have developed programs to empower prisoners and combat high recidivism rates. Notable social entrepreneurship programs such as the Last Mile and Cafe Momentum provide leadership skills and help reduce recidivism through a variety of methods. The Last Mile, as the McNair Center’s Julia Wang describes, focuses on teaching inmates business and computer skills in California. Cafe Momentum, a functional restaurant in Dallas, gives released youth offenders transferable life skills related to the restaurant industry.

While social entrepreneurship is a start, what about actually teaching entrepreneurship skills to prisoners?

While some might assume that inmates are incapable of holding down a job, let alone establishing their own businesses, the reality is that many people leaving the prison system are potential entrepreneurs. Inmates that took the Miner Sentence Completion Scale-Form T test, an assessment of entrepreneurial aptitude, scored higher than average entrepreneurs, slow-growth entrepreneurs and manager scientists. Additionally, many inmates are in prison due to their participation in illegal forms of entrepreneurship, including drug trafficking and smuggling. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt remarks that the gang in Sudhir Venkatesh’s study of the drug trade acted as a franchise for the larger Black Disciples organization. Coupled with the willingness to take risks that characterizes many inmates, prisoners could be prime candidates for entrepreneurship.

Prison Entrepreneurship Program

One of the most notable and successful programs is the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP), an innovative rehabilitation program aimed at transforming inmates in Texas. PEP places carefully selected inmates through a four-month business education program. This program teaches them skills valuable in entrepreneurial settings, including financial literacy, an employment workshop, a business etiquette course and a Toastmasters class. Participants take over forty exams and interact with business executives. The final exam involves a thirty-minute business-plan presentation. PEP also provides a prison-release and post-prison components including follow-up and startup mentoring.

PEP’s results demonstrate a fantastic return on investment, especially given the 1,300+ participants. 100% of PEP graduates find jobs within 90 days of release. Nearly 100% of these graduates stay employed after a year. Since 2004, PEP graduates have launched more than 200 businesses. Six of these generate over $1 million in gross annual revenue. Most importantly, PEP graduates have a recidivism rate of less than 7%.

Defy Ventures

Defy Ventures also provides an entrepreneurial education to inmates. This national organization, which mostly operates in New York and California, describes itself as “an entrepreneurship, employment and character development training program for currently and formerly incarcerated men, women and youth.” It puts former inmates, mostly former leaders of drug rings and gangs, through a two-month training program. Defy Ventures graduates of this program are eligible to apply for a 12-month entrepreneurship program in which they compete for startup grants. This program has a 3% recidivism rate and has produced more than 150 startups. Most of these startups are small businesses, such as eco-friendly cleaning services. Defy has distributed over half a million dollars to these startups and small businesses through business-pitch competition awards and micro-loans. Additionally, participants report a 95% employment rate within 7 months of enrolling in Defy.

Inmates to Entrepreneurs

Inmates to Entrepreneurs provides educational seminars on entrepreneurship, online resources and group-based support to help former inmates start low-capital businesses. This program, based in North Carolina, focuses on giving seminars on starting businesses in local prisons to inmates with six or fewer months to serve. Additionally, the organization brings in ex-offender mentors who run successful businesses. A.J. Ware, a member of the Board of Directors for this nonprofit noted in a TEDxRaleigh talk that participating inmates had less than a 3% recidivism rate. Additionally, former inmates had 75% employment rate within 90 days of release. Ware also stated that in 2012, participants started 14 business. Inmates to Entrepreneurs is unique in its ability to provide large-scale learning. Its online resources and seminars are easier to implement in a variety of locations compared to the other two programs.

For the Future

These three programs illustrate the potential of entrepreneurship programs in reducing U.S. recidivism rates. Expansion of these programs could potentially make the same positive impact on prison populations across the nation. However, it is also possible that the small size of these programs is integral to their success.

All of the programs described here carefully select a small group of participants. It may not be possible to target all parts of the prison population. Many of these programs have a competitive application process and low acceptance rate. Researchers could conduct further studies to see the effects of entrepreneurship programs on a large scale without rigorous selection criteria.

It may be impossible to use these programs to help all prisoners, so how many can these programs help? A 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics statistic table on federal arrests indicates that approximately 20% of inmates could have entrepreneurial potential based on their crime. White-collar crime and drug trafficking offenses all indicate entrepreneurship potential. Targeting these specific offenders with entrepreneurship programs can help reduce recidivism.

Focusing on a small subset of the population still has long-term beneficial effects for inmates and their communities. PEP has a 340% return on every dollar donated due to reduced recidivism and reliance on government assistance. The potential economic benefit of an expansion of these programs could save the government and taxpayers millions of dollars.

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
Government and Policy McNair Center Women

The Right to Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship and human rights are not frequently mentioned in the same conversation in the United States. However, in international policy, human rights and entrepreneurship are linked by many common policy goals, including enforcing the rule of law, improving infrastructure and fighting corruption. Rights necessary to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors–like the right to participate in the economy, the rights to education and information and access to credit–are considered crucial for the world’s poor. By pursuing these goals, human rights activists and entrepreneurship advocates can work together for the good of all.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/UN_Geneva_Human_Rights_and_Alliance_of_Civilizations_Room.jpg The UN Human Rights Council meets here.
The UN Human Rights Council meets in Alliance of Civilizations room in Geneva.

Human Rights

Human rights are defined by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as “rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status.” Since the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, criteria has changed. Nonetheless, human rights continue to be a top priority in international law. According to the Department of State, the U.S. places an emphasis on human rights while pursuing foreign policy goals:  “A central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

Human rights and entrepreneurship have the ability to reinforce one another. Hrishikesh D. Vinod of Fordham University examined the policy and advocacy goals of entrepreneurship and human rights, looking for areas for collaboration. He identified five key areas where the goals of entrepreneurs and rights advocates align: promotion of fair competition, creating infrastructure, protecting migration rights, exposing government corruption and preservation of the rule of law. Vinod describes entrepreneurship and human rights as natural allies. He notes that “their cooperation is likely to become a potent force for a worldwide progressive change.”

A study done by the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru helps to demonstrate Vinod’s argument in action. In this study, implementation of a human rights awareness and training campaign in Central Asia by a nongovernmental group increased new micro-businesses by five percent. The researchers who conducted this study urged that “the time is now ripe for acceptance of human rights approach to development of entrepreneurship as the human rights and entrepreneurship share a preoccupation not only with necessary outcomes for improving the lives of the people but also with better processes.”

The Right to Entrepreneurship

The United Nations Development Programme asserts that the rights that allow someone to start a business or become self-employed are “essential for the livelihoods of the poor.” The UNDP stresses that micro-entrepreneurship and self-employment are often the only option for the poor to generate money. Protection of these rights can impact many lives.

The right to entrepreneurship, along with other economic rights, can lead to the promotion of other social and political rights. A study commissioned by the World Bank explains the nature of the relationship: “The importance of participation in economic decision-making demonstrates how civil and political rights and socio-economic rights are mutually supportive, and why human rights recognize them to be interrelated, indivisible and interdependent.” For example, micro-credit and micro-entrepreneurship can increase economic, social and political empowerment of the poor, especially poor women. The Benazir Income Support Program offers small loans to women in Pakistan to pay for expenses and pursue entrepreneurship opportunities. However, this program did more than just bolster these women’s rights to entrepreneurship; the program also resulted in previously “unregistered” women becoming “registered,” giving them access to other social and political rights.

A 2010 study on women in rural Bangladesh also noticed a connection between entrepreneurship and other rights. Bangladeshi women often don’t have the opportunity to become formally involved in the economy. In this study, small bank loans gave them capital to start micro-businesses and increase their economic empowerment. With the ability to participate in trade, women can use their newfound security to pursue other rights as well.

In 2008, the Harvard Human Rights Journal pushed for the promotion of entrepreneurial rights of the poor. In their recommendation for the U.S. Human Rights agenda going forward, they suggested that the U.S. increase micro-entrepreneurship funding for other countries “because we know it works.” They added that it is “up to us to focus our resources on building a new generation of small entrepreneurs in the developing world.”

How Can This Impact Policy Decisions?

Knowing that entrepreneurship and human rights have the power to reinforce one another, we can create policy that accelerates both. When we protect human rights, individuals can feel empowered and safe to explore entrepreneurial endeavors. The trend works in the opposite direction as well; possessing the right to entrepreneurship can empower individuals to pursue the protection of their other rights. Economic power can allow vulnerable individuals to fight more effectively for the promotion of their rights.

This relationship demonstrates an important point for advocates of any cause: it is important think about collaboration whenever possible. There is always potential to find compromises that benefit all, and we have more in common than we expect.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Addressing the True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, many researchers have debated its contribution to the transfer of technology from universities to industry. Some credit the act as an engine of economic growth responsible for the emergence of the biotechnology industry. Critics say that the law decreased data sharing and basic research and increased health care costs. Others think that the act had little impact and that changes in university patenting were inevitable.

University patenting would have increased regardless of the Bayh-Dole Act. However, the act did help universities license patents, creating positive economic benefits especially in the biotechnology industry.

Background

The Bayh-Dole Act was intended to improve the commercialization of federally funded research.

Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.
Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.

Before 1980, only 5% of government-owned patents were ever utilized in industry. Corporations found it difficult, risky or unappealing to receive licenses for government patents. Several government agencies did not want to give up ownership of patents to universities or corporations. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation tended to give nonexclusive licenses to anyone, unappealing for companies. As it was easy for any company to procure licenses, the system did not incentivize companies to purchase licenses; most wanted exclusive rights.

The Bayh-Dole Act enabled institutions to keep control of patents invented using federally funded research. The university or business could then grant licenses on its own terms. The act also required universities or businesses to have clear patent policies and encourage development of inventions.

Did the Bill Work?

Claims that the Bayh-Dole Act alone led to increased patenting and economic activity surrounding university patenting are not true. Economic models show that the acceleration of patenting would still have occurred even without the act. David Mowery finds that universities increased their shares of patenting from 0.3% in 1963 to 4% by 1999. However, he notes that this increase had already begun before 1980, which indicates that the Bayh-Dole Act was not its cause.

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, more than 5,000 new companies have formed from federally funded university research. In 2008, more than 600 new university products were introduced to the marketplace. According to MIT, about 30 billion dollars of economic activity per year and 250,000 jobs can be attributed to technology born in academic institutions.

The Bayh-Dole Act may not have been the only contributor, but these large numbers show the importance of university innovation to the economy and make it clear that innovation spurring legislature can have enormous positive effects on economic growth.

Creation of the Biotechnology Industry

From the 1968-1970 period to the 1978-1980 period, biomedical university patents increased by 295%. Biomedicine, an important part of biotechnology, was therefore growing rapidly before the introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act. Most likely increased funding in the field, advances in science and emergence industry interest also played major roles in the growth of university patenting in this area.

The Bayh-Dole Act likely contributed to increased licensing of university biotechnology patents. The ability of universities to license patents created strong incentives for many scientist-entrepreneurs to form companies around their inventions. At least 50% of current biotech companies began as a result of a university license. Additionally, 76% of biotechnology companies have at least one license from a university.

These license based biotech companies have made huge impacts on the economy. University licensing of biotechnology patents generated more than $40 billion in economic activity in 1999. According to Boston University, biotechnology companies represented over 1.42 million jobs in 2008, and the bioscience sector as a whole represents an employment impact of 8 million jobs. By 2009, 1,699 biotech firms generated annual sales of $48.2 billion.

Addressing Criticisms

Critics of the Bayh-Dole Act cite the decrease of data sharing, higher health care costs and a shift away from fundamental research as flaws of the law.

Because researchers patent new inventions, they might tie up research data in patent rights. This could prevent other researchers from accessing this data, slowing the research process. An article by Neil Thompson and others suggest that this isn’t true in practice. They find no evidence that licensing of academic patents limits the sharing of research data. However, their work leaves open whether licenses on research tools lead to restrictions on continual research in a subject.

Many also argue that health care costs have increased as a result of the Act. Biomedical university patents often can be utilized in the process of drug creation. As these discoveries are not final products, companies must license each patent that they use to create a drug. The cost of licensing many of these patents allegedly drives up the cost of the final product, hurting the consumer. The NIH and USPTO have created guidelines to prevent the unreasonable licensing of biomedical patents. However, these guidelines are not all concrete.

While this “royalty stacking” may contribute to high prices, it is unfair to blame the costs solely on the Bayh-Dole Act. Drug development includes a multitude of phases with high costs that extend beyond patents at each step. Many drugs could also not have been developed without the help of the patented technologies.

Finally, others point out that applied research generates more money from patenting. They argue that the Bayh-Dole Act therefore incentivizes universities to focus on applied research instead of basic research. This too is not true. According to the National Science Foundation, the percentage of basic science research from 1980 to 2001 increased from 66.6% to 74.1%. Applied researched actually decreased from 33.4% to 25.9%.

Conclusion

The Bayh-Dole Act was not the sole factor in the increase of university patenting. However, it does appear to have played an important role in the licensing of university patents, particularly in the biotechnology industry.

The biotechnology is sector is large and growing. In 1980, it was almost nonexistent. By 2009, the sales of just 1,699 biotech firms were worth more than 2.5% of U.S. GDP. Academic intellectual property provides the crucial foundation for this sector. Further incentivizes for university patenting and its licensing could therefore drive yet more economic growth.

In addition, the government could encourage the use of unlicensed academic patents by offering tax breaks to companies who commercialize them. It could also encourage universities that excel at technology transfer such as Stanford or MIT to share best practices to other universities.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Innovation Weekly Roundup: 12/02/16

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about innovation this week:

Closing the Gender Patenting Gap Could Unlock Innovation

Barbara Gault, Executive Director, Institute for Women’s Policy Research

A study by the Institute for Women’s Policy research has quantified the gender difference in patenting. The IWPR claims women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields is a major in the patent disparity and notes that patents granted to coed teams are cited more often than patents granted to single gender teams.

The divide is significant; under 20 percent of US patents cite a woman inventor and under 8 percent list a woman as the primary inventor. The IWPR suggests employers help women pay for filing patent applications and expand women’s professional network to close the gap. The McNair Center’s Tay Jacobe has written about has written about the gender gap in STEM.

Is Engine of Innovation in Danger of Stalling?

Christopher Mims, Technology Columnist, Wall Street Journal

The basic discoveries at the heart of the biggest tech companies are growing old fast. Inventions like the transistor and internet, while not relics, were invented between 1940 and 1980 when federal funding allowed for long-term research without immediate commercial use. At that time, the federal government spent 2 percent of GDP on research and development. That figure is now 0.6 percent.

The landscape of R&D has shifted. Now, corporate R&D spending is at 2 percent of GDP, from under 0.6% in the 1960’s. While this appears beneficial at face value, since the corporations who profit off inventions are funding them, it hides the fact that basic discoveries and incremental advancement is overlooked in favor of easily marketable technologies. Arati Prabhakar, Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) explains, “we need public investment in R&D because companies only worry about the next quarter.”

Venture capitalists now fund by backing startups that are then acquired for their innovations. This still places an onus on inventors to work on marketable technologies rather than truly speculative research that used to be the foray of Bell Labs and still is in the domain of IBM Research.

How China’s Government Helps and Hinders Innovation

Anil Gupta, Professor, University of Maryland Smith School of Business; Cofounder of China India Institute
Haiyan Wang, Managing Partner, China India Institute

Although India spends a tenth of what China spends on R&D, Indian research leads to significantly more international patents than Chinese R&D.  The top-10 US tech companies’ Indian based labs were granted 50% more patents than their Chinese counterparts.

China’s shift from low-cost manufacturing to innovation is a case-study in how government policies, particularly insufficient patent protection, can inhibit innovation. Gupta and Wang claim that China’s heavy R&D investment have led to unimpressive results since foreign companies are wary about intellectual property protection in China.

While China accounts for 20 percent of global R&D expenditure, second to the US at 26 percent, they are granted relatively few international patents. Only 2.2% of USPTO patents were of Chinese origin. More patents originated in nations like Japan (18.8%) and Germany (5.5%).

China Logged a Record-Breaking 1 Million Patent Applications in 2015

Ananya Bhattarchya, Editorial Fellow, Quartz

According to a World Intellectual Property Organization report, global patent applications were up 7.8 percent in 2015 to 2.9 million filings. China emphasizes patent quantity over quality and that much of local research is not original research but rather adapting existing inventions for Chinese markets. In line with this theory, the Chinese patent office received 1,010,406 of the 2.9 million global patent applications. In second was the USPTO with 526,000 applications and the top 5 patent offices handled 82.5 percent of applications.

Government subsidies and foreign companies applying for Chinese patents for greater IP protection in the country drives the patent increase.

While China’s office has seen the greatest growth, the USPTO remains the leader in foreign patent applications with nearly 238,000 foreign patent applications.

Happy Holidays from the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation. The Innovation Weekly Roundup will return in 2017.

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs

Spotlight on Rice Entrepreneurs: An Outlet for Owlets

Owlet

An Outlet for Owlets: New Opportunities for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Rice

On November 15, the Princeton Review ranked Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business third in the top graduate programs for entrepreneurship. For the past eight years, the Jones School’s entrepreneurship program has ranked in the top 10 in the nation. In addition to the Jones School’s ongoing success, several programs focus on undergraduate entrepreneurship and innovation. Recently launched programs promote entrepreneurship through student-led efforts and university-sponsored initiatives.

Consolidating student-led efforts

At the end of Spring 2016, two undergraduate entrepreneurship clubs, Rice Launch (led by Ben Herndon-Miller and Jake Nyquist) and Rice Conversations (led by Iris Huang and Doria Du), merged to form the Rice Entrepreneurship Club. The new club organizes a variety of events, including casual lunch conversations with entrepreneurs, pitch practices and mentor workshops.

Working closely with the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship and the Rice Entrepreneurship Initiative, the club shares opportunities and resources to encourage greater student collaboration. “I think the merge empowered the student leaders from both clubs to better serve student entrepreneurs at Rice,” said Iris Huang ’17, President of the Entrepreneurship Club. “With the substantial pool of combined resources, we are now able to put on more diverse programs and make a larger impact on the student population.”

Developing university-wide programs

In March 2016, Rice alumnus Frank Liu and his family gave $16.5 million to establish the Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie). Headed by Dr. Yael Hochberg and Dr. Abby Larson, Lilie gives students access to the expertise and experiences that will help them launch their own enterprises.  Beginning next spring, courses offered through Lilie will encourage students to solve real-world problems while working with faculty and entrepreneurs. The Lilie New Entrepreneurs Grant will help incoming freshmen, starting with the Class of 2020, to fund their business ventures. Before matriculating, freshmen can apply for the $10,000 grant that funds the most creative and compelling business ideas.

Learning from entrepreneurs

Students listen to Scott Novich and Evan Dougal from Neosensory.
Students listen to Rice alumni Scott Novich and Evan Dougal from Neosensory.

Through casual conversations and more formal lectures, the Entrepreneurship Club and Lilie have emphasized directly connecting students with entrepreneurs.

On September 15, the club hosted NeoSensory, a startup co-founded by Scott Novich (Rice PhD ‘16). NeoSensory mathematically maps data streams with temporal characteristics to develop a vest that helps the deaf experience sound through touch. More than 70 attendees learned about the product development timeline, the investment process and university intellectual property licensing through the perspective of a startup.

More recently, on October 19, the Rice Entrepreneurship Club hosted a conversation with Shaan Puri from Monkey Inferno, a San Francisco incubator that turns Internet project ideas into successful businesses. Monkey Inferno sold Bebo to AOL for $850 million in 2008 and currently uses that money to fund new projects. Puri shared his perspectives on forming teams and overcoming conflict and disappointment. Additionally, he advised students to become “learning machines,” always looking to learn more and improve. To achieve momentum, Puri encouraged aspiring entrepreneurs to dedicate time each day to their business idea.

Shaan Puri from Monkey Inferno Skypes in from the Silicon Valley to speak with Rice undergraduates.
Shaan Puri from Monkey Inferno Skypes in from the Silicon Valley to speak with Rice undergraduates.

As part of the Lilie Lecture Series, Dr. Larson hosted an event with Samantha Snabes on October 26. Snabes served as the Entrepreneur-in-Residence and Strategist at NASA and founded re:3D, which makes 3D printing more accessible and scalable. During the lecture, Snabes spoke about taking big risks and establishing strong relationships with peers and mentors. When asked about the differences between the startup cultures of the Silicon Valley and cities in Texas, Snabes noted the benefits of being located in Texas while Austin, Dallas and Houston are growing as centers of startup activity.

Dr. Larson explains, “The Lectures bring together expertise and energies from across Rice and Houston. Each Lecture features the insights of an established entrepreneur or innovator on a question of interest to people working across a range of fields. The Lectures provide an opportunity for the exchange of questions and ideas between people who are innovating in many different contexts, and as such, often lead to new and shared insights.”

Engaging undergraduates in entrepreneurial activity

November 4-6, Rice and University of Houston students used this advice to develop technology ventures at 3 Day Startup. During the event, 45 students worked together in 9 teams at TMCx. Prototypes included an Airbnb-style app that connects travelers with locals for authentic meal experiences, a frictionless rental service for household tools and a marketplace where artists can cater to consumers’ requests for original artwork.

Maintaining momentum

The increased focus on entrepreneurship and innovation on campus is promising. This spark will attract more entrepreneurial talent and advance Rice University’s reputation as a hub for innovation.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Obama in the White House

Generating an Innovation Nation

The Obama administration’s policies toward small business and entrepreneurship have received mixed reactions. While Obama elevated the administrator of the Small Business Administration to a cabinet position and the SBA increased its lending to small businesses, some small business owners felt that the government bailed out big businesses at their expense after the 2008 financial crisis. Many small business owners are concerned about the effects of the Affordable Care Act.

Over the course of his presidency, Obama has played a part in connecting innovation with government. During his first term, he created the positions of Chief Technology Officer, Chief Data Scientist and Chief Performance Officer. In 2012, he began selecting entrepreneurs to work as Presidential Innovation Fellows within the federal government to make government more efficient, impactful and user-friendly.

Inspired by startups and music

Austin’s South by Southwest music and media festival inspired President Obama’s latest innovation project South by South Lawn (SXSL). Last month, the Obama administration invited community change-makers nominated by the public to attend SXSL. Innovators gathered at the White House to discuss how they use technology to advance areas like technology, food, art and collaboration.

On the technology panel “Fixing Real Problems,” innovators like Chris Redlitz (founding partner of Transmedia Capital and founder of The Last Mile), Jukay Hsu (founder of Coalition for Queens) and Nina Tandon (founder of EpiBone) addressed societal issues, including criminal justice reform, health care costs, access to higher education and job opportunities. Panelists emphasized the importance of understanding the impact of company growth on surrounding communities when planning for future endeavors. They emphasized the importance of creating inclusive access to the new opportunities brought about by societal transformation and technological change.

Focus on social entrepreneurship

With the Access Code program at Coalition for Queens, Jukay Hsu aims to increase economic opportunities in Queens. The program allows populations usually underrepresented in the technology field, like women and minorities, to gain the skills needed to enter the field. There are no upfront costs, but graduates of the program are expected to “pay it forward” by committing a percentage of their first two year’s salary toward funding future Access Code cohorts.

Chris Redlitz created The Last Mile in 2008 in an effort to reduce recidivism rates. For successful criminal justice reform, inmates need the skills to readjust to the outside world. To meet this need, the Last Mile started a six-month program for inmates to develop companies and pitch their ideas to the business community. In 2014, Redlitz created the first computer coding program in a United States prison, teaching HTML, JavaScript, CSS and Python.

Nod to for-profit entrepreneurship

At EpiBone, Nina Tandon provides patient-specific, customized bone grafts created from the patient’s own stem cells. Through this personalization of treatment, she aims to simplify procedures, provide more exact care and reduce the costs of post-surgery treatments. Each year, over 100,000 patients have bone-related surgeries in the United States alone. EpiBone could potentially increase access to these necessary operations through reducing costs and rehabilitation times.

Bringing innovation within government

Obama invited technology executives to join him in Washington to spearhead innovation in government. Former Google executive Megan Smith now serves as the United States Chief Technology Officer. Microsoft executive Kurt DelBene took a leave of absence in 2013 to help fix the problems with HealthCare.gov.

At SXSL, Presidential Innovation Fellows shared their projects to improve government efficiency at the “Startup in the White House” exhibit. Jacqueline Kazil’s GeoQ crowdsources geo-tagged photos to quicken disaster response. With the Green Button Initiative, John Teeter aims to help Americans understand and improve their energy use. The innovation company 18F has been developing NotAlone.Gov to provide students and schools with access to resources against sexual assault. Visitors saw how design and technology could potentially modernize the immigration system, improve veterans’ access to benefits and increase cancer patients’ access to clinical trials.

The first SXSL – and the last?

Although technology will not cure all of society’s ills, it has the potential to improve lives more quickly than any government institution could. Continuing initiatives that focus on creative solutions leads to a more widespread awareness of this potential. The federal government should focus on technology and innovation as integral contributors of growth.

Obama used SXSL to show innovation’s potential in policy solutions. Unfortunately, he made no mention of policy toward small businesses, particularly for-profit enterprises. Events like SXSL must also focus on policy that accelerates for-profit entrepreneurship that aid U.S. economy growth. There was no mention of how the federal government would incentivize entrepreneurship to strengthen the U.S. economy and maintain competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Whether through another South by South Lawn or the inclusion of innovators in policy solutions, the Trump administration should seek to make government more inclusive, transparent and effective. However, simply embracing startup culture and bringing entrepreneurs into government is far from enough. For entrepreneurship to play its full role, the U.S. needs policies that will actually help small businesses, not hinder. Only then will small enterprises and startups be able to take their place as drivers of economic growth.

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.