Measuring tech transfer’s impact

Friday, Feb. 24, 2006

Click here to enlarge this photo Charlie Shoemaker⁄The Gazette Officials with the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute’s Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology in Rockville expect to open the 140,000-square-foot ‘‘CARB II” facility in September. ‘‘It seems like there’s more things to do than we’re capable of doing right now,” says CARB director Edward Eisenstein, referring to the need for more resources. ‘‘It’s not just facilities — it’s also putting it together in a meaningful way.”

Research to benefit the crab harvest, for example, has limitless value: the health of the Chesapeake Bay, the restaurants that serve crabs, the tourists, he said.

‘‘It’s always difficult to measure the impact of science on the economy,” said Nash, UMBI’s vice president of research and development.

While ‘‘tech transfer” is often thought of as commercialization, Nash said that that was only the end of a process that included discovery and protecting technology through patents. He identified three ways to commercialize technology from research: partnering with industry and other institutions to improve the technology; actively helping start companies; and licensing.

One tangible way to measure progress in commercialization is the number of invention disclosures, the first step in seeking patent protection for a new technology, with UMBI researchers having filed 37 disclosures in fiscal 2005.

Most disclosures could end up never finding licenses, but the number of disclosures does tell a little bit about how big an institution’s pipeline is, said John Fraser, incoming president of the Association of University Technology Managers.

An industry average in the 1990s for tech transfer offices was one invention disclosure per $2 million in research, but there is no particular minimum to indicate whether a university is doing well, Fraser said.

UMBI does not submit data to the association’s annual licensing survey, and Nash said it wouldn’t be particularly useful because the association surveys such vastly different institutions.

The association’s most recently available data are for fiscal 2004, which for UMBI ended July 1, 2004. That year, the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported 70 invention disclosures and College Park reported 109 disclosures. The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, a Maryland competitor, reported 120 invention disclosures. All have more research funds than UMBI has.

Because UMBI is not an academic institution, it is difficult to weigh its results with various universities’. But in the area of patents, UMBI’s results are strong when compared with the University of Maryland campuses that report to the technology managers’ association. In fiscal, UMBI issued 11 patents and submitted 56 new patent applications.

UMBI reported $432,935 in licensing revenue in fiscal 2005 — up 47.6 percent from about $293,300 one year earlier. That year, the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported just $123,090 and Baltimore County $55,309. College Park reported $930,045, while the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, reported $3.9 million.

UMBI is in the process of identifying the most similar ‘‘peers” from other universities to conduct a more accurate assessment of how UMBI compares nationally, Nash said.