AUTM on the Air

There’s a fundamental shift happening in the world of American research universities, and people across higher education are feeling it. Funding that once seemed dependable is now uncertain, and the pressure coming from political and economic changes is hard to overlook. More and more, leaders and researchers are asking tough questions about how the current system can keep up, and what needs to evolve to protect the future of discovery and innovation.Today’s guest, Dr. Yasheng Huang, brings a thoughtful and deeply informed perspective to that conversation. He is the Epic Foundation Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and one of the world’s leading voices on global innovation systems, technology policy, and the Chinese economy. He has written 13 books, including Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, named Best Book of 2008 by The Economist, and The Rise and Fall of the East, selected by Foreign Affairs as its Best Book of 2023. His recent article in Nature, Universities Must Harness Their Financial Value, has sparked an important debate across higher education.In this episode, Dr. Huang talks about why the traditional funding compact between universities and the federal government is breaking down, why universities create extraordinary economic value that they rarely capture, and what bold new approaches might protect the future of research. He also shares a candid warning about the risk of losing scientific talent, and why innovation within university finance may be essential to preserving the innovation ecosystem itself.In This Episode:[02:15] Dr. Huang explains why he opened his Nature article with a comparison between university endowments and Elon Musk’s wealth.[04:02] Discussion on the imbalance between perceived university wealth and actual financial resources needed for research.[06:51] Historical accumulation of endowments vs. rapid individual wealth creation highlights the funding disparity.[08:29] The economic impact of university-driven innovation and the paradox of unrecognized value.[09:51] Examples of Stanford and MIT entrepreneurship driving massive global GDP value that universities cannot record financially.[12:52] Dr. Huang reflects on the communication gap between universities and the general public about research impact.[16:39] Explanation of the historic “social compact” between universities and the federal government after World War II.[18:00] How legislative changes enabled university-owned IP and helped spark modern entrepreneurship.[20:00] The consequences of current funding suspensions, budget cuts, and a proposed tax on endowment income.[21:40] Rising costs of scientific research and the increasing scale of talent and equipment needed to sustain discovery.[24:53] Funding imbalances across disciplines, with material science and energy research falling behind.[27:59] Licensing revenue limitations and why patent income cannot sustain university budgets alone.[34:49] The Weizmann Institute model and lessons from more aggressive IP commercialization strategies.[37:51] The tension between commercialization and academic values, and the need for responsible guardrails.[39:14] Proposal to explore taxing a small portion of faculty outside consulting income to support shared research infrastructure.[46:55] Discussion of equity across disciplines and why financial benefits rarely flow to the broader academic community.[52:06] The risk of losing scientific talent to other countries and historical examples of long-term consequences.[59:55] A hopeful note about recent elections and restoring confidence in the stability of democratic institutions.[1:00:28] Reflections on academic freedom and the need for bold innovation in university funding models.Resources: Yasheng Huang - MIT Management Sloan SchoolYasheng Huang - MIT Center for International StudiesUniversities Under Fire Must Harness More Of The Financial Value They CreateCapitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the StateThe Rise and Fall of the East

Mental health is increasingly a focus in Tech Transfer as people try to keep pace with heavy workloads, fast-moving deadlines, and the pressure to make the right call with limited time and information. To bring more attention to what professionals are experiencing, we’re opening a new series on wellbeing and resilience with a conversation featuring today’s guest, Jane Wainwright. This series will look at the challenges many carry quietly and highlight approaches that support healthier, more sustainable workplaces across research commercialization.Jane has spent more than twenty years at Potter Clarkson and led the firm’s biotechnology practice. Over the course of her career, she managed global life sciences portfolios, supported clients through demanding legal and scientific issues, and served in senior leadership roles. Alongside that work, she trained as a mental health first aider, earned advanced coaching credentials, founded Starry-Eyed Pragmatics, and joined the advisory board of Jonathan’s Voice, a charity dedicated to mental health within the IP profession.We discuss the pressures she has seen across both patent practice and tech transfer, from perfectionism and tight timelines to the “always on” habits that leave many people exhausted. She shares what she’s seen help in real workplaces, including more substantial support from leadership and better ways to share responsibility for urgent matters. Jane also reflects on how small culture shifts can make it easier for people to do their work without feeling overwhelmed. It’s a practical, honest way to start this new series and a conversation many listeners will recognize from their own environments.In This Episode:[01:03] Jane’s background in high-pressure patent work sets the stage for discussing mental health challenges.[01:32] The conversation outlines the real consequences of missed deadlines and the constant pressure to get things right.[02:26] Jane’s shift toward mental health advocacy and her work with Jonathan’s Voice comes into focus.[03:04] She describes the mental health landscape in IP and why perfectionism and long hours contribute to hidden struggles.[04:03] Jane shares her personal experience with depression and anxiety and explains how it shaped her advocacy.[07:57] We discuss how global uncertainty, rapid change, and AI concerns add new layers of stress.[09:19] Data from a wellbeing survey highlights how deadlines, workloads, and client demands affect IP professionals.[12:42] Differences in workload stress across regions and firm sizes come up as contributors to burnout.[14:54] Why perfectionism makes it hard for teams to accept "good enough" under tight timelines.[17:21] We address why many feel unable to take time off and how workload pressure affects vacation habits.[18:22] Jane talks about surface-level wellness initiatives versus meaningful organizational change.[19:34] She emphasizes the importance of team structures that share responsibility and reduce overload.[21:01] The role of teamwork and continuity planning in reducing stress becomes a central theme.[22:07] Strategies for very small TTOs and solo practitioners are explored, including outsourcing and prioritization.[23:18] The importance of having a support network and access to confidential help is discussed.[24:57] Jane reflects on her transition from partner to full-time wellbeing and coaching work.[29:03] We examine how senior leaders view mental health and the need to “meet them where they are.”[30:29] Generational differences in attitudes toward mental health begin to shift firm culture.[32:35] Emotional intelligence is highlighted as a core competency for supporting healthy teams.[35:31] Leadership modeling of healthy behavior helps build psychological safety.[35:47] What actually works beyond wellness perks, including trust and clear expectations.[37:59] Jane discusses role modeling, healthy boundaries, and avoiding the “always available” culture.[40:21] Emotional intelligence as a learnable skill is explored, including how it evolves.[41:54] Signs of cultural change give Jane hope, alongside growing awareness and new generations entering the field.[44:03] Real progress takes time, especially in high-workload environments like U.S. law firms.[44:47] Why mental health and organizational performance are deeply connected.Resources: Starry-Eyed PragmaticsJane Wainwright - LinkedInJonathan’s Voice2022 Mental Wellbeing Survey of the IP Profession

Few studies have explored the global state of university intellectual property commercialization as deeply as this brief, Unlocking University IP: Global Insights into Commercialization Challenges and Opportunities. In this episode, we take a close look at that landmark UIIN Insights Brief with its lead authors, Dr. Todd Davey and Medisa Focic, to better understand how universities around the world are managing and monetizing their research. Together, they offer a rare global perspective on the systems, people, and policies that shape how ideas move from campus labs to the marketplace.Dr. Todd Davey, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School in Paris and Associate Partner with the University Industry Innovation Network (UIIN), brings decades of experience in connecting academia and industry. His co-author, Medisa Focic, a PhD candidate at the University of Technology Sydney, studies how IP policies are designed, implemented, and interpreted across Europe. Their combined research examines five major regions —North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America —and what these differences reveal about innovation and opportunity.The conversation touches on everything from the Bayh-Dole Act’s lasting influence in the U.S. to Europe’s evolving focus on valorization, where social and cultural value often matter as much as revenue. Todd and Medisa explain how strong, government-driven innovation systems in parts of Asia contrast with Africa’s emerging models built on homegrown solutions and local needs. Across these regions, they uncover a common thread: universities recognize the potential of IP, but still face structural and cultural barriers that hinder their progress.By the end of the discussion, a call for collaboration across continents emerges. Todd and Medisa make the case for ecosystem thinking: a more inclusive, evidence-based approach that measures success beyond patents and profits. They highlight lessons from institutions like MIT, Oxford, and Tsinghua University, where leadership, culture, and clarity around IP have turned innovation into impact. Their message is clear: unlocking the world’s intellectual property potential starts with aligning people, policy, and purpose.In This Episode:[00:33] Introducing guests Dr. Todd Davey and Medisa Focic, who are here to talk about the UIIN Insights Brief.[01:08] Todd has a background in entrepreneurship and university-industry collaboration.[02:16] Medisa has done research on IP management and policy frameworks across Europe.[03:52] The motivation behind their ambitious comparative study and what they hoped to uncover.[05:16] Why IP remains an underexplored asset in higher education worldwide.[06:21] Examining the persistent gap between potential and real commercialization outcomes.[07:45] How the absence of coherent IP policies limits innovation capacity.[08:38] Understanding the “Valley of Death” and the time it takes for research to reach the market.[09:26] Concentration of licensing revenue among elite universities and lessons learned.[10:52] Rethinking how success is measured beyond patents and spinouts.[12:12] The Bayh-Dole Act’s lasting impact on the North American IP model.[13:31] Why the U.S. framework can’t simply be copied in civil-law systems like Europe.[15:18] Exploring Europe’s valorisation approach and its focus on social and cultural value.[16:31] Examples of non-traditional outputs—policy advice, education, and consulting.[18:06] Broader focus on societal good and inclusive research across disciplines.[19:47] Social innovation accelerators in Canada and similar global movements.[20:42] Asia’s government-driven IP strategies and their success factors.[22:20] How policy, infrastructure, and funding link R&D to commercialization in Asia.[23:35] Emerging IP frameworks in Africa are centered on local solutions and social impact.[25:03] Why resources, context, and priorities shape Africa’s innovation path.[26:57] The seven major global challenges identified in the UIIN report.[29:20] Underfunded tech transfer offices and the need for skilled personnel.[30:33] Academic incentive gaps and the burden of extra commercialization work.[32:44] Addressing bureaucracy and cultural barriers between academia and industry.[33:39] Building trust through small collaborations and clear communication.[35:54] Shared goals, transparency, and mutual benefit as foundations for partnership.[37:35] Encouraging academics to learn the language of industry and engage directly.[38:56] Misalignments between institutional policies and real-world IP practice.[40:26] How unclear disclosure processes frustrate academic inventors.[41:47] Lessons from MIT, Oxford, and Tsinghua—what top performers do differently.[44:00] Institutional culture, leadership, and training as key ingredients of success.[45:26] The role of revenue-sharing policies in motivating and rewarding researchers.[47:37] Balancing financial incentives with recognition and purpose.[48:47] Moving from one-to-one collaborations to broader ecosystem models.[50:38] Real-world example: Siemens’ shift to many-to-many partnerships.[52:25] Recommendations for developing stronger institutional innovation cultures.[55:16] Aligning incentives between faculty, TTOs, and administration.[57:12] Expanding training and capacity-building programs across regions.[60:04] Integrating social and economic impact metrics into tech transfer performance.[63:15] The future of ecosystem-based innovation and the rise of data-driven insights.[66:00] Redefining success to include collaboration, trust, and social value.Resources: Unlocking University IP: Global Insights into Commercialization Challenges and OpportunitiesTodd Davey - Todd Davey - Institut Mines-TélécomTodd Davey - LinkedInMedisa Focic - LinkedIn

Few people bridge the worlds of engineering, venture capital, and biotech entrepreneurship the way Sam Tetlow does. After early years at General Electric and a successful run in venture capital, Sam founded The Grant Engine out of frustration with a broken system with too many brilliant innovators failing to secure the funding they needed to move lifesaving research forward. What began as a personal mission to write better grants for his own portfolio companies has evolved into a thriving 75-person firm that now submits more than five percent of all NIH SBIR applications in the United States, with win rates two to four times higher than the national average.In this conversation, Sam talks about what makes The Grant Engine’s approach so different including the deep training every writer goes through before ever touching a client proposal, the collaborative “brain trust” culture that fuels problem-solving, and the rigorous external reviews that pressure-test every draft. He explains how the company’s structure mirrors that of a venture-backed startup by being focused, data-driven, and built for scale without the equity trade-offs. They help clients access non-dilutive funding that keeps ownership intact while accelerating innovation.We also take a look at today’s funding landscape. Sam doesn’t shy away from describing 2025 as a turbulent, even “scary,” year for federal research programs. His message is to stay the course. He shares how The Grant Engine is guiding clients through political uncertainty, shifting budgets, and the sudden influx of AI-generated proposals that flooded agencies last year. Along the way, he offers grounded advice for tech transfer offices and startups, plus how to prepare when others freeze, where new opportunities are emerging, and why persistence, preparation, and quality still win.In This Episode:[00:33] Sam’s career journey from aerospace engineering to venture capital and entrepreneurship.[01:40] The origins of The Grant Engine and how a failed grant experience sparked a new business model.[02:52] The mission behind The Grant Engine by helping innovators secure non-dilutive funding that saves lives.[03:45] How the company grew to 75 employees and achieved a win rate two to four times higher than the national average.[05:12] What makes The Grant Engine’s approach different from traditional grant writing services.[06:45] Why rigorous training and mentorship create consistently successful grant writers.[07:58] The importance of subject matter expert reviews before engaging a client.[08:38] External peer reviews and the “pressure test” process that elevates proposal quality.[09:43] Discussion on the national drop in SBIR win rates and how The Grant Engine’s rates improved despite it.[11:30] Understanding their higher success rates across Phase I, Phase II, and Fast Track programs.[13:10] How The Grant Engine’s “X factor” lies in data, experience, and honest client feedback.[15:02] Regular internal analysis: studying what makes a proposal win or lose.[16:20] How understanding study section audiences helps tailor more competitive applications.[17:09] The link between commercialization experience and strong grant proposals.[18:50] The “Find, Win, and Manage” framework that defines The Grant Engine’s services.[20:20] How the company helps clients identify the right solicitations and map funding to product roadmaps.[22:00] Managing post-award compliance and staying “audit ready.”[22:33] Addressing turbulence in federal funding and the ongoing government shutdown.[24:00] Sam’s take on political uncertainty and how intentional disruption is affecting research programs.[25:54] Why this is a time to double down rather than pull back from federal funding pursuits.[26:58] The impact of AI-generated grant proposals on funding success rates.[27:56] The case for staying persistent and why consistency eventually beats randomness in the review process.[29:33] Outlook for 2026 and how to prepare for the eventual SBIR reauthorization.[31:44] The shifting balance between academic and company-based research funding.[32:24] Signs of hope: proposals to double SBIR allocations and bipartisan support for innovation funding.[34:16] Advice to continue preparing proposals even while programs are paused.[36:46] Why readiness for the next submission window creates a competitive advantage.[38:20] The benefits of over-preparation and staying proactive through uncertainty.[39:53] How The Grant Engine uses AI responsibly by augmenting research without replacing human expertise.[41:30] The limits of AI writing tools and the danger of relying on them for winning proposals.[42:38] The company’s acquisition of Streamline and its research on predictive grant modeling.[44:50] New opportunities ahead in defense, cybersecurity, space, and life sciences.[47:20] Observations on budget trends and where funding will likely expand or contract.[50:29] Encouragement for startups and tech transfer professionals to stay motivated and adaptable.[51:33] Viewing challenges as evolution and how adversity strengthens teams and innovators.[54:05] Staying fit, staying ready, and building a stronger innovation ecosystem.Resources: Grant EngineSam Tetlow - Grant EngineSam Tetlow - LinkedInFunding@GrantEngine.com

It’s often the connections between people that keep innovation burning bright. My guest today is Joe Runge. He’s spent more than two decades exploring that truth from several angles, including as a practicing patent lawyer, published scientist, educator, and veteran of the innovation economy. Joe holds the rare distinction of being the only student in history to earn both a law degree and a master’s degree in biology simultaneously from the University of Iowa, a combination that uniquely shaped his perspective on how science and law intersect to move discoveries into the world.Today, Joe serves as Associate Director and Co-Founder of the UNeTech Institute, a joint research institute between the University of Nebraska Omaha and the University of Nebraska Medical Center. His work extends far beyond traditional tech transfer. He’s helped secure over $5 million in competitive funding through economic development and entrepreneurship grants, while guiding faculty, startups, and community partners through the often-uncertain process of turning research into real-world impact.In our conversation, Joe reflects on his recent TEDx Omaha talk, "Innovation Needs Connection," in which he explores how a single word can change everything and why understanding your audience is just as critical as understanding your invention. We talk about the emotional side of tech transfer, from frustration and failure to purpose and gratitude. We also discuss how UNeTech’s latest ventures, including Respira AI and IMPOWER HEALTH demonstrate what happens when collaboration meets creativity.In This Episode:[01:57] Joe reflects on co-founding UNeTech and the transition from Unimed to a broader vision for innovation in Nebraska.[03:26] Revisiting Joe’s past podcast, Innovation Overground, and how scaling UNeTech changed his focus.[04:15] The origin of Joe’s TEDx Omaha tal,k Innovation Needs Connection, and how one word, stent versus balloon, shifted everything.[07:07] Lessons from the “stent to balloon” moment about language, audience, and empathy in tech transfer.[08:54] Understanding cultural differences between scientists and industry partners.[09:29] Why Joe chose to be open about frustration and anger in his TEDx talk and what that revealed about connection and authenticity.[12:18] Helping inventors stay hopeful despite statistics showing most patents and startups fail.[13:32] How UNeTech reframed innovation work toward workforce development and long-term community impact.[16:02] Balancing urgency and burnout while tackling global challenges like climate change and pandemics.[18:59] The personal reflections and family conversations sparked by Joe’s TEDx experience.[21:30] How applying for TEDx became an unexpected journey of self-discovery and professional identity.[24:58] The meaning behind “big ideas must die three deaths” and learning to value failure as part of excellence.[27:52] Joe’s biggest lessons from projects that didn’t make it to market and how humility plays a role in resilience.[30:21] UNeTech’s exciting startup portfolio, including Respira AI for COPD monitoring and IMPOWER HEALTH’S self-pacing treadmill.[33:23] Joe’s new role with Gearhart Law and how his tech transfer background informs his IP work.[36:27] Emotional intelligence and vulnerability as tools for better collaboration in tech transfer.[38:04] Encouragement to reflect, redefine success, and find personal purpose in innovation work.[39:08] What keeps Joe inspired about the future of innovation and why human connection remains at the heart of progress.Resources: AUTMUNeTech InstituteInnovation needs connection | Joe Runge | TEDxOmahaInnovation Overground PodcastJoe Runge - LinkedInGearhart Law

Some people talk about innovation. Others live it. Michael Lyon has built a career that bridges worlds most of us only dream about, from helping launch the first space tourists to diving miles beneath the ocean surface, and now mentoring the next generation of tech entrepreneurs. A Harvard Law graduate with experience spanning government, finance, and frontier industries, Michael has spent over 40 years helping bold ideas find their place in the real world. Today, he serves as a longtime mentor at the Creative Destruction Lab, guiding hundreds of founders in fields like space, ocean technology, and AI.In this conversation, Michael shares the hard-won lessons behind his new book, Accelerating Startups: Lessons from Mentors. He opens up about the questions founders don’t always stop to ask, like whether they’re truly ready for the risks, trade-offs, and constant pressure that come with building something new. Michael explains why it’s smarter to chase a real-world problem than to fall in love with a piece of technology, and how founders can stay grounded when money, time, and people all pull in different directions. What stands out is how he draws on the precision of a lawyer and the curiosity of an adventurer to illustrate the messy and rewarding nature of the startup path.We also discuss the human side of Tech Transfer, including how universities can better prepare innovators for the leap into business, what it means to listen to mentors truly, and why staying humble often opens more doors than any credential ever could. When the topic turns to AI, Michael keeps it practical, discussing where it helps, where it falls short, and how founders can utilize it without compromising their creative edge. His stories have a lived-in quality that makes you believe progress is built through patience, self-awareness, and the kind of mentorship that keeps you moving when things get hard.In This Episode:[02:15] How Michael helped launch the first space tourists and later mentored hundreds of ventures at the Creative Destruction Lab.[03:40] What inspired him to write Accelerating Startups: Lessons from Mentors, and how common startup challenges led to the book.[05:08] The “Section Zero” question and why founders should pause to ask if they’re truly ready to build a company.[06:45] The personal and professional sacrifices that come with startup life and how timing matters.[08:20] Why reflection, self-awareness, and resilience are critical traits for any founder.[09:30] The trap of “a solution looking for a problem” and how tech transfer teams can help avoid it.[10:45] Why falling in love with the problem, not the technology, is key to real market traction.[11:55] The role of early business plans in aligning co-founders and clarifying assumptions.[12:40] Customer discovery tips for academic founders and how to measure perceived customer value.[14:00] Blind spots Michael often sees in university-based startups and why being coachable changes everything.[15:28] The balance between technology development and commercialization within research spinouts.[16:45] How mastering a 30-second pitch can transform a founder’s understanding of their own business.[18:10] Why many companies struggle with active listening and how coachability affects mentor relationships.[20:25] Building the right founding team and why compatibility and trust matter more than equity splits.[22:30] Michael’s advice on founder “prenups,” equity vesting, and handling co-founder departures.[24:10] How startups should approach global markets early and the role tech transfer offices play in preparing them.[26:30] Inside the Creative Destruction Lab model—goal setting, mentorship quality, and science-based acceleration.[28:20] Legal pitfalls academic entrepreneurs often overlook and why strong agreements matter.[29:45] Michael’s take on AI in startups and how it can streamline, and where human creativity still leads.[31:20] His top three takeaways for new founders include building a business plan, refining your pitch, and staying open to learning.[33:00] Reflections on mentorship, trust, and the patient, disciplined path from idea to impact.Resources: AUTMAccelerating Startups: Lessons From MentorsMichael Lyon - LinkedInmentor@lyoncapitalservices.comCreative Destruction Lab

Fighting blindness requires science, strategy, and a great deal of heart. Today’s guest is Jason Menzo, CEO of the Foundation Fighting Blindness, the world’s largest private funder of retinal disease research. Since assuming the role in 2022, after serving as President and COO, Jason has helped raise nearly a billion dollars and is backing over 100 projects across 86 labs and clinical centers worldwide. With more than two decades in ophthalmology at Sun Ophthalmologics, Nycox SA, Bausch & Lomb, and Bayer, he brings sharp business instincts and a deep commitment to restoring sight.Before joining the Foundation, Jason co-founded and led several eye-care ventures focused on bringing breakthrough treatments to patients more quickly. That for-profit experience now fuels mission-driven innovation, new funding models, and partnerships that move discoveries from the lab to the clinic. A standout example is the early Foundation support for the research behind Luxturna, the first FDA-approved gene therapy for an inherited disease, demonstrating how bold, risk-tolerant philanthropy can transform medicine when academia, government, and industry collaborate.A hallmark of his leadership is the R&D Fund, a $160 million venture philanthropy model with an eight-to-one leverage ratio. This bridges academic research and commercialization, drawing in private capital to advance promising therapies. He has also championed a global network of over 40 clinical centers in 10 countries and strengthened the talent pipeline through fellowships and translational awards. Today, 88% of retinal treatments in clinical trials can be traced back to Foundation-funded programs.Today, we discuss where science, policy, and philanthropy converge to bring sight-saving treatments closer to reality. We discuss the proposed Venture Philanthropy Enhancement Act and look ahead to gene-agnostic therapies, cell regeneration, and whole-eye transplant initiatives with ARPA-H. In This Episode:[01:30] Jason reflects on his transition from the pharmaceutical world to nonprofit work and what drew him to the Foundation.[03:10] Discussion of Luxturna’s groundbreaking FDA approval and how early Foundation funding contributed to its success.[05:30] Jason explains how the Foundation balances basic and translational research to accelerate cures for retinal diseases.[07:45] Overview of the Foundation’s five-year strategic plan and its flexible approach to adapting research priorities.[09:15] Insight into the importance of collaboration among universities, the NIH, and industry partners to move discoveries into the clinic.[11:00] Jason highlights the creation and purpose of the R&D Fund, a venture philanthropy model launched in 2018.[13:00] The Fund’s success in achieving an 8-to-1 leverage ratio and attracting top venture capital partners.[15:10] How the Foundation conducts due diligence when selecting companies for investment.[17:30] Explanation of how the R&D Fund differs from traditional research grants and why selectivity is key.[19:00] Jason introduces the Venture Philanthropy Enhancement Act and discusses its potential impact on funding for rare diseases.[22:00] Story of a near-failed company that survived through philanthropic support and produced life-changing clinical trial results.[24:00] The Foundation’s suite of grants and awards supporting early-career and translational researchers.[26:10] Career Development Awards and their role in retaining top talent in retinal disease research.[28:00] How the Foundation partners with tech transfer offices to bridge the “Valley of Death” between discovery and commercialization.[30:00] Metrics beyond publications—how FFB measures its real-world impact on treatments and cures.[32:15] Jason shares the emerging technologies he finds most promising, including gene-agnostic and cell-based therapies.[34:10] Discussion on the global prevalence of blindness and the Foundation’s efforts to prioritize late-stage and restorative therapies.[36:00] Jason outlines upcoming funding opportunities and deadlines for university researchers.[37:30] Final reflections on hope, awareness, and collaboration shaping the future of vision restoration.Resources: AUTMJason Menzo - Foundation Fighting BlindnessJason Menzo - LinkedInJason Menzo - X

Not every university has the resources to build and maintain a Tech Transfer office, and for many smaller institutions, that has long meant sitting on the sidelines. In Kentucky, leaders decided to try something different. Instead of each campus building its own program from scratch, they pooled efforts into a single statewide network. That collaboration became Kentucky Commercialization Ventures, or KCV, a model that’s now showing what inclusive innovation can look like in practice.At the center of this work is Kayla Meisner, Executive Director of KCV, who has guided the initiative from an early concept into a growing program with national attention. Since its launch in 2020, KCV has more than tripled its funding, doubled its staff, and helped innovators at all levels find clear pathways into commercialization. By combining proof-of-concept funding with hands-on coaching and shared services, the team has turned early ideas into intellectual property, startups, and partnerships that feed back into Kentucky’s economy.In this episode, Kayla explains what it takes to build trust across institutions, how programs like the Innovation Fellowship and KCV Invent are preparing the next generation of talent, and why partnerships outside of academia are strengthening the state’s innovation ecosystem. She also reflects on what other regions can learn from Kentucky’s experience, from getting state economic leaders on board to setting up governance that keeps everyone invested in long-term success.In This Episode:[03:18] Kayla shares the origins of KCV and how it fits within the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation’s 40-year mission.[05:24] She explains how state dollars are invested into proof-of-concept funding and stipends to support innovators.[06:30] Kayla describes the challenges Kentucky faced as an EPSCoR and NIH IDeA state and why collective action was needed.[09:37] She outlines the gap analysis that showed most partner schools lacked IP policies and full-time tech transfer staff.[12:15] The discussion turns to how KCV scaled its services while running on less than $1 million a year in the early days.[15:30] Kayla highlights the importance of coaching and mentorship in turning early-stage disclosures into IP.[17:40] The story of Dr. Rachel Tinius at Western Kentucky University illustrates how small investments can lead to major commercialization success.[18:26] Kayla talks about the KCV Innovation Fellowship and how it prepares students and faculty for entrepreneurship.[22:06] She explains how the fellowship has grown into a semester-based, cohort model that builds practical commercialization skills.[24:11] The conversation shifts to Kentucky’s six regional innovation hubs and their statewide economic impact.[29:01] Kayla details how KCV now requires assessments before opt-in, creating clearer pathways and buy-in for institutions and innovators.[32:37] The IMPACT competition is discussed, with KCV celebrating its first-ever community and technical college winner.[35:17] Kayla addresses the $8.25 million NSF EDGE award and the systemic barriers it is helping to solve at smaller institutions.[46:28] She reflects on the challenge of securing sustainable funding and the importance of demonstrating ROI.[49:57] Kayla highlights ecosystem partnerships with groups like the Kentucky Bar Association, USPTO, and Kentucky Distillers Association.[54:30] The conversation explores talent development through internships and the launch of KCV Invent, funded by the NSF Excellence Program.[56:43] Kayla offers three recommendations for other states interested in replicating the KCV model: build state relationships, conduct gap analyses, and establish governance.[59:45] She reflects on what has surprised her most about the centralized approach and why it has proven so effective.Resources: AUTMKayla Meisner - Kentucky Commercialization VenturesKayla Meisner - LinkedInKentucky Science & Technology CorporationDr. Rachel Tinius, Ph.D., EP-CBumptUp LabsUSPTO – Midwest Regional Office

A proposed shift in U.S. patent policy is sparking debate about the future of intellectual property. The idea on the table is a value-based tax that would replace, or sit on top of, the USPTO’s traditional flat-fee system. Instead of paying predictable maintenance fees, patent owners could face annual charges tied to the assessed value of their inventions. This move would dramatically change how portfolios are managed and funded.To walk us through the implications, we’re joined by Erin M. Daly, Ph.D., Esq., founder of Daly Law & Strategy. Erin started out in organic chemistry before moving into patent law, and she’s spent her career working with biotech companies and universities on everything from early-stage research to clinical programs. That combination of lab background and legal know-how gives her a practical view of how changes in patent policy land on the ground.We discuss why putting a dollar value on patents is never straightforward and how a tax like this could create big headaches for industries that depend on large portfolios, like biotech, semiconductors, and emerging green technologies. We also look at what startups and universities might face if they’re hit with new costs long before their patents generate any revenue. In This Episode:[01:57] The proposed value-based patent tax is outlined and contrasted with current USPTO fees.[02:50] Erin explains how the new system would resemble a property tax on intellectual property.[03:49] The U.S. has historically treated patents as a right supported by fees, not as taxable assets.[04:42] The proposal is still at the idea stage with no formal rule or bill introduced.[06:08] Patent valuation challenges are described, including subjectivity and lack of comparables.[08:07] Legal questions emerge about USPTO authority, due process, and potential litigation.[10:44] Erin outlines compliance concerns, audits, and paperwork burdens if the IRS were involved.[12:49] Biotech and pharma are identified as sectors most at risk under a value-based tax.[13:45] Semiconductor and AI industries could face massive valuation tracking costs.[14:40] Green tech companies may abandon patents if taxed before commercialization.[15:59] Strategic steps for tech transfer offices and companies to assess exposure are discussed.[17:39] Trade secrets may become more appealing as an alternative to patents in some cases.[18:24] Companies might restructure portfolios or shift filings internationally to reduce risk.[20:45] Erin emphasizes the importance of monitoring Congress, Federal Register updates, and IRS guidance.[22:55] Coalition groups and bar associations begin mobilizing to oppose the tax proposal.[23:33] Early legal challenges are expected to test the limits of USPTO authority and valuation disputes.[25:26] We close with a reminder that patent costs are under increasing scrutiny.Resources: AUTMDaly Law & StrategyErin M. Daly, Ph.D. - LinkedInDaly Law & Strategy - FacebookUSPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office)Federal RegisterBIO (Biotechnology Innovation Organization)Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)

How do discoveries in a university lab make their way into everyday life? That question sits at the heart of AUTM’s Better World Project. When it first launched almost 20 years ago, it was just a small booklet with a handful of stories. Today, it’s grown into a global showcase with more than 600 examples of how technology transfer changes lives. In this episode, we’re taking another look at the project, what’s new, and why it continues to matter.I’m joined by RK Narayanan, Senior Director of Business Development and Technology Transfer at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Since 2017, RK has been leading partnerships and collaborations there, but his path stretches across both research and commercialization. He earned a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology from the University of Arizona and an MBA from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Earlier in his career, he held research roles at Harvard Medical School and MIT before stepping into technology management at Illinois, where he oversaw more than 200 innovations in the life sciences. He brings a strong focus on value creation and mentorship to his work in tech transfer.Also joining us is Parag Vasekar, Business Development and Licensing Manager for Physical Sciences at Purdue Research Foundation’s Office of Technology Commercialization. Parag’s training covers the full spectrum of materials science. He holds degrees from Pune University in India, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Central Florida, where he earned his PhD. His career has spanned both academia and industry, and today he plays a key role in evaluating technologies and shaping licensing agreements at Purdue. He also serves as co-chair of AUTM’s Better World Project Committee, giving him an inside view of how the initiative has expanded and adapted over time.Together, RK and Parag walk us through the growth of the Better World Project from those early printed pages to today’s award-winning stories. We’ll talk about standout innovations like UMass Amherst’s PFAS-destroying water purification system, the artificial pancreas, and breakthrough cancer treatments. More importantly, we’ll hear why this project isn’t just about showcasing innovation, but about showing the human impact of university research on communities worldwide.In This Episode:[01:30] RK’s career path is highlighted, from research at Harvard and MIT to overseeing 200 innovations at Illinois.[02:00] Parag’s academic and professional journey is detailed, with expertise in materials science and licensing.[03:12] The Better World Project has grown from hundreds to more than 600 innovation stories.[04:57] Examples like the Honeycrisp apple, N95 mask, and Google show university research impact.[05:39] The project began as a way to highlight outcomes of the Bayh-Dole Act and has since gone global.[06:14] From print to online multimedia, the growth reflects the maturing of the field.[07:01] Parag shares what drew him to the project and how it connects the “what” of tech transfer to the “why.”[09:09] RK explains how the project’s expansion shows the maturation of tech transfer beyond transactions.[10:14] Impact is measured in healthier patients, cleaner water, and stronger communities.[10:49] Lisa references Kate Zernike’s call for better storytelling in academic research.[11:22] Parag outlines the Better World Project Award process and the criteria for submissions.[12:29] The committee reviews entries before finalists go to the AUTM community for a vote.[13:26] UMass Amherst’s PFAS-destroying water purification system is highlighted as the 2025 winner.[14:38] Judging criteria have broadened from blockbuster drugs to more holistic measures of impact.[15:48] The committee looks for “aha” moments where research curiosity directly impacts lives.[16:33] RK explains how the project highlights long-term value beyond licensing revenue.[17:04] Examples like the artificial pancreas and PFAS system show impact measured in human terms.[18:22] Representation matters: the project spans medical devices, agriculture, and consumer products.[19:03] A story from Pakistan’s NUST about a vibrational wave therapy device illustrates global reach.[20:25] The project’s role during the pandemic highlighted universities’ rapid responses and collaboration.[21:35] Stories included rapid diagnostic tests, open-source ventilators, PPE solutions, and vaccines.[22:27] The key lesson: urgency and collaboration enable universities to meet global challenges.[23:08] Parag describes how multimedia storytelling broadened the project’s reach and emotional impact.[24:46] Barriers for smaller offices include staff limitations and lack of marketing expertise.[25:31] AUTM staff provide editorial support and encourage frequent submissions.[26:11] Parag shares the committee’s vision for the next five years, focusing on global reach and diversity.[27:05] New story categories now include AI, sustainability, and social sciences.[28:39] RK explains how storytelling makes the impact of university research clear to policymakers.[29:28] With more than 600 examples, the project provides credible evidence of impact.[30:08] The initiative is adapting to showcase AI, climate change, and global health innovations.[31:42] Examples include carbon capture, agricultural advances, telemedicine, and vaccine technologies.[32:19] The call is made for institutions worldwide to submit stories by October 15.[33:38] The committee is currently full but encourages volunteering at future meetings.[34:11] RK highlights Spinraza, developed at Cold Spring Harbor, as a personally inspiring story.[35:19] The partnership with Ionis Pharmaceuticals shows the power of sustained collaboration.[36:49] Parag points to Allegra as a reminder that consumer products also emerge from research labs.[37:30] COVID-era stories reinforced how global tech transfer can adapt quickly.[38:08] Both guests share their hopes for the project’s legacy as more than just a collection of stories.[39:50] We encourage relentless storytelling and contributions to the archive.[41:11] The Better World Project has become a powerful advocacy tool.[42:27] Submissions for the 2026 Better World Project Award are now open.[43:18] Let’s keep making the world better through technology transfer.Resources: RK Narayanan - LinkedInCold Spring Harbor LaboratoryParag Vasekar - LinkedInPurdue Office of Technology CommercializationSubmissions for the 2026 Better World Project Award

Most people hear the phrase “research misconduct” and think it’s an issue reserved for academia. But the truth is, it can rock the entire innovation ecosystem. One altered image in a dissertation might sound small, but it can snowball into collapsed companies, hundreds of millions in losses, and a deep erosion of trust in science itself.Joining me to dig into this reality is Michael R. Samardzija, Senior Counsel at Womble Bond Dickinson. Michael’s career is unique because he’s lived on both sides of the technology transfer world. He earned his PhD in Physiology and a Master’s in Exercise Physiology from Loma Linda University, then went on to get his JD from the University of San Diego. Over the past two decades, he’s worn many hats including Vice President of Research Affairs at Loma Linda University Health, where he launched the N3eight business incubator, Director of Intellectual Property at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and leadership roles at firms like Dentons and Bracewell & Giuliani. That blend of academic and legal experience gives him a rare perspective on the challenges TTOs face every day.Michael recently put a name to something many of us have only seen in fragments what he calls “Research Misconduct’s Butterfly Effects”. It’s the idea that what looks like a single, contained problem in a lab can ripple outward, creating consequences for commercialization, partnerships, and the credibility of institutions. Today, he’s here to break down those connections and share what they mean for technology transfer professionals navigating this complex landscape.In This Episode:[01:29] Michael’s dual background in law and academia is outlined, including his leadership roles and IP experience.[02:11] Michael explains “Research Misconduct’s Butterfly Effects” and why it matters for technology transfer professionals.[02:59] Defining research misconduct with fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, proven by preponderance of the evidence.[04:04] Misconduct in publications can invalidate patents, licenses, and commercialization efforts.[05:27] Michael shares how his career shaped his views on risk management for TTOs and the rising tide of retractions.[06:03] Licensees may begin requiring universities to warrant patents that are free of misconduct, a risk institutions must prepare for.[07:12] Tech transfer offices should consider sequestering underlying data to provide transparency for licensees.[07:51] Organized fraud networks, “paper mills,” and systemic pressures to publish are fueling misconduct at scale.[09:13] A student uncovers duplicate publications across different journals, leading to a retraction.[10:18] Publication mills profit by selling authorship or fabricated manuscripts, creating an industry of fraudulent science.[12:21] High-profile cases show faculty losing positions over fabricated or cherry-picked data, with countries like India now imposing strict punishments.[13:49] International collaborations bring value but also increase risk when oversight standards differ globally.[14:15] Case study of Athira Pharma illustrates how research misconduct spiraled into legal, financial, and reputational crises.[15:06] Faculty at Washington State University discover dementia drug candidate Dihexa and form a startup.[17:01] Millions in NIH funding and clinical trials follow, but manipulated images in early publications trigger scrutiny.[18:22] The former graduate student admits to embellishing images, yet fundraising and IPOs continue, raising over $400M.[20:04] A whistleblower files a False Claims Act suit, leading to DOJ involvement and company stock plummeting 40%.[21:16] The case settles for $4 million, with ongoing investigations, shareholder lawsuits, and SEC concerns.[23:02] Washington State University removes the student’s dissertation and launches an inquiry.[24:12] Athira’s valuation collapses from $670M in 2020 to $25M in 2025, showing the profound damage of misconduct.[25:00] Michael stresses the need for better due diligence, expert involvement, and clear standards on acceptable data/image alterations.[27:21] TTOs should resist warranties but offer licensees access to original data for their own investigations.[28:38] Retracted papers may serve as tools in patent prosecution or litigation, a double-edged sword for TTOs.[29:09] Practical steps for TTOs include careful fraud language in agreements and collaboration with research integrity offices.[32:01] Recommendations include close coordination with integrity officers, rapid response plans, and careful handling of inventor payouts.[34:24] Michael advises TTO professionals to self-report suspicions quickly to protect institutional reputation.[36:20] Tech Transfer professionals should innovate with integrity and stay vigilant against misconduct.Resources: Michael R. Samardzija - Womble Bond DickinsonMichael R. Samardzija - LinkedInMichael R. Samardzija - Loma Linda UniversityOffice of Research Integrity (ORI), HHS

What does it take to safeguard innovation while making sure the patent system truly serves inventors and society? That’s the heart of today’s conversation, and few people are better positioned to answer than Dr. Julie Burke.Today, she brings a unique perspective to the world of intellectual property and patent prosecution. Dr. Burke spent more than two decades in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, eventually stepping into the role of Quality Assurance Specialist in Technology Center 1600. Her path there was built on a strong scientific foundation: a degree in molecular biology, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and postdoctoral work at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where she earned a grant from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation to study the CFTR protein.At the USPTO, she examined applications in areas that changed the course of modern medicine such as cancer immunology and recombinant antibody technologies. She also handled more than 900 petitions and received multiple awards for her contributions to patent quality and international guidelines. After leaving the Office, Dr. Burke brought her expertise to Knobbe Martens, later founded IP Quality Pro LLC, and has since become a recognized voice through her expert witness work and widely published articles. She also advises Petition.ai and serves on the board of the Association for American Innovation, where she advocates for policies that encourage inventors to keep creating.Dr. Burke candidly opens up about her career journey, the culture inside the USPTO, and the systemic challenges that affect patent quality. She also points us toward a future where reforms, transparency, and a renewed commitment to excellence can strengthen the system while unlocking more innovation for everyone.In This Episode:[02:52] Dr. Burke shares her academic journey through Biogen, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, and Johns Hopkins, and how she was pointed toward the USPTO.[05:20] She reflects on family ties to public service and her idealistic start at the USPTO.[05:51] Early years as a cancer immunology examiner and later transition to Quality Assurance Specialist in TC1600.[08:26] She describes USPTO culture, personalities of examiners, and the complaints she fielded as a QA specialist.[10:36] Dr. Burke recounts being told that allowing a patent on first action would earn her a derogatory label, and what that revealed about PTO culture.[12:22] Discussion of the “reject, reject, reject” mentality and how examiners were pressured into repeat RCEs.[14:55] Dr. Burke introduces the Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) program and explains how it secretly blocked pioneering cases.[17:42] How SAWS expanded into looking at inventors’ backgrounds, including finances and character.[18:32] Comparisons to IRS “BOLO” lists and the chilling effect of having allowances pulled at the last moment.[28:48] Dr. Burke explains new challenges with petition review work, including restrictions and procedures that create extra burdens. [32:41] What needs to change to address some of these quality issues. [37:12] Hazing culture in the Patent Training Academy and high attrition among new examiners.[41:00] Impact of PTAB changes: trials scaled back, discretionary denials increased, and appeals expedited.[42:11] Loss of examiner tools like ChemDraw and SciFinder forces some to use personal computers, creating security risks.[52:28] Dr. Burke contrasts production bonuses with quality bonuses, and the damage this does to examination integrity.[55:12] Reports show 40% of litigated patents invalidated which goes back to flawed performance incentives.[58:40] Current restraints and cuts are hard on patent examiners and students and inventors. [01:02:15] We discuss examiner morale, loss of union protections, and management culture shifts.[01:05:47] She shares closing reflections on reforms needed for transparency, consistency, and examiner support.[01:09:32] Dr. Burke connects the role of professional “guilds” in maintaining quality, and draws parallels to historical trade guilds.[01:12:54] Optimism about the Association for American Innovation (AAI) and its independent reform agenda.Resources: Dr. Julie Burke - IP WatchdogDr. Julie Burke - LinkedInPetition AI

Biotechnology law has evolved from a niche specialty into one of the most complex and debated areas of intellectual property, and Dr. Jorge Goldstein has been at the center of that journey. A founding partner of Stern, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, Jorge has spent more than four decades helping define the legal boundaries of the life sciences while working alongside scientists, startups, and global institutions at the very front edge of discovery. His career path, shaped by mentors who saw the future in biology and patents, offers a rare window into how law and science grew together during the biotechnology revolution.His new book, Patenting Life: Tales from the Front Lines of Intellectual Property and the New Biology, captures that history through the people, cases, and controversies that shaped modern biotech. From the Chakrabarty decision that opened the door for patenting living inventions, to the Wands case that created the well-known enablement factors, Jorge brings to life the courtroom battles and policy debates that continue to influence how research becomes innovation. He also shares behind-the-scenes stories from his own practice, including the Myriad Genetics dispute over gene patents and the still-unfolding CRISPR battles that pit leading universities and scientists against each other.We also talk about artificial intelligence as the next great test for intellectual property law. With AI already designing new drugs and synthetic proteins, it raises the question of inventorship as more pressing than ever. The law still recognizes only human inventors. Change will have to come from Congress, and future generations of lawyers will be tasked with rewriting the rules for a world where human and machine creativity overlap. This conversation connects a past, present, and future that underscores how much the definition of “invention” shapes the pace of discovery.In This Episode:[01:21] Jorge describes how he came from Argentina to study chemistry at RPI, pursued a PhD at Harvard, and was encouraged by mentor Frank Westheimer to study biology.[02:15] Auditing James Watson’s molecular biology course opened his eyes to the future of genetics during the early days of recombinant DNA research.[03:45] He recalls being unaware of groundbreaking advances like monoclonal antibodies while focused on his thesis work.[04:48] Jorge explains why lab research didn’t suit him, realizing his temperament wasn’t suited for years of trial and error and delayed gratification.[06:32] A Harvard Law student introduced him to patent law, and he quickly saw its potential in the emerging field of biotechnology.[07:20] The Chakrabarty Supreme Court decision allowing patents on living organisms solidified his decision to enter biotech IP law.[08:21] Jorge recounts co-founding Stern Kessler Goldstein & Fox with Robert Stern, combining expertise in biology and electronics for a future-focused law firm.[10:15] Early interactions with young biotech companies like Genentech, Amgen, and Genetics Institute showed the demand for lawyers fluent in science.[11:48] He credits Marvin Guthrie of Massachusetts General Hospital with mentoring him on IP strategy and diplomacy in academic-industry partnerships.[13:31] Jorge explains how Guthrie, a founder of AUTM, gave him access to top scientists and Nobel Prize winners, shaping his approach to tech transfer.[14:51] He introduces his book Patenting Life and explains his motivation to document the history of biotech commercialization through human stories.[17:02] A writers’ circle helped him shed legal and scientific jargon, making the book approachable for a broader audience.[18:22] Jorge revisits the Myriad Genetics case over gene patents, explaining why eligibility battles over isolated DNA became so significant.[21:15] He describes the shock when a district court ruled that isolated genes were not patentable, contrary to decades of biotech practice.[23:48] The Federal Circuit reversed that ruling, with Judge Lourie emphasizing covalent bonds, before the Supreme Court ultimately sided against gene patents.[27:10] Jorge reflects on how the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Myriad reshaped eligibility standards under Section 101.[30:45] He notes how subsequent cases, including Prometheus and Alice, further unsettled patent law in diagnostics and other industries.[32:05] Jorge turns to In re Wands, explaining how it tested enablement of broad antibody claims and became a landmark case.[35:10] He recalls oral arguments before the Federal Circuit, including Judge Pauline Newman pressing the Patent Office on the impossibility of requiring unlimited deposits.[39:32] The resulting decision established the eight “Wands factors,” which remain central to enablement analysis today.[41:42] Jorge highlights how Wands has been cited thousands of times and even survived scrutiny in the recent Amgen v. Sanofi case.[44:15] He shares a personal story about Jack Wands, who the case was named after and dedicating a chapter of his book to him before his passing in 2023.[46:01] The conversation shifts to the CRISPR patent battle between UC Berkeley/Vienna and the Broad Institute, one of the most high-profile disputes in biotech law.[49:25] Jorge explains the interference process under the former first-to-invent system and why it made the CRISPR case especially complex.[52:10] Statements from Jennifer Doudna expressing scientific uncertainty were used against her in the legal proceedings.[54:40] He outlines how these admissions shaped arguments around conception versus reduction to practice.[57:16] Jorge recalls the year-long wait for the Federal Circuit’s ruling, which ultimately found that doubts expressed by inventors should not determine conception.[58:38] The appeals court sent the case back to the Patent Office with instructions to apply the correct legal test, leaving the battle unresolved.[1:00:08] He turns to emerging concerns about artificial intelligence in biotech innovation, from drug repurposing to protein design.[1:01:15] Jorge notes that current law does not recognize AI as an inventor, creating challenges for patenting AI-driven discoveries.[1:02:29] He argues that Congress should update patent law to allow AI to be recognized as a co-inventor, since control of patent rights is ultimately what matters.[1:03:15] Jorge closes by urging the next generation of lawyers to focus on AI’s impact on inventorship and the need for law to adapt to new models of innovation.Resources: Jorge A. GoldsteinJorge A. Goldstein - LinkedInJorge A. Goldstein, Ph.D. - Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & FoxPatenting Life: Tales from the Front Lines of Intellectual Property and the New Biology

Federal funding shakeups and new cost caps are hitting Tech Transfer offices from multiple angles. Jodie Richardson, Director of Customer Success at TechPipeline and Chair of AUTM’s Annual Meeting Planning Committee, has been right in the middle of these conversations. With a background in strategic planning, cross-functional leadership, and compliance, she’s been gathering insights from leaders across the country on how they’re coping along with what might come next.Her recent article, Weathering the Storm: How TTOs are Navigating Overhead Rate Caps and Federal Funding Challenges, dives into the real-world effects of these changes. In this conversation, Jodie talks about the hiring freezes and budget cuts many offices are facing, the drop in invention disclosures, and why those shifts could have lasting consequences for commercialization pipelines, startups, and research infrastructure. She also shares how teams are rethinking patent strategies, keeping industry relationships steady in a volatile climate, and preparing for an unprecedented level of federal compliance scrutiny.The discussion reaches into other stress points too including uncertainty around SBIR/STTR funding, the added hurdles in international collaborations, and the scramble to find alternative funding through alumni networks, foundations, and state programs. Jodie offers ideas for retaining talent, boosting staff morale, and making sure the public understands just how much academic research shapes everyday life. Even with all the challenges, she sees reason for optimism, pointing to the adaptability and problem-solving spirit that has always defined the tech transfer community.In This Episode:[01:12] Jodie explains what prompted her to write the article and how she brought together senior Tech Transfer leaders to talk through the fast-moving changes, challenges, and strategies.[03:22] She describes the anxiety and uncertainty created by daily breaking news affecting research and the innovation ecosystem.[05:19] The new 15% indirect cost cap from NIH, DOE, NSF, and now DOD is creating immediate concern, leading to hiring freezes, budget freezes, and reduced invention disclosures.[06:48] Staffing shortages are adding pressure to existing Tech Transfer staff who are trying to maintain operations and support faculty.[08:21] Researchers are spending more time securing alternative funding, adding to the workload for TTO staff who were already under stress.[09:40] Jodie outlines the potential long-term risks to commercialization pipelines, startup formation, and the wider innovation ecosystem if disclosure declines continue.[10:53] Patent strategies are shifting, with offices becoming more selective about filings, especially international patents, and focusing resources on cases with strong commercialization prospects.[12:17] Green energy, climate tech, biotech, and vaccine technologies are among the areas seeing greater selectivity.[13:04] Industry hesitation is impacting both sponsorships and licensing deals, with some master research agreements put on hold indefinitely.[14:57] Communication is key. Offices are proactively engaging with industry sponsors and licensees to understand concerns and salvage opportunities.[15:45] On August 8, the Trump administration announced a federal review of Harvard’s patents, threatening to exercise Bayh-Dole march-in rights.[17:35] Jodie talks about the unprecedented scale of this review and the short 30-day timeline to respond for thousands of inventions.[19:22] She stresses the importance of thorough documentation, compliance audits, and internal collaboration within the TTO.[22:41] The future of SBIR/STTR programs is uncertain, and startups are concerned about potential changes to qualification requirements and funding levels.[24:33] TTOs are partnering with venture support programs, industry engagement, and sponsored programs offices to help startups navigate possible funding gaps.[25:47] International collaborations face more red tape, with abrupt halts to some projects and tighter screening for partners in countries like China and Russia.[28:34] Ensuring licensees meet U.S. manufacturing requirements is becoming a greater priority in international deals.[29:21] Alumni foundations and state economic development programs are emerging as important sources of alternative funding.[31:28] Some states have increased funding to offset reductions in federal research dollars, though most cannot fully close the gap.[33:05] Jodie warns of the potential erosion of research infrastructure and loss of innovation leaders if talent leaves the U.S.[35:42] Institutions can help retain faculty and researchers by stepping in to support projects when funding is lost and easing the commercialization burden.[37:52] Shifts in research focus toward “safer” areas could reduce groundbreaking, high-risk innovations such as climate tech, vaccine development, and women’s health research.[39:35] Staff morale is being tested by uncertainty; transparent communication and safe spaces for discussion are critical.[42:21] National meetings like AUTM’s annual gathering provide opportunities for shared support, optimism, and advocacy.[43:40] Jodie sees a need for greater public education about how federally funded research works and the technologies it produces.[46:01] Even with the challenges, Jodie remains optimistic about the adaptability and resilience of the tech transfer community.Resources: Jodie Richardson - Tech PipelineJodie Richardson - LinkedInWeathering the Storm: How TTOs are Navigating Overhead Rate Caps and Federal Funding ChallengesSBIR/STTR Programs

America's leadership in global innovation depends on the critical link between federal policy and scientific funding. Cuts to research budgets, restrictions on international visas, and the rollback of diversity programs are converging to create uncertainty that threaten labs, universities, and communities that depend on them. What happens in the next budget cycle will determine whether the U.S. continues to set the pace for global discovery or risks ceding that ground to competitors eager to recruit American-trained talent.I’m thrilled to welcome back Kate Zernike, Pulitzer Prize–winning national correspondent for The New York Times. Kate brings both personal understanding and journalistic rigor to covering science policy. Her grandfather was Nobel Prize–winning physicist Frits Zernike, and she has spent decades reporting on the politics of research and innovation. She is perhaps best known for breaking the 1999 story of MIT’s admission that it had discriminated against women on its faculty. This reporting laid the foundation for her acclaimed 2023 book The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science. Her distinguished career also includes a Pulitzer for explanatory reporting on Al Qaeda in 2002, underscoring her ability to connect complex issues to the human stories behind them. In this episode, we discuss her recent reporting on two pivotal articles: U.S. Scientists Warn That Trump’s Cuts Will Set Off a Brain Drain and The Surprising Scientists Hit by Trump’s DEI Cuts. She explains how uncertainty is pushing young researchers to reconsider careers in science, forcing labs to halt promising projects such as mRNA cancer research, and eroding public trust in the scientific enterprise after COVID. She also reveals a surprising twist where many of the scientists most affected by DEI rollbacks are rural, first-generation, and conservative-leaning students who depended on those programs to access research careers. We also take on the breaking news of the federal government’s unprecedented investigation into Harvard’s patents under the Bayh-Dole Act, a move that raises profound questions about intellectual property, peer review, and the future of university–industry partnerships.In This Episode:[02:10] We’ll discuss Kate’s June 3rd article on Trump’s proposed funding cuts and the potential “brain drain” in U.S. science.[04:45] The American Dream story of Nobel laureate Ardem Patapoutian and concerns from scientists at Harvard and Johns Hopkins.[06:00] Why U.S. science relies heavily on international talent and the risks of disrupting this pipeline.[07:23] Cultural differences and how countries like India prioritize science as a top career path compared to the U.S.[08:23] Evidence of China, France, Germany, and others actively recruiting American-trained scientists.[10:03] Historical perspective and the migration of rocket scientists after WWII and how talent shaped U.S. supremacy in science.[12:22] NIH and NSF budget cuts, with biotechnology and computer science research seen as most vulnerable.[15:30] How federal research funding connects to U.S. competitiveness and public misconceptions of science.[18:45] Making the case for better science communication and opening up opportunities in science. [20:35] We talk about DEI grant cuts and the impact on rural and socioeconomically diverse scientists.[21:35] Stories of researchers like Lucas Dillard, Gabrielle Merchant, Ashley Albright, and Nicole Gross losing critical grants.[23:50] The lingering resentment toward science post-COVID and challenges in rebuilding public trust.[24:48] Simultaneous threats including funding cuts, talent loss, DEI program eliminations, and IP risks are compounding uncertainty.[27:00] The taxpayer debate and making the case for return on investment from university research.[29:20] Key message to policymakers is that sustained funding is essential to avoid halting critical discoveries.[30:01] Cancer research and mRNA projects at risk, including prostate cancer studies being shut down.[31:30] What gives Kate hope includes pushback from within the government, and scientists’ enduring joy, and commitment to discovery.[32:54] Where to find Kate’s articles and book, and a call to policymakers ahead of the 2026 budget cycle!Resources: Kate ZernikeKate Zernike - New York TimesKate Zernike - LinkedInExposing Discrimination in Science: The Story of Nancy Hopkins and MIT with Kate ZernikeU.S. Scientists Warn That Trump’s Cuts Will Set Off a Brain DrainThe Surprising Scientists Hit by Trump’s DEI CutsThe Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in ScienceFrits Zernike

The McGill Innovation Fund was created to fill a big gap in early-stage research funding and help promising ideas make the leap from the lab into the real world. In this episode, Senior Communications Advisor Junji Nishihata shares the story of how the fund came about in 2021, just as McGill University was marking its 200th anniversary, and why it’s different from other campus competitions. Instead of focusing on general entrepreneurship, the MIF is tied directly to research through a formal report of invention. With three funding tiers ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 and a yearly budget of up to $350,000, it offers serious support to faculty, startups, and researchers looking to license their work.But money is only part of the equation. Junji talks about the year-long support program that comes with every award bringing together alumni advisors, targeted mentorship, and practical workshops on everything from market strategy to regulatory pathways. The alumni network plays a huge role here, offering time, connections, and hard-won experience to help teams move forward.We also get an inside look at success stories like cleantech startup Altiro Energy and biotech company DendroTEK, plus a peek at what’s ahead for the fund. From themed competitions in AI and clean tech to a possible high-profile pitch day, the MIF is working to break down the “ivory tower” perception of academic research and show its real-world value.In This Episode:[01:15] The McGill Innovation Fund started when McGill University was looking forward to its 200th anniversary in 2021. They were looking for big moonshot ideas that they could use to excite alumni around the world.[02:05] At first they thought about making an investment fund, then they decided to focus on funding for early stage ideas.[02:50] Eligibility criteria include a report of invention because it's based on research. They declare what the concept is and then the technology transfer team examines it in detail. Is it novel? Is it patentable?[04:06] The objective of the innovation fund is to get stuff out of the lab and into the real world where it can make a difference.[06:07] The MIF is divided into three different prize tiers: the Discover at $25,000, the Develop at $50,000, and the Deploy at $100,000.[06:53] The yearly funding of a significant sum of money shows the university's commitment to innovation.[07:27] The initial funding came from royalties collected from past Innovation successes.[08:21] This shows that the university is serious about inventors and technology.[09:02] They are moving towards donor and corporate support.[10:16] The McGill Alumni Network is tremendous and has a lot of successful people who are willing to give back.[11:11] Junji shares more about the award tiers. [12:28] The McGill AMR Center or Antimicrobial Resistance Center offers a $75,000 top off in addition to the original award.[14:05] How the fund has created transformations. Altiro energy came to them in the development stage and became successful and moved on.[15:29] We learn about the support that is offered as well as funding. The big value comes in the support that follows the award. They develop a road map in conjunction with their alumni experts. They also have a series of Advisory board meetings every two months.[17:45] They also have the McGillConnect platform.[18:22] Tony Falco is a mentor that has started three companies. He's been in the trenches and knows how to help the teams.[19:34] They have about 75 alumni that they reach out to.[20:11] We learn about the success of DendroTEK.[21:26] We talk about what is next for the fund and future ideas. He would like to grow it into something similar to Shark Tank and raise the profile of the alumni.[22:36] He wants to show people the value that is created for society.Resources: Junji Nishihata - McGill UniversityJunji Nishihata - LinkedInJunji Nishihata - InstagramMcGill Innovation FundMcGillConnect Platform

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, or WARF, was created 100 years ago. It was a daring idea to turn scientific discoveries into real-world applications. Today marks the 100th anniversary. Since 1925, WARF has played a pioneering role in encouraging innovation, supporting scientific discovery, and ensuring that research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison benefits society.To commemorate a century of influence, we're joined by four members of the WARF team, each with their own take on the past and future. Holly Adams, Contract Manager; Lesli Mark, Accelerator Manager; Michael Falk, Chief Intellectual Property and Licensing Officer; and Maureen Miner, Director of Human Resources and Cultural Advancement.In this episode, we reflect on WARF's impact over the last century, from shaping national policy through the Bayh-Dole Act to commercializing breakthrough technologies in stem cell research, agriculture, and medical imaging.You'll learn how the team is evolving WARF's purpose through new programs like Startup Advantage, deeper industry involvement, and the intentional incorporation of AI into IP strategy. We also look at how WARF maintains its collaborative, mission-driven culture, and what this means for the next generation of researchers and innovators. It's a discussion about legacy, leadership, and what it takes to keep innovation going today and into the next century.In This Episode:[02:41] We learn what celebrating 100 years of WARF means to our guests personally and professionally. [03:37] WARF is an institution with stability even during ups and downs. It's a pleasure to serve a public research university.[04:07] Invest in research and make a difference. Turning university ideas into real world impact.[05:32] The Bayh-Dole Act was modeled on what WARF instituted and became a model for tech transfer around the country. [06:24] Technological contributions include work with stem cells.[07:51] How stem cell research helped a paralyzed man regain control of his extremities.[09:52] Holly talks about how the needs and complexities of licensing agreements have evolved over the years. They need to streamline the formation of startups coming out of Wisconsin-Madison.[10:29] The Startup Advantage Program is to help offset some of the costs that startups face.[11:16] Communication and a proactive approach is needed to create licensing agreements and needed changes.[12:06] How agreements and compliance have evolved overtime. They have a customized version of Salesforce and an online reporting tool.[13:39] The vital role of contract management with agreement obligations and compliance. Visiting local startups is also a great method.[14:43] Lesli is the Accelerator Manager for WARF.  A lot of their work is in licensing. There needs to be more advancement in these technologies coming off of campus. Methods of selecting technology and moving forward have changed.[16:22] Having subject matter experts helps accelerate the technology.[18:32] Identifying and supporting some of the most promising projects. They look at 400 disclosures a year and flag ones that they think will have market impact and need their help.[21:31] Opportunities and challenges of the next century of WARF include engaging with industry.[22:41] Michael talks about IP and licensing. They have always been inventor focused. Each disclosure is a product of an inventor's life's work.[24:26] Licensing success stories include advancements in medical imaging and radiopharmaceuticals and advances in agriculture.[27:22] AI challenges and opportunities and preparing for the future.[29:54] They are technology and inventor focused. Will a patent help a technology get out into the world?[32:09] Maureen talks about the people and the mission driven culture. A lot of people are engaged and excited about working at WARF. [33:35] They've focused on reaching everyone. All people can be inventors and they want to make sure that they can promote them and reach out.[34:13] They've been strategic about celebrating innovations.[35:02] They have a hybrid structure where they support and meet employees where they are. Along with a robust health and wellness program and benefits. They also encourage paid community involvement.[36:49] Taking the vision of WARF and turning it over to employees.[37:35] Michael is most proud of how researchers appreciate and respect WARF.[38:43] WARF offers employees the opportunity to learn and grow. [39:39] They are also very proud of the startups that they've been able to help.[40:07] Being a valued partner and being a helpful resource supports the culture. Along with connections with colleagues.[41:02] Carrying the WARF legacy forward. Resources: Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation: WARFHolly Adams - WARFHolly Adams - LinkedInLesli Mark - WARFMichael Falk - WARFMaureen Miner - WARFMaureen Miner - LinkedIn

The blue economy is rapidly evolving. There’s a growing demand for innovation that’s both sustainable and scalable. Leading this work is Millicent Pitts, CEO and Executive Director of Ocean Exchange. Over the last ten years, she has helped the organization identify and support cutting-edge solutions that protect ocean health and strengthen coastal systems.Millicent spent three decades in the chemical and materials industry, holding senior roles at BASF, Engelhard, Arco Chemical, and more. She also earned her MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. This background gives her a practical, business-minded approach to sustainability. She also serves as a mentor and judge for cleantech and ocean innovation competitions, including Creative Destruction Lab and NOAA’s Blue Economy Subcommittee.Ocean Exchange is a catalyst for turning research into real-world impact. Through its $100,000 Neptune Awards and collegiate grants, the organization has supported over 170 finalists who have collectively raised more than $3.2 billion in funding. Millicent discusses how these non-dilutive awards and mentorship programs help innovators move from idea to execution. We also discuss why Tech Transfer professionals play an important role in identifying talent and technologies that are suited for the blue economy.As one of just four national partners in NOAA’s Ocean Enterprise Accelerator, Ocean Exchange is expanding its reach through a well-funded initiative focused on ocean data, environmental resilience, and commercialization support. Today, we’ll highlight practical ways TTOs can engage, from encouraging student and faculty applications to joining review teams or helping innovators explore ocean use cases.In This Episode:[02:15] Millicent spent three decades in the chemical and materials industry. She benefited from working for companies that took environmental responsibility seriously.[03:22] Ocean Exchange has been around for 14 years and has a global reach. Their mission has always been to help advance the adoption of innovative solutions for healthy oceans and resilient coastal systems.[04:17] They moved from Savannah, Georgia to South Florida. South Florida is ground zero for many of these ocean and coastal system topics.[05:32] One of the things when she joined the organization was to make it more marketing and business friendly. [06:34] The more modern way of thinking of the blue economy embodies the idea that humans can use and interact with the ocean and not harm it.[07:22] In their 13 years of granting, they've had about 170 finalists who have raised 3.2 billion dollars. Most of it was in seed rounds and venture capital.[10:00] Ocean Exchange had a vision to find innovators and help their work have investment and societal impact.[13:17] Lives will be uplifted wherever these innovations are implemented.[14:04] How the ecosystem supports award applicants and winners beyond funding. A wide array of industry experts review the applications on impact, level of innovation, and ability to execute. This is part of their best network.[21:18] The $100,000 Neptune Awards. They take in philanthropy from families and corporations. After the selection process, they end up with 15 finalists. The award goes to any innovation about oceans and coastal systems.[22:55] Non-diluted funds are distributed meaning they don't take equity.[28:35] How tech transfer offices can leverage the collegiate awards which helps them reach undergraduates. Tech Transfer offices help connect the students.[33:13] We discuss applying to one or more of the NOAA accelerators. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, a part of the Department of Commerce, announced an accelerator program.[35:21] There are seven groups in the continuum that put forth a national model.[36:41] They want to reach more at the university and faculty level that have ocean use case innovations.[40:40] Each group gets a grant of 14 million dollars over 4 years. 40% of that will go through TDC Awards, Technology Development and Commercialization Awards.[41:13] Millicent manages these awards. The Great Lakes are also considered part of the ocean system. Most of the awards are between the range of 10,000 to 200,000 dollars.[42:30] You have to complete one of the accelerator programs also. You need to separately apply for the TDC award and say how you're going to use the money.[43:27] Goals include having at least $400,000 worth of non-dilutive grants.[45:18] She really wants Tech Transfer managers and executives to engage and maybe even be an expert on their review team. [46:14] There are great opportunities in the blue tech space, and they will help you through it.[46:40] Key deadlines: The collegiate grants have a deadline of September. There is still time if you're in the Americas to apply for the $100,000 award. Apply at Oceanexchange.org.Resources: Ocean ExchangeMillicent Pitts - LinkedInCreative Destruction LabNOAA Blue Economy SubcommitteeF6S PlatformMillicent.Pitts@OceanExchange.org(912) 257-0209

Clarity can come from lived experience, and Dr. Kirk Adams brings that clarity into every conversation about inclusion. After losing his vision at age five, he began a journey that would shape his life, and the lives of countless others. What started as a personal challenge became a lifelong mission to him. He wanted to create a world where people with disabilities are seen, valued, and included. This is a wonderful story of persistence, purpose, and real leadership.Dr. Adams has led some of the most influential organizations in the blindness and disability inclusion space. As the prior President and CEO of The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., and the American Foundation for the Blind, he focused on employment equity, community integration, and systemic change. He’s worked with tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to make sure accessibility is part of the design. He’s also contributed to boards and task forces across sectors.Now as Managing Director of Innovative Impact, LLC, Dr. Adams partners with organizations to build cultures of inclusion from the inside out. He believes that accessibility is about connection, opportunity, and the kind of leadership that invites people to bring their full selves to work. His academic background, including a Ph.D. on the employment of blind adults in corporate America, only deepens his understanding of the structural barriers so many still face and what it takes to overcome them.In this episode, Dr. Adams shares lessons from his own journey, insights into the role of accessible innovation, and why hiring people with disabilities is smart business. Whether he’s talking about universal design or how to build trust through self-disclosure, he has a consistent message that inclusion benefits everyone. In This Episode:[04:44] We learn about Dr. Adams' personal journey of having detached retinas as a child and losing his vision.[05:29] His parents actually moved to Oregon, so he could go to the Oregon School for the Blind.[06:02] He was given three things at the school including skills needed for blind people such as traveling while blind and learning Braille. He was also given the gift of high expectations and the strong belief that he could overcome obstacles and solve problems.[07:53] He had strong internal locus control meaning he was able to do things.[08:26] After graduating from college, he had to go through the super arduous task of trying to find a job.[09:52] After working in finance, he pivoted into the nonprofit sector, so he could create environments and opportunities for other people with disabilities.[10:28] Leadership was the best lever he could use to create change. He got a masters and PhD in leadership because he felt this was the way to really implement change.[14:52] Common barriers to workforce inclusion for people with disabilities include transportation and employer attitudes. Many don't understand that the lived experience of disability gives people unique opportunities to develop strengths that are really important in the workplace.[17:13] The role of accessible innovation in creating a more inclusive workplace. We discuss the difference between an impairment and a disability.[19:05] We want to reduce disabling situations as much as we can.[20:37] Many people do not want to disclose their mental health issues. One of the best ways to help accommodate people with disabilities is to provide needed accommodations.[22:47] Measuring disability inclusion in the workplace.[24:34] Studies have shown that if 20% of the workforce has a disability, it becomes a better and more inclusive environment.[25:28] Having inclusion for people with disabilities through all the processes of tech transfer.[28:17] The importance of collecting demographic data for inclusion purposes.[31:10] How things have changed and inclusivity is now a matter of discussion. [32:02] Accelerating inclusion and encouraging the adoption of accessible technologies.[34:35] It's important to preserve implementation and enforcement of things like the American Disabilities Act. [35:31] How data for people with disabilities are underrepresented in large language models. Bias can be built into these models.[37:46] Projects and initiatives that Dr. Adams is currently working on include The Apex Program that helps launch blind people into cyber security careers.[39:50] The ultimate goal is to have the same outcomes for people with disabilities as the general population has.Resources: Dr. Kirk AdamsDr. Kirk Adams - LinkedInDr. Kirk Adams - YouTubeThe APEX Program

This month we are honoring the history, achievements, culture, and ongoing advocacy of people with disabilities. This is our third episode celebrating Disability Pride Month. Today, we're privileged to speak with Dr. Jutta Treviranus, a true pioneer in inclusive design. As the director of the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) at OCAD University in Toronto, Dr. Treviranus has been instrumental in shaping global accessibility laws and influencing the tech standards that major companies use. She has been constantly pushing the limits of what genuinely inclusive digital environments can be. Among her many achievements, she's been honored with the prestigious AI for Good - DEI AI Leader of the Year Award from Women in AI. Her entire approach is built on advocating for those whose experiences don't fit the "average" mold.In this episode, you'll learn about her "human starburst" metaphor and how it's changing design philosophy, why focusing on diversity at the edges of a system actually makes those systems more resilient and adaptable and what it really takes to confront bias in the age of AI. Dr. Treviranus shares powerful stories from the trenches, showing how inclusive design is a powerful driver for innovation that ultimately benefits us all.In This Episode:[02:22] Inclusive Design or the Canadian School of Inclusive Design is focused on an understanding that diversity is our greatest asset and inclusion is our greatest challenge.[03:28] The "human starburst" is a growing data set of what people need to thrive.[04:52] In the middle there's a cluster of 80% of the needs of all the population, the remaining 20% of the needs are distributed from that. The needs in the middle are more similar the further apart ones are different.[06:08] Most products designed are for the 80%.[07:22] The unexplored terrain leaves room for innovation.[08:01] The Canadian school starts at the edge and designs for those where things aren't working. It creates an adaptive environment.[09:17] Why inclusive design is critical in our digital age. We are replicating the same pattern instead of transforming. If we design our systems for people that are struggling, we will create things that work for us.[10:52] The inclusive masters program launched at OCAD University back in 2010. They wanted to ensure it meant the largest range of needs.[13:08] What Jutta feels are her significant contributions to inclusive design.[13:30] She's proud of the students who take this mindset and expand it and the organic growth of a new way of looking at things.[16:17] We learn about IDRC's We Count project. By the time chat GPT came out AI was already affecting major critical decisions in everyone's life.[17:27] If we continue this pattern we'll do quite a bit of harm to ourselves and outliers. Such as AI hiring where there's a pattern for the optimal employee. This can amplify discrimination already present and lead to monocultures.[19:29] It's a statistical reasoning machine with no guidance and nothing filtered out. Jutta is trying to address the needs of people who are vulnerable and most harmed by these systems.[21:31] There's an uptick in collateral damage to people who aren't like the average, including iatrogenic death and illness.[23:01] We Count is trying to invert the algorithm and look for different perspectives.[25:48] We Count has been in existence since 2016.[28:07] The importance of engaging the intended beneficiaries and the people who have the most difficulty with whatever you're designing.[29:40] What tech transfer students should know about innovation and inclusion to ensure innovations are accessible and beneficial to the widest audience.[31:13] Engaging more with the community will help embed inclusive design into the tech transfer process.[33:00] One of the biggest misconceptions is that inclusive design costs more.[37:01] Jutta shares advice for championing inclusion in our work. Look for the edges of the human starburst.Resources: Inclusive Design Research Centre OCAD UniversityJutta Treviranus - OCAD UniversityJutta Treviranus - LinkedInWe Count: IDRC's Inclusive Artificial Intelligence (AI) Initiatives