AUTM on the Air

Turning research into something that actually works in the real world sounds straightforward, but it rarely is. There’s a gap between discovery and impact that trips up even the most promising ideas, and it often has less to do with the science and more to do with how the problem is framed, understood, and communicated. My guest today is Marc Filerman, Chief Business Officer at Start2 Group, a global accelerator working across academia, startups, and government to help early-stage ventures de-risk, grow, and scale.Marc brings a unique perspective shaped by his background as an MIT-trained engineer, corporate leader, and serial startup founder. At Start2 Group, he helps run major programs like BARDA-supported VITAL and NSF-backed Stride Ventures, supporting thousands of companies and contributing to billions in follow-on funding. We talk about what actually separates startups that move forward from those that stall out, including the importance of defining a clear problem, building a real value proposition, and choosing a focused foothold market instead of trying to do everything at once.We also get into where universities and tech transfer offices have an opportunity to better prepare founders, especially when it comes to early validation and adopting a commercial lens alongside strong IP. Marc shares practical insights on funding pathways beyond venture capital, common mistakes he sees again and again, and how small shifts in thinking can dramatically improve a startup’s chances of success.In This Episode:[04:05] Marc shares the three through-lines guiding his career: building things, solving complex problems, and teaching others.[06:15] He explains his shift from engineering to startups through a passion for translating real-world problems into solutions.[08:45] Introduction to Start2 Group and its global footprint supporting startup de-risking and commercialization.[11:20] Breakdown of government-backed programs including BARDA and NSF partnerships, and how they fund innovation.[14:10] Differences between VITAL (biotech, pandemic preparedness) and STRIDE (deep tech, materials reclamation).[17:48] A major funding opportunity is highlighted, including a $100M antiviral development initiative.[21:52] Marc outlines three core startup success factors: clear problem, strong value proposition, and focused market entry.[24:10] Why poorly defined problem statements derail startups before they gain traction.[26:30] He explains value propositions as benefits divided by adoption hurdles, not just features or outcomes.[29:15] Common adoption barriers emerge, especially inertia and resistance to workflow disruption in healthcare systems.[32:05] The hidden impact of IT integration and organizational complexity on startup adoption.[34:45] Why many “real problems” never get solved due to low prioritization despite clear need.[42:33] The importance of choosing a foothold market and resisting the urge to over-expand too early.[44:10] Academic founders struggle with narrowing focus due to fear of limiting platform potential.[46:00] Defining a true foothold market as one where customers urgently demand the solution.[48:10] The biggest gap in university commercialization is lack of early validation and commercial thinking.[49:20] Tech transfer offices can better support founders by encouraging market validation beyond IP development.[50:30] Not all startups fit the VC model, alternative funding paths like angels and bootstrapping are critical.[51:30] Closing reflections on improving startup success through clearer strategy and commercialization readiness.Resources: AUTMStart2Marc Filerman - LinkedIn

One of the toughest calls in technology transfer isn’t deciding whether a discovery is interesting or even promising. It’s deciding whether that discovery should become a company at all. There’s a big difference between a strong piece of research and something that can support a venture-backed startup, and most of the real work happens in that space in between.My guest today is Omar Zahr, Chief Technology Officer at TandemLaunch, a venture creation firm that builds companies around university technologies in collaboration with global industry and academic networks. Omar started his career as a researcher at McGill University, where he completed a Ph.D. in Materials Chemistry before moving into venture development. Over the years, he’s worked at the intersection of deep tech, founders, and university IP, helping shape early-stage research into companies that are actually investable and positioned for growth.We talk about how to evaluate whether a technology is truly “company-ready,” what it takes to build a business around early-stage science, and why not every invention should become a startup. Omar also shares how TandemLaunch approaches founder pairing, how investor expectations shape deep tech timelines, and where tech transfer offices can make or break momentum in the process. It’s a practical look at what happens between invention disclosure and a funded company, and why getting that middle stage right matters so much.In This Episode:[05:08] Omar Zahr walks through his transition from materials science at McGill into venture creation at TandemLaunch.[06:14] He explains how curiosity, not a fixed plan, led him away from academia and toward commercialization.[07:22] The moment he began to understand the broader gap between research and real-world impact started to take shape.[08:35] Omar outlines how TandemLaunch differs from traditional incubators by acting as a company builder, not just a funder.[09:48] The venture creation model is described as an end-to-end process from invention to seed-stage startup.[11:02] He shares what makes a university technology “company-ready,” starting with proof of core scientific validity.[12:16] The idea of building a business narrative first comes into focus as a key decision-making tool.[13:29] Working backward from a successful exit helps determine whether a startup path even makes sense.[14:41] Omar explains how some technologies are better suited for licensing when a full company story can’t be formed.[15:54] The role of tech transfer offices is highlighted as essential for structuring deals and protecting all sides.[17:08] Early IP clarity is discussed, focusing on capturing the true differentiator behind the invention.[18:21] He breaks down how licensing complexities like field of use and background IP are handled in practice.[19:37] Getting involved early allows TandemLaunch to influence patent strategy and support broader filings.[20:49] The conversation shifts to founder selection, including how technical and product leads are identified.[22:03] Omar explains why experienced CEOs are critical, even when other team members are first-time founders.[23:17] Managing expectations between inventors and startup teams often comes down to relationship dynamics.[24:28] Deep tech timelines and investor expectations are explored, with a focus on reducing risk step by step.[25:32] Omar closes on a key challenge: slow negotiations introduce risk and can quietly kill otherwise strong deals.Resources: AUTMTandemLaunchOmar Zahr - LinkedInOmar Zahr - AUTM

Some of the most meaningful industry–academic partnerships don’t begin with a breakthrough headline or a flashy piece of technology. More often, they take shape around a real research need, a practical solution, and a willingness to keep showing up and working through the details over time. That’s the kind of collaboration we’re exploring here, including how ideas move from early-stage science into something researchers can actually use, and what it takes to make those relationships last.My guest today is Mark Fairey, Senior Licensing Manager at STEMCELL Technologies, Canada’s largest biotech company known for its high-quality reagents, instruments, and tools used by life science researchers around the world. Mark has spent two decades at STEMCELL, moving through roles in R&D, scientific sales, business operations, and now licensing and business development. That range of experience gives him a grounded, practical perspective on what it really takes to turn academic discoveries into reliable, scalable products, and why the strongest partnerships often start long before anything is ready for market.We talk about what actually bridges the gap between a promising idea in the lab and something that can be reproduced, scaled, and trusted in labs globally. Mark shares how STEMCELL evaluates technologies, why understanding real-world workflows matters just as much as the science itself, and where academic teams often underestimate the challenges of usability and scale. We also get into the role of tech transfer offices, what makes early conversations productive, and why consistent communication is still the backbone of any successful long-term partnership.In This Episode:[02:03] Mark Fairey reflects on his 20-year path at STEMCELL Technologies, from research into sales, operations, and licensing.[03:11] He explains how time spent working directly with researchers gave him a clearer view of how products perform in the real world.[04:07] The conversation turns to STEMCELL’s “scientists helping scientists” philosophy and how that mindset still shapes the company today.[05:02] Mark discusses what helps move a promising academic insight toward something that can become a dependable product.[06:18] He says early-stage science needs more than exciting data. It also needs a real commercial niche and a practical use case.[07:26] A simple muffin-baking analogy captures why scaling a process is much harder than just repeating what worked in the lab.[08:39] Mark shares how his exposure to customers and end users affects the way he evaluates technologies for licensing.[09:47] Trust, strong science, and a shared commitment to improving research workflows all factor into lasting academic partnerships.[10:56] He points to communication as one of the most important ways tech transfer offices can keep partnerships productive over time.[12:04] Regular check-ins, clear expectations, and timely replies all make it easier for industry and academia to stay aligned.[13:16] Not every collaboration leads to a license, and Mark explains why smaller, informal relationships can still be worthwhile.[14:28] The discussion highlights what academic teams sometimes miss about usability, shelf stability, and large-scale reproducibility.[15:42] Mark broadens the lesson beyond life sciences, arguing that commercialization always starts with solving a real-world problem.[16:54] He reflects on how the volume of university innovation has grown and how both academia and industry have become more fluent in each other’s needs.[18:06] When researchers or tech transfer offices first reach out, a solid non-confidential overview helps make the conversation more productive.[19:02] Mark closes with his biggest takeaway for tech transfer professionals: communication, empathy, and active listening matter most in building relationships.Resources: AUTMSTEMCELL TechnologiesMark Fairey - LinkedIn

Sometimes the most powerful innovations come from the most personal places. This episode tells the extraordinary story of Danyelza (naxitamab), a life-saving immunotherapy for children with neuroblastoma, and how it earned a finalist spot in the AUTM Better World Project.What makes this story truly remarkable isn't just the science, although that's impressive enough. It's the unlikely partnership between a researcher who refused to give up, a tech transfer team that believed in an "ultra-orphan" drug when no one else would, and a father who turned his desperation into determination by founding a company to bring this therapy to other children facing the same devastating diagnosis as his daughter.Joining me are three key figures from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who shepherded this breakthrough from lab bench to bedside: Dr. Nai-Kong Cheung, the Enid A. Haupt Chair in Pediatric Oncology and a world-renowned expert in antibody-based therapies for childhood cancers; Dr. Yashodhara Dash, Vice President of Entrepreneurship & Commercialization at MSK; and Dr. Imke Ehlers-Surur, Director of Technology Development & Licensing, who negotiated one of the most unconventional licensing deals in tech transfer.We discuss the 25-year journey from early mouse antibodies to FDA approval, why pharma companies initially passed on this technology, how regulatory designations like the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher changed the business case, and what happened when MSK had to decide which patients would receive limited drug supplies a moment Dr. Cheung compares to Schindler's List.Disclosure: MSK and Dr. Cheung have financial interests in Danyelza.In This Episode:[03:07] Dr. Cheung explains neuroblastoma is a devastating childhood cancer that spreads to bone, bone marrow, and other organs, making it one of the most difficult pediatric cancers to treat.[04:31] The "aha moment" came in the mid-1990s with antibody 3F8, when the team saw how these antibodies could light up tumors and eliminate metastatic disease.[07:00] The early mouse antibody got rejected by the body, so the team used protein engineering to create a humanized version that could arm the immune system without rejection.[08:14] Funding was one of the toughest challenges working with small budgets meant relying heavily on internal grants and parent groups like the Band of Parents.[09:31] Dr. Dash describes the commercial landscape as a "hard sell". It was an ultra-orphan market, and companies wanted small molecules instead of antibodies.[10:22] Persistence and entrepreneurial mindset kept the project going internally, applying for FDA designations and advancing the technology before finding the right partner.[11:01] Dr. Ehlers reveals Y-mAbs Therapeutics was founded by Thomas Gadd, the father of one of Dr. Cheung's patients, who built a company when other paths stalled.[12:07] Working with a founder who had unparalleled motivation but limited drug development experience meant MSK developed a forward-looking commercialization strategy.[14:28] The biggest difference in negotiating with a patient-family founder versus traditional VCs was making sure both sides were speaking the same language.[17:34] While MSK's Technology Development Fund provided some gap funding, the real story was philanthropic support from groups like the Band of Parents.[18:42] The conversation turns to FDA accelerated approval in November 2020, after running out of drugs and having to decide which patients would benefit a moment compared to Schindler's List.[21:12] To avoid conflicts of interest when helping form Y-mAbs in 2015, stepping out of the clinic completely became necessary to focus on research full time.[24:19] The regulatory designations were "transformative" orphan drugs given seven years of exclusivity, and the rare pediatric disease designation came with a priority review voucher worth $80-300 million.[27:18] Without these regulatory incentives, the startup may not have been fundable at all, though Thomas Gadd is noted as a "force of nature."[28:18] Y-mAbs' acquisition by CERB Pharmaceuticals means proceeds will flow back to MSK to fund future cancer research, a typical life cycle for early stage technologies.[29:41] Finding a drug or cure for a child so they can reach their full potential is described as priceless, with reflections on the anguish parents face.[30:58] A powerful story about a physician father whose daughter responded to the antibody but ultimately died from graft versus host disease, an experience that drives the mission.[34:05] When there's a convergence of mission and purpose with many people participating, that flame will continue to burn and inspire other tech transfer offices.[35:34] The conversation concludes with emphasis on the importance of philanthropy, the power of parents, and finding a mission-driven partner to achieve FDA approval.Resources: AUTMMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterThe Nai-Kong Cheung LabDr. Nai-Kong CheungDr. Yashodhara DashDr. Yashodhara Dash - LinkedInDr. Imke Ehlers-SururDr. Imke Ehlers-Surur - LinkedInDanyelzaAUTM Better World ProjectBand of ParentsY-mAbs TherapeuticsSERB Pharmaceuticals

If you've ever thought that intellectual property was just for lawyers, patent professionals, and the occasional venture capitalist, today's episode might change your mind. We're talking about what it would look like if anyone, your neighbor, your parents, maybe even a seven-year-old with a wallet could find, understand, and invest in the technologies shaping our future. It's a big idea, and our guests are actively building the infrastructure to make it real.Chris Hack and Geoffrey Smith are the co-founders of Brilliance, a company working at the intersection of AI, blockchain, and decentralized finance to make intellectual property more accessible and investable. They're building tools that help non-specialists navigate patent landscapes using plain language search, connecting problem-solvers with the right opportunities, and experimenting with tokenization as a way to open royalty stream investing to a much broader audience than has ever had access before.In this conversation, we dig into what it actually means to democratize IP, how AI is changing the discovery and translation of patents for people outside the profession, and what role blockchain and smart contracts could realistically play in the future of licensing and royalty management. We also talk about the guardrails that need to exist, the misconceptions worth clearing up, and where Chris and Geoffrey see the biggest opportunities for tech transfer offices to dip their toes in without taking on a lot of risk.In This Episode:[02:28] Chris explains that democratizing IP is less about what it is and more about who can access it everyday people, not just specialists.[02:30] The biggest barriers to IP participation are readability, discoverability, and the high cost of creation, all of which technology can help address.[03:49] Geoffrey adds that beyond discovery and translation friction, there's a matching problem: universities want partners, companies want solutions, and no one has solved the bridge between them.[03:50] Brilliance built AI tools not for patent professionals, but for investors and entrepreneurs who need a low-friction first pass at understanding what a patent covers and why it matters.[05:13] The tools are not patent drafting tools, they're designed to expand the footprint of who engages with IP in the first place.[05:48] Chris and Geoffrey share their vision of making IP as conversational and familiar as real estate, starting with the people closest to us.[07:57] Tech transfer offices can list IP on Brilliance's repository for free, feeding their AI model and getting exposure to a new class of potential investors.[09:55] The conversation turns to tokenization and why NFTs in this context have nothing to do with digital art and everything to do with creating an immutable ledger for royalty contracts.[10:21] Chris breaks down how NFTs function in their prototype marketplace as pointers or receipts, not the underlying contracts themselves.[12:49] Brilliance's current model involves acquiring royalty streams, syndicating the funding, and owning the stream with a vision to move those transactions fully on-chain over time.[13:50] Smart contracts in this context aren't legal agreements, they're programmable rules that govern how a token behaves on the blockchain and direct payments to whoever holds it.[15:39] Blockchain explorers could eventually give municipalities and governments real-time visibility into where innovation is happening and where to direct funding.[16:34] The most common concerns Brilliance hears from institutions involve regulatory uncertainty and security, but Chris and Geoffrey treat those as design guidelines, not dealbreakers.[18:49] Compliance and governance aren't obstacles; they're the blueprint for building the right product, including AML and KYC requirements for the next marketplace iteration.[19:06] The team is watching the Genius Act and Clarity Act closely, hoping clearer federal guidelines will let them move with more confidence.[20:08] Brilliance focuses on non-dilutive funding by purchasing the economic interest in a royalty stream while leaving the underlying IP assets intact.[22:00] Guardrails for tokenized IP investment need to address regulatory compliance, asset vetting, buyer and seller transparency, and clear valuation frameworks.[24:00] For tech transfer offices wanting a low-risk entry point, the IP repository is free, requires minimal effort, and immediately connects listings to active investors using AI search.[24:30] The Connect platform matches problem-havers with problem-solvers using embedded AI, and was built specifically to solve the sponsored research visibility problem.[25:30] Chris addresses common misconceptions: NFTs are not speculative assets, smart contracts are not legal contracts, and blockchain does not require cryptocurrency speculation.[26:49] Geoffrey's son asked how to invest in robots and that question became their clearest articulation of what success looks like in five to ten years.[27:59] Most of the existing IP ecosystem patent attorneys, legal contracting, relationship-driven deals will remain intact. Brilliance is adding to it, not replacing it.[30:00] Chris shares a hope for the future: rewarding collaborative innovation over individual filings and reducing the siloing that slows down big breakthroughs.[31:28] For tech transfer professionals wanting to stay current, Chris recommends subscribing to Brilliance's newsletter as a curated starting point for AI and blockchain trends.[32:17] Geoffrey closes with a reminder that understanding the fundamentals of AI — not just the applications is the safest and most practical place to start.Resources: AUTMBrillianceThe LanternChris Hack - LinkedInGeoffrey Smith - LinkedIn

If you've ever wondered what's actually going on inside a company's head when a university comes knocking with a new technology, today's episode is for you. We're getting into the real mechanics of university-industry partnerships and what makes them work, what slows them down, and where the biggest opportunities are being left on the table.My guest today has lived this from just about every angle imaginable. He started his career in Ecuador, where he built the country's first university tech transfer office essentially from scratch. He then co-founded an ed-tech startup that turned profitable in its first year, led digital innovation licensing at Duke University, and now sits on the industry side at Samsung Research America, where he manages university collaboration programs and serves as a bridge between academic research and one of the world's largest tech companies.In this conversation, we get into what Samsung actually looks for when a university brings an opportunity forward, how they think about technology at different stages of readiness, and why the human factor in these relationships matters more than most people realize. We also talk about how fast-moving fields like AI are changing the rules of the game for tech transfer professionals, and he shares some really practical advice on how to position technologies so companies lean in rather than walk away.In This Episode:[03:12] David Chang shares how curiosity and a belief in innovation as an engine for economic development shaped his global career in tech transfer.[03:58] His path spans building Ecuador’s first tech transfer office, founding a startup, working at Duke, and now leading university partnerships at Samsung.[04:41] Early work in Ecuador showed how innovation ecosystems develop slowly through trust and incremental collaboration.[05:36] In emerging markets, university partnerships often begin with student projects before growing into research and commercialization efforts.[06:44] David explains how seeing both the university and corporate sides of tech transfer reshaped his perspective.[08:09] Relationships between tech transfer offices and industry partners often drive successful collaborations more than databases or programs.[09:47] Industry timelines can be tight, and lengthy contract edits can create friction in university–industry partnerships.[11:13] At Samsung’s LeapU program, three factors help advance a university technology: differentiation, clear milestones, and strategic fit.[12:08] Demonstrations that spark an internal “aha moment” can help companies rally support for a new technology.[13:27] Samsung evaluates proposals through a balance of technology push and market demand.[14:16] The company organizes partnerships by technology readiness through the START, LeapU, and LeapS programs.[14:58] START accepts early research ideas, while LeapU and LeapS rely on trusted relationships and invitations.[15:43] Strong university partners often begin with deep expertise in a specific research area.[16:29] Tech transfer offices add value by mentoring researchers on IP strategy and identifying entrepreneurial investigators.[17:52] Emerging technologies like AI and robotics are pushing companies toward new collaboration models.[18:41] Development speed matters in AI, where innovations can become obsolete within a short time.[19:36] Platform technologies with modular components are often easier for companies to adopt than standalone inventions.[21:18] Cultural factors such as flexibility and ongoing dialogue often distinguish the best university partners.[22:44] Researchers interested in collaborating with Samsung should highlight their research background and concrete collaboration ideas.[24:03] Combining technical depth with a strong business case can help tech transfer professionals position inventions more effectively.[25:32] Industry conferences like AUTM provide valuable opportunities to build long-term collaboration networks.[26:18] Reflecting on his career, David notes how working on both sides of tech transfer deepened his understanding of how innovation moves to market.Resources: AUTMSamsung Research AmericaSTARTLEAP-ULEAP-S

One of the biggest challenges in tech transfer isn't generating innovation — it's helping promising technologies move from early success into sustained, real-world use. That pattern shows up across industries, but today we're going to explore it through one fast-moving example: AI in healthcare. My guest is Adam Brickman, a healthcare innovation leader and part of the team behind Vega Health, a company focused on helping organizations identify, implement, and scale validated AI solutions. Adam brings a practitioner's perspective to a problem that's becoming harder to ignore. Technologies that show real promise, sometimes even strong clinical results, can still end up stuck at their site of origin, never reaching the patients and health systems that need them most. Vega Health was built to change that by creating a new commercialization pathway that connects proven AI models from leading academic medical centers and health systems with the community hospitals that make up the vast majority of healthcare in this country.We discuss why AI that works at one institution doesn't automatically translate somewhere new, and what it actually takes to bridge that gap. We talk about workflow discovery, the importance of testing models against local patient data before full deployment, and why user experience and staff buy-in are just as critical as the technology itself. Adam also shares what Vega Health looks for when evaluating whether an AI solution is ready to scale and has some pointed thoughts for tech transfer offices on licensing strategy in an increasingly crowded market.In This Episode:[02:29] Adam describes why many AI innovations remain trapped at their site of origin, even after demonstrating strong clinical or operational results. [03:10] The conversation breaks down four traditional commercialization paths and introduces Vega Health’s role as a fifth, scale-focused alternative. [04:05] A common assumption is challenged: the belief that only large academic medical centers can access or afford high-quality AI solutions. [04:48] Adam explains why success in one health system rarely translates directly, emphasizing that implementation context and workflow differences are critical. [05:32] Vega Health’s approach is outlined, including retrospective data testing to determine which models perform best in a specific patient population. [06:40] The typical AI purchasing process is critiqued, highlighting the risks of committing to full deployment before validating real-world performance. [07:31] The shift from “technology that works” to “technology that is used daily” is framed as a human and organizational challenge, not just a technical one. [08:12] Adam stresses that technology must adapt to clinicians and staff workflows rather than expecting already-burdened users to change behavior. [09:05] Validation is defined through live clinical deployment combined with peer-reviewed evidence, reducing the risks of first-time real-world testing. [10:18] Transparency gaps in AI documentation are addressed, with Vega Health advocating standardized reporting on training data, origins, and performance. [12:02] Adam reflects on the disconnect between innovation teams solving local problems and vendors pursuing only the most prestigious institutions. [13:15] The imbalance in vendor strategy is highlighted, noting that most AI companies target a small percentage of elite hospitals while community systems remain underserved. [14:10] Non-technical barriers take center stage, including alert fatigue, workflow friction, and the outsized importance of thoughtful UI and UX design.[18:18] A story of initial resistance illustrates how skepticism can soften when end users feel heard through collaborative workflow discovery. [20:31] Evaluation expands beyond model accuracy to include adoption metrics, clinical outcomes, administrative impact, and measurable return on investment. [22:23] Adam offers strategic guidance to tech transfer offices: determine whether an innovation stands alone as a company or functions better as a feature. [24:40] The risks of mandatory exclusivity are discussed, especially in a rapidly crowding AI market likely to experience consolidation. [26:05] The episode closes with a reflection on why scaling innovation is difficult, resource-intensive, and still deeply worth pursuing.Resources: AUTMAdam Brickman - LinkedInVega Health

Policy conversations can feel distant until they land squarely on the desks of technology transfer professionals. Coming to you from the AUTM Annual Meeting in Seattle, we’re taking a closer look at what’s unfolding in Washington, D.C., and why it matters for research commercialization, patents, startups, and university innovation.My guest is someone many of you already know, Mike Waring. Mike has spent more than four decades immersed in Washington policy, beginning in broadcast journalism, then on Capitol Hill, and later as a lobbyist for a major trade association. For twenty years, he led the University of Michigan’s Washington office, working at the intersection of research, technology transfer, and intellectual property policy. He is a former AUTM Assistant Vice President for Advocacy, past chair of AUTM’s Public Policy Advisory Committee, and now AUTM’s Advocacy and Alliances Coordinator, helping guide engagement with Congress and federal agencies on the issues shaping our community.We explore the current mood toward universities and innovation, the bipartisan appetite for research and competitiveness, and the realities behind proposed policy shifts. We discuss the floated “innovation dividend” concept targeting university royalty income, developments at the USPTO, including Section 101 and PTAB practices, the status of PARA and PREVAIL legislation, and the ripple effects of SBIR/STTR authorization delays on university startups. Mike also shares practical guidance for tech transfer offices on working effectively with campus government relations teams, leveraging regional impact stories, and keeping policymakers connected to the real-world outcomes of university innovation.In This Episode:[1:38] Mike Waring describes the Washington mood, noting that tech transfer is often folded into broader debates about universities rather than treated as a standalone issue.[2:06] Even amid generalized skepticism toward higher education, members of Congress tend to maintain strong loyalty to institutions in their own states.[2:47] “All politics is local” becomes the strategic anchor, emphasizing regional and district-level framing when communicating innovation impact.[3:21] Innovation remains a bipartisan priority, with policymakers broadly aligned around jobs, new technologies, and competitiveness.[3:52] Congress moves toward near-full funding for NSF and NIH despite earlier proposals for deep cuts, reinforcing support for the research pipeline.[4:44] Sustained research investment is framed as essential for U.S. competitiveness with China and other global innovators.[5:25] The floated “innovation dividend” proposal raises concern, particularly the idea of capturing roughly half of university royalty income.[6:03] Pushback from the Bayh-Dole Coalition and other stakeholders highlights misunderstandings about how the government already benefits from research.[6:37] The absence of formal policy language is viewed as a cautiously hopeful sign that the royalty proposal may lose momentum.[7:35] Smaller tech transfer offices are identified as especially vulnerable to royalty revenue disruptions.[8:34] Data, transparency, and institution-specific context are positioned as critical tools in campus leadership discussions.[9:07] A constructive meeting with USPTO leadership signals renewed engagement with the higher-education community.[10:20] Section 101 and PTAB practices emerge as focal points for patent system improvements.[10:33] USPTO outreach shifts from regional buildings to more direct university-based engagement across the country.[12:39] PARA and PREVAIL legislation are reintroduced, targeting subject matter eligibility and PTAB reform.[13:08] Patent eligibility challenges are linked to difficulties in protecting diagnostics and therapeutics.[14:34] Committee dynamics and limited legislative runway underscore the difficulty of advancing complex patent reforms.[15:37] Even moving bills through the Senate is framed as laying groundwork for future Congresses.[16:44] SBIR/STTR authorization lapses disrupt new awards, creating uncertainty for startups and early-stage technologies.[17:09] Senate disagreements focus on limits for repeat grant recipients and geographic equity concerns.[18:04] Prolonged delays raise fears that agencies could redirect funds away from SBIR programs.[18:53] Tech transfer offices are encouraged to share real startup impact stories with senators to increase urgency.[19:55] Final appropriations outcomes exceed expectations, easing earlier fears of drastic science funding cuts.[20:26] NSF’s relatively small cut is described as a meaningful victory in a constrained budget environment.[21:10] The rejection of a 15% indirect cost cap is welcomed as a significant win for research institutions.[22:08] Tech transfer professionals are reminded they are not lobbyists but key partners to campus government relations teams.[22:56] Providing data, success stories, and regional economic impact becomes central to effective advocacy.[23:33] Chambers of commerce and economic development groups are highlighted as valuable third-party allies.[24:18] Inviting local members of Congress to innovation events helps humanize tech transfer outcomes.[25:11] Starting Hill meetings with “What do you know about tech transfer?” helps establish shared understanding.[26:19] Simple visuals explaining the innovation cycle are recommended to clarify commercialization processes.[27:09] Other Transaction Authority agreements and revenue-sharing clauses emerge as areas to monitor closely.[27:27] A proposed patent tax is dismissed as impractical and ultimately abandoned.[28:04] Key issues for 2026 include SBIR reauthorization, IP legislation, and upcoming appropriations.[29:08] Washington’s unpredictability is acknowledged, paired with the reminder to “never waste a good crisis.”[29:42] Policy threats are seen as catalysts that elevate tech transfer visibility within university leadership.[30:11] Knowledge transfer from faculty to students is reaffirmed as a core, often overlooked dimension of tech transfer.Resources: AUTMMike Waring - LinkedInProtecting Tech Transfer And University Innovation Funding With Mike WaringAUTM AdvocacyBayh-Dole CoalitionUSPTOUSPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)SBIR.govNational Science Foundation (NSF)National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Breakthrough therapies do not begin with commercialization, yet without it, many breakthroughs never reach patients. That tension sits at the center of this conversation with Michelle Durborow, Vice President of Research Operations at the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, where she oversees grant administration and program operations for Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP).Michelle explains how a patient-driven mission influences the foundation’s research funding strategy, particularly when it comes to early, high-risk science. From the outset, her team evaluates not only scientific merit, but also what each project makes possible, the decisions it informs, the risks it reduces, and how it contributes to the long-term therapeutic pipeline.The episode also takes a look at intellectual property. Michelle shares why MJFF views IP not as a barrier, but as a practical mechanism that enables investment, partnership, and ultimately patient access. By removing itself from IP ownership, the foundation reduces friction while still supporting responsible protection, alignment of incentives, and meaningful data-sharing practices.Michelle brings an operational perspective that resonates strongly with the tech transfer community. She speaks about bottlenecks, collaboration dynamics, and the importance of engaging earlier, before agreements become urgent and negotiations become strained. This strategic conversation offers lessons that extend well beyond Parkinson’s research.In This Episode:[01:50] Michelle outlines the Michael J. Fox Foundation’s mission to eliminate Parkinson’s disease while improving treatments for patients today.[02:16] Technology transfer is the pathway that moves discoveries from ideas into scalable therapies and diagnostics.[03:05] We discuss how patient impact directly connects to commercialization and translational strategy.[04:10] Why MJFF evaluates translation potential at the very start of proposal review.[04:55] Early-stage projects are assessed based on what decisions they inform and which risks they retire.[06:12] Intellectual property is positioned not as a barrier, but as a bridge enabling investment and development.[07:05] How patents provide confidence for partners navigating long, expensive R&D pathways.[08:02] MJFF’s choice not to claim IP ownership is highlighted as a friction-reducing strategy.[09:10] Michelle emphasizes that misaligned incentives not patents are what typically stall progress.[11:16] Bottlenecks such as prolonged MTAs and data-use negotiations are identified as major slowdowns.[12:11] She notes that unclear access terms and fragmented ownership frequently delay research momentum.[12:33] The importance of bringing experts into agreement structuring is underscored.[13:07] Michelle describes initiatives like the LURC2 Investigative Therapeutics Exchange and the LITE consortium.[14:02] Early engagement with technology transfer offices is presented as essential for smoother partnerships.[16:19] Collaboration lessons emerge: align goals early and define roles clearly across stakeholders.[17:10] She advocates running science and deal mechanics in parallel rather than sequentially.[18:02] Straightforward, repeatable agreement frameworks are credited with reducing negotiation friction.[20:15] Trust is described as something built through transparency about incentives and risks.[22:05] Michelle shares Michael J. Fox’s guiding principle: “purity of motives.”[25:51] She reflects on her career shift from lab science to research operations and systems design.[27:05] Michelle highlights MJFF resources, including guides, webinars, and the Buddy Network.[28:37] Looking ahead, she expresses optimism about precision medicine and biomarker-driven care.[29:55] Her closing message is to move faster together and keep patients at the center.Resources: AUTMThe Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s ResearchMichelle Durborow - LinkedInAligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP)Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI)Targets to Therapies ProgramParkinson's Buddy NetworkParkinson’s IQ + You Events

Real-world impact doesn’t happen by accident. It takes intention, structure, and a willingness to rethink how research moves beyond the university. That’s the inflection point the University of Rhode Island Research Foundation has reached as it rebrands to URI Innovations. This shift signals more than a name change. It reflects a broader evolution into a campus-wide hub for technology translation, entrepreneurship, and strategic partnership.My guests today are Peter Rumsey and Allison Markova of URI Innovations. Peter serves as AVP of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. A former military officer with more than 30 years of private-sector business development experience, he has been instrumental in launching the Rise Up initiative supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. He was recently honored as a Career Achiever by Providence Business News for his work advancing innovation and economic development in Rhode Island and beyond.Peter also serves as a part-time instructor in innovation and entrepreneurship at URI, is Chair Emeritus at Leadership Rhode Island, and currently chairs the Rhode Island State Innovation Hub, or RI Hub. Allison Markova is Director of Technology Transfer and Innovation Partnerships at URI Innovations, bringing deep experience from her previous role as Director of Technology Transfer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.On today’s show, we explore what’s driving the rebrand, how initiatives like Rise Up are reshaping entrepreneurship training on campus and across state lines, and how URI is building momentum through its inaugural tech showcase. It’s a look at how early engagement, integrated IP strategy, and a strong regional ecosystem can turn research strength into sustained real-world impact.In This Episode:[03:15] The rebrand from URI Research Foundation to URI Innovations is explained, clarifying the shift from a confusing legacy name to a forward-facing identity centered on innovation and entrepreneurship.[04:24] Peter outlines why now was the right moment for change, pointing to URI’s R1 status, research growth, and the need to scale translation capacity.[05:48] A move beyond a patents-first mindset is emphasized, focusing instead on pairing intellectual property with commercialization to create true innovation.[07:09] Allison describes the brand promise of transforming discovery into impact through clearer pathways for faculty, students, and industry partners.[08:31] Early engagement becomes a central theme as URI Innovations reframes itself from a process office to a strategic partner in exploration and execution.[09:47] The three pillars of IP stewardship, venture development, and strategic partnerships are presented as integrated functions rather than silos.[11:06] Strategic partnerships range from sponsored research to startups embedding within new innovation centers and incubators.[12:26] Ocean and blue technology leadership takes center stage, with examples including Regent Craft and collaborations with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center.[16:26] Rise Up is introduced as a tri-state, Navy-supported initiative focused on dual-use technologies and workforce development.[18:47] The Defense Department’s dual-use philosophy is explained as startups must succeed commercially rather than rely solely on defense funding.[21:09] Undergraduate students tackle real defense and industry challenges using Steve Blank’s business model canvas and Bill Aulet’s disciplined entrepreneurship framework.[22:57] The Patents to Products program provides gap funding and mentorship to translate university IP into market-ready ventures.[24:42] Faculty Innovation Fellows integrate entrepreneurship tools directly into diverse curricula, from engineering to the arts.[26:26] The Ideation Studio invites students, faculty, and community members into a 10-week sprint from idea to MVP and live pitch.[28:59] Impact metrics go beyond disclosures and startups, tracking cultural change through increased early engagement.[30:33] Growth in pitch night participation from a handful of teams to double-digit ventures signals a shift in campus culture.[32:48] SWEPT, an AI-driven street-sweeping optimization platform, illustrates how student innovation can scale globally.[34:10] Juice Robotics demonstrates how affordable ocean sensing technologies can disrupt traditionally high-cost field operations.[36:11] The inaugural Tech Showcase positions URI alongside regional leaders and launches Rhode Island Startup Week.[38:31] A public goal to create funded startups each year reflects a bold, action-oriented approach to building momentum.[41:03] Allison shares why she joined URI Innovations, citing institutional commitment and cultural readiness for growth.[42:34] Tech transfer is reframed as an impact platform rather than a patents office, emphasizing storytelling and amplification.[43:50] Commercialization is positioned as complementary to scholarship, expanding researchers’ avenues for impact without compromising academic missions.[46:32] Looking ahead, Peter outlines the vision for a “Rhody Innovation Hub” built as both a physical space and an entrepreneurial ethos.[49:48] Closing advice includes just start, take shots on the goal, and don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress.Resources: AUTMThe University of Rhode IslandPete Rumsey - URIPete Rumsey - LinkedInAllison Markova - URIAllison Markova - LinkedInURI RISE-UPRIHubOffice of Naval Research

Technology Transfer: A Policy Primer for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property and Invention offers a practical policy and practice framework designed for use across institutions and jurisdictions. In this episode, we talk about how the handbook came together, including the decision to use the BookSprints methodology, a structured five-day collaborative process used to develop a complete policy and practice guide.I’m joined by four remarkable individuals who played central roles in the creation of the handbook. James Filpi, JD, from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program, envisioned the project and championed its development at CLDP, an organization focused on strengthening legal and regulatory frameworks that support commerce worldwide. Joy Goswami, MBA, Director of Licensing and Commercialization Initiatives at the Research Foundation for the State University of New York and a member of AUTM’s leadership, brings experience from one of the nation’s largest research funding organizations and the broader technology transfer community. Michael Samardzija, PhD, JD, partner at Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, brought a practitioner’s perspective from years of legal and IP work in the technology transfer space. Alysa Khouri, who facilitated the BookSprints process, kept the group moving and helped structure the work over the five days.I also want to acknowledge the broader group who participated in the BookSprint, including Edward Blocker of the Intellectual Property Owners Association; Davit Ghazaryan and Naira Campbell-Kyureghyan from the American University of Armenia; Priya Prasad of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program; Richard S. Cahoon of Cornell University; and myself, Lisa Mueller, from Casimir Jones. The handbook was developed at Caboose Farm near Camp David, Maryland, in August 2025, where the group was sequestered for five intensive days. Let’s dive into the conversation.In This Episode:[00:33] We just finished Technology Transfer: A Policy Primer for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property and will be sharing the collaborative process we used. [04:20] James Filpi explains the original vision for the handbook, including CLDP’s focus on giving policymakers and technology transfer managers a practical framework for building innovation ecosystems in emerging markets.[06:18] Alysa Khouri explains the BookSprints methodology, including its five-day structure and how the process moves from shared framing to writing and intensive cross-editing.[10:45] The advantages of overnight editing, illustration support, and working across time zones are discussed as part of the BookSprints model.[15:33] Michael Samardzija reflects on the intensity of the five-day sprint and how early uncertainty gave way to structure once roles, chapters, and editing rhythms were established.[17:46] Joy Goswami describes how different institutional and professional perspectives were aligned into a single, coherent handbook.[20:35] The decision to work in seclusion at Caboose Farm near Camp David is discussed, including how the setting supported focus and collaboration.[25:20] The day-to-day rhythm of the sprint is described, from early mornings and shared meals to writing, revising, and late-night editing.[31:56] The organization and scope of the handbook are outlined, including its progression from IP fundamentals to ecosystem development and emerging trends.[34:15] How policymakers, universities, tech transfer offices, startups, and investors can use the handbook is explored.[37:39] The decision to release the handbook under a Creative Commons license is discussed, along with why open access was critical to its use in training, policy development, and global adaptation.[43:23] Reflections on what made this BookSprint distinctive emphasize collaboration, shared purpose, and practical outcomes.[47:13] Participants reflect on what surprised them most about the process, including how quickly a coherent, high-quality handbook came together.[54:07] Next steps are outlined, including workshops, training programs, legislative drafting support, and international rollout plans.Resources: AUTMJames D. Filpi - CLDPJames D. Filpi - LinkedInJoy Goswami - The State University of New York Research FoundationJoy Goswami - LinkedInMichael Samardzija, Ph.D. - Womble Bond DickinsonMichael Samardzija - LinkedInAlysa Khouri - LinkedInTechnology Transfer GuidebookCommercial Law Development Program CLDPBookSprintsCreative CommonsCaboose Farm

Last week, we kicked off a special two-part series with three of the five women joining the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026. Today, we’re completing that conversation with Laura Schoppe, Chief Commercialization Officer at TechPipeline, and Patricia Stepp, Assistant Vice President for Technology Transfer at Rice University.For listeners who may not yet be familiar with Laura and Patricia, here’s a brief look at their backgrounds. Laura Schoppe is the Chief Commercialization Officer at TechPipeline, and the founder of Fuentek, which she built into one of the world’s leading technology transfer consulting firms. Over the course of her career, Laura has helped universities, government agencies, nonprofits, and Fortune 500 companies proactively and strategically manage intellectual property, drawing on deep expertise in open innovation and IP portfolio management.Patricia Stepp is the Assistant Vice President for Technology Transfer at Rice University, where she leads the strategic planning and day-to-day operations of the Office of Technology Transfer. With a background in biomedical engineering, she brings a thoughtful, hands-on perspective shaped by her earlier work at Arizona State University’s Skysong Innovations, where she launched a diversity initiative focused on expanding commercialization opportunities.In This Episode:[03:05] Patricia reflects on her background in biomedical engineering and what continues to motivate her about moving discoveries from the lab into real-world impact.[04:45] The appeal of tech transfer is framed as constant learning, curiosity, and helping researchers see their work make a difference beyond campus.[06:10] Laura explains what motivated her to found Fuentek, reflecting on her early work in government and university environments and the gaps she saw in how technologies were being commercialized.[08:15] Building a fully virtual tech transfer consulting firm long before remote work was common proves to be a forward-looking decision.[10:30] Internal and external perspectives on tech transfer are compared, highlighting why diverse vantage points strengthen strategy and governance.[12:05] Board diversity is discussed as extending beyond identity to include professional background, institutional scale, and ecosystem role.[14:10] Returning to board service is driven by timing, experience, and the freedom to speak more candidly about systemic pressures.[15:45] AUTM’s role as a welcoming, formative professional community is cited as a major reason for stepping into board leadership.[17:30] Budget constraints, shifting federal funding, and rising caseloads are identified as ongoing realities for tech transfer offices.[18:55] The need to operate more strategically, including being more selective about what to patent, is emphasized as resources tighten.[20:05] Artificial intelligence is discussed as a useful support tool for routine tasks, but not yet a replacement for expert judgment.[21:40] Caution is urged against rushing AI adoption, with a reminder that many tools remain uneven or immature.[23:10] The importance of proactively educating policymakers about how AI is actually used in tech transfer is highlighted.[24:50] Looking ahead five years, the focus shifts toward becoming more proactive, efficient, and licensing-driven rather than reactive.[26:20] Strengthening industry and venture capital relationships is seen as essential to improving commercialization outcomes.[28:10] AUTM’s collaborative culture is highlighted as a defining strength that lifts the entire community.[29:55] Expanding participation in committees and board service is framed as key to AUTM’s long-term resilience.[31:15] Everyday technologies influenced by university tech transfer are cited as a reminder of the field’s broad, often unseen impact.[33:10] Advice for those entering the field emphasizes gaining industry experience and leaning into networking and shared learning.[35:05] Recharging outside of work ranges from creative hobbies to food, music, and film, underscoring the human side of the profession.Resources: AUTMLaura Schoppe - LinkedInTechPipelineFuentekPatricia Stepp - Rice UniversityPatricia Stepp - LinkedIn

Over the next two weeks, we’re doing something a little different, with a special two-part conversation featuring five extraordinary women who will be joining the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026. To give us the space to really dig in, we split these conversations across two episodes, so we could spend more time on the perspectives, experiences, and leadership each of these new board members brings to the tech transfer community.In this episode, we’re joined by Felicia Metz from the University of Maryland Ventures, Maithili Shroff from the University of New Hampshire, and Katie Butcher from Northwestern University. Next week, the conversation continues with Patricia Stepp of Rice University and Laura Schoppe, founder of TechPipeline, bringing in additional viewpoints from both inside and outside the university setting.Katie Butcher brings an MBA from Notre Dame and a Master of Science in Law from Northwestern into her role, giving her a strong mix of business and legal experience that shapes how licensing and commercialization work at Northwestern. Felicia Metz is an Associate Director at University of Maryland Ventures, where her work spans patent prosecution, building and managing IP portfolios, and licensing strategy. Maithili Shroff is a Licensing Manager at the University of New Hampshire, an R1 institution, where she draws on her PhD training to support innovation and intellectual property commercialization, with a perspective shaped by working across a wide range of research areas. Together, these three leaders reflect the breadth of backgrounds, expertise, and lived experience shaping the future of tech transfer, and they offer a thoughtful look at why this moment matters for the profession and for AUTM’s leadership going forward.In This Episode:[00] This is a special two-part series introducing five women who will join the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026.[03:26] Katie shares her path to tech transfer. She has an MBA and has worked in the legal field. She spent her first 20 years in the entertainment industry. [04:33] Her background was strong, but she also had a lot of learning on the job in science, technology, and learning. It's been an exciting adventure being in this field. [05:58] Felicia entered tech transfer as a student and unexpectedly built a long-term career in the field.[08:10] She explains how the profession has evolved toward specialization and complementary skill sets across offices.[09:41] Maithili describes how her PhD led her to question what happens to research after publication.[11:22] She shares how the AUTM fellowship and the collaborative culture of the community shaped her career path.[13:18] The panel discusses why tech transfer welcomes professionals from many backgrounds, not just STEM or law.[15:23] Curiosity, flexibility, and comfort with ambiguity are emphasized as essential traits for success.[16:49] Why running for the AUTM Board felt timely and meaningful.[18:42] The importance of representing non-STEM and operational roles in tech transfer leadership.[20:14] Advocacy, higher-education pressures, and why board service feels urgent right now.[21:20] We discuss funding uncertainty, policy shifts, and broader challenges facing tech transfer.[24:02] Budget constraints, staffing pressures, and the reality of doing more with fewer resources are explored.[26:09] The importance of telling the tech transfer story and demonstrating real-world impact comes into focus.[29:10] Data and metrics are discussed as tools for visibility, accountability, and storytelling.[32:18] Artificial intelligence enters the conversation as both a disruptive force and a potential support tool.[35:10] The panel considers how AI could improve efficiency without replacing human judgment.[38:00] The guests share their hopes for where tech transfer and AUTM could be in five years.[39:50] Felicia shares a personal story that underscores why tech transfer work truly matters.[43:47] Reflections on partnership, service, and shared success.Resources: AUTMKatie Butcher - Northwestern UniversityKatie Butcher - LinkedInFelicia Metz - University of MarylandFelicia Metz - LinkedInMaithili Shroff - University of New HampshireMaithili Shroff - LinkedInAUTM Better World ProjectPatents, Peer Review, and Policy: What Congress Needs to Understand Now with Kate ZernikeLessons From the WIPO-AUTM Knowledge and Technology Transfer Summit with Steve Susalka

We’re diving into the blue economy with a fascinating conversation about ocean innovation and entrepreneurship. The discussion focuses on the practical reality of building ocean-focused companies, including the scientific complexity, regulatory hurdles, funding constraints, and long development timelines that make this sector very different from more familiar startup environments.Our guest is Tamara Kahn Zissman, Director of Founder Success at Seaworthy Collective, a Miami-based nonprofit accelerator supporting BlueTech startups focused on ocean impact. Before working with founders, Tamara spent more than a decade at sea using advanced geophysical sensors in demanding environments. Her work took her from the Arctic to the waters off Borneo, giving her a firsthand view of how ocean systems, climate pressures, and human activity intersect.Tamara holds a Bachelor of Science in Geological Sciences from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Advanced Studies in Climate Science and Policy from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. At Seaworthy Collective, she designs and leads programs built around human-centered design, helping “Sea Change Makers” grow ocean data technologies into viable, planet-positive businesses. We also discuss the Ocean Enterprise Studio and Incubator launching in February 2026, with applications open through January 28, 2026.In This Episode:[00:04] The blue economy and why ocean innovation is becoming a critical focus within research commercialization.[02:44] Tamara Kahn Zissman explains what blue tech means and how the definition of the blue economy has shifted toward sustainability and regeneration.[04:15] She describes the ocean as one of the planet’s most important climate regulators and explains why data gaps remain such a major challenge.[06:21] We explore the founding vision behind Seaworthy Collective and how the organization evolved to better support ocean entrepreneurs.[07:18] Tamara discusses Seaworthy’s emphasis on human-centered design and why supporting founders as people is essential for long-term success.[10:20] Unique barriers ocean startups face, including capital intensity, long validation cycles, and regulatory complexity.[12:30] How collaboration across accelerators can create stronger commercialization pathways than competition alone.[13:36] What Seaworthy looks for in applicants and why alignment between founders and program support matters.[14:42] Tamara outlines the structure of the Ocean Enterprise Studio and Incubator and the level of commitment expected from participants.[16:28] The benefits of mixed cohorts that include both aspiring founders and early-stage startups.[18:45] How community support within cohorts accelerates learning and confidence for first-time founders.[21:30] We talk about the role of ocean data technologies and why they are central to the future of the blue economy.[24:10] How Seaworthy helps founders translate strong science into viable business models without losing impact.[27:05] Non-dilutive funding and why it plays a critical role in ocean innovation.[30:15] How the Continuum network connects ocean enterprise accelerators across the country.[33:20] We discuss how researchers and tech transfer professionals can better engage with ocean-focused startups.[36:56] Details on Seaworthy’s Ocean Enterprise Studio and Incubator launching in February 2026 with a January 28, 2026 application deadline.[38:21] What gives her hope about the future of ocean innovation and growing awareness of the blue economy.[39:52] A call for researchers and entrepreneurs to turn ocean research into real-world solutions.Resources: AUTMSeaworthy CollectiveSeaworthy Ocean Enterprise Studio & IncubatorNOAA Ocean Enterprise NetworkScripps Institution of OceanographyTamara Kahn Zissman - LinkedIn

In November 2025, Bangkok, Thailand became the epicenter of a global conversation about the future of innovation. Leaders from around the world gathered for the WIPO-AUTM Knowledge and Technology Transfer Summit, creating a rare space for open discussion about what is working, what is strained, and what needs to evolve in the tech transfer profession.With participants representing 27 countries, the summit surfaced a striking reality. Whether operating within long-established innovation ecosystems or building tech transfer capacity from the ground up, institutions are wrestling with many of the same core issues. Conversations repeatedly returned to questions of impact, sustainability, and talent, as well as a growing disconnect between how innovation actually unfolds and how it is often funded or evaluated. Short timelines and rigid expectations simply do not match the slow, uneven, and sometimes unpredictable path from research to real-world application.At the same time, it was clear that there is no single right model. Every region approaches technology transfer through the lens of its own culture, institutions, and policy environment. Some emphasize startups, others focus on licensing or industry partnerships, and ownership structures vary widely. What connects these approaches is a shared understanding that technology transfer is no longer a straight line from disclosure to deal. It has become an ecosystem role that requires flexibility, patience, and long-term thinking.To help unpack what these global conversations mean for the future of the profession, we’re joined by Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM, who chaired the summit and had a front-row seat to these discussions. Drawing on perspectives from across continents and systems, Steve offers a grounded view of where technology transfer stands today, where it’s headed, and what it will take to strengthen the profession, support the people doing the work, and expand its real-world impact.In This Episode:[05:32] Steve Susalka shares why the WIPO-AUTM Summit prioritized global dialogue over prescribing best practices.[07:12] Similar concerns surface regardless of whether countries have mature or emerging tech transfer systems.[09:01] Common challenges emerge across 27 countries, even among vastly different innovation ecosystems.[11:04] Why misunderstanding the role of tech transfer creates unrealistic expectations at the institutional level.[13:18] Short-term funding cycles collide with the long timelines required for meaningful innovation.[15:02] The tension between public mission and commercial pressure facing many university offices.[17:44] A comparison of global ownership models and how they influence faculty, startups, and industry engagement.[19:26] How early industry engagement can reduce friction later in the commercialization process.[22:09] Startup formation as a critical bridge across the “valley of death” for early-stage technologies.[24:41] Why some of the most impactful technologies require patience, risk tolerance, and exclusive pathways.[27:36] The profession’s shift away from linear tech transfer models toward ecosystem-based approaches.[29:58] The growing importance of culture-building and education alongside traditional licensing work.[32:15] Why attempting to replicate Silicon Valley or MIT often fails without comparable infrastructure and culture.[34:22] Tech transfer professionals as translators between academia, industry, and government.[36:58] The human toll of tech transfer work, including burnout, turnover, and career sustainability concerns.[39:11] What sustainability really means for tech transfer offices beyond annual budgets.[41:27] How promotion and tenure systems can either reinforce or undermine innovation efforts on campus.[44:08] Why global collaboration can help regions avoid repeating the same hard-earned lessons.[46:03] What surprised Steve most in conversations with leaders from emerging innovation ecosystems.[48:37] Why measuring success purely through revenue misses the broader value of innovation activity.[50:41] AUTM’s role in advocating for the profession and making its impact more visible.[55:12] Aligning funding expectations with realistic innovation timelines as a path to greater impact.[59:08] Steve’s closing call to action for institutions, policymakers, and tech transfer professionals worldwide.Resources: AUTMFostering Global Innovation: AUTM's Role in Shaping International Tech Transfer ConversationsWIPOStephen Susalka - LinkedIn

This is the second episode in our special series on mental health and Tech Transfer.If you missed our first conversation with Jane Wainwright, I encourage you to go back and listen. It’s a candid look at why this topic matters and why it deserves real attention, not to be pushed to the side. Today, we’re continuing that discussion because the pressures inside tech transfer offices haven’t let up with constant policy shifts, funding uncertainty, tight deadlines, and the feeling of being stretched thinner every month. We’re joined today by two researchers from Western Kentucky University who understand these challenges from both the academic and human sides. Dr. Daniel Boamah is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work and a licensed clinical social worker. His research focuses on intellectual and developmental disabilities, child welfare, and addressing disparities affecting African-American males, immigrants, and refugees. He also serves as the clinical director at KYSTEP’s Multigroups and Survivors of Torture Recovery Center, where he works directly with individuals navigating trauma and long-term healing.Dr. Kimberly Green is the department chair and an associate professor in Communication Sciences and Disorders at WKU. She’s a nationally certified speech-language pathologist with deep experience in cultural competence, interprofessional collaboration, and diversity and inclusion efforts. She also participated in the Association of Schools Advancing Health Professions’ 2023 Leadership Development Program, which prepares future leaders in health professions education.Daniel and Kimberly have also partnered on an innovative project using virtual reality to increase awareness of implicit bias in child welfare decision-making, with work supported by multiple grants and recognition across Kentucky’s innovation ecosystem. They’ve been through the Tech Transfer process themselves, and they understand the emotional weight that comes with high-stakes, resource-limited environments. Today, we talk openly about where stress shows up in TTOs, how external pressures are affecting well-being, and what realistic, evidence-based support can look like for professionals who feel like they’re holding everything together without enough backup.In This Episode:[03:18] How culture inside small, specialized TTO teams can either support or hinder mental well-being.[04:28] Daniel outlines how close-knit work environments amplify stress and compound personal and professional pressure.[05:36] Kimberly describes the perfect storm created by rushed timelines, shrinking budgets, and pressure to deliver measurable results.[06:31] We discuss the physical effects of burnout, including sleep disruption and declining overall health.[07:55] Insights from their own commercialization journey, highlighting the emotional demands placed on TTO staff.[09:01] The conversation turns to federal funding uncertainty and how proposed indirect cost caps are impacting morale and stability.[10:22] The psychological ripple effect of budget cuts, including quiet quitting and fractured loyalty.[11:48] We explore how external stressors, such as community trauma and world events, further intensify workplace pressure.[13:06] Job insecurity and how fear, anxiety, and grief spread through close professional communities.[14:13] The real impact of secondary trauma and emotional contagion within teams and families.[15:42] Daniel shares evidence-based strategies for boundaries, coping skills, and building support networks.[17:24] Kimberly highlights no-cost interventions such as affinity groups, behavior monitoring, and trust-centered communication.[18:44] Concerns about EAP usage and strategies to reduce stigma through leadership transparency.[20:02] Sustainable output requires building wellness into workflow rather than expecting staff to “power through.”[21:08] The importance of peer support and external networking for small TTO teams.[22:36] Leadership’s role is examined, including the need for proactive communication and meaningful involvement in problem-solving.[23:54] Why authentic recognition and listening are central to preventing burnout and turnover.[25:13] How harmful responses like “suck it up” undermine trust and accelerate burnout.[26:51] Reframing resilience and grit, noting they cannot be achieved without recovery time and realistic expectations.[28:18] Individual resilience from trauma-informed organizational change and why both matter.[29:34] Practical steps for individuals to unplug, seek help, and be present during the holiday season.[31:21] Workplace trauma is unpacked, revealing how fear, grief, and emotional contagion move through small, overstressed teams.[34:40] Practical mental health strategies are offered, including monitoring physical cues, limiting constant availability, and normalizing unplugging.[38:42] Kimberly emphasizes that meaningful improvements often come from trust, communication, and simple organizational shifts — not expensive programs.[41:11] Stigma surrounding employee assistance programs is addressed, along with ways leaders can model openness to help others feel safe using resources.[44:07] Taking time off becomes complicated when returning means facing a higher workload, reinforcing the need to rethink recovery time.[47:00] Peer support expands outside the home institution, providing a new perspective and a healthier emotional balance for isolated teams.[50:44] Red tape frustrations appear as a major pressure point, prompting a call for proactive collaboration rather than reactive crisis management.[53:15] Leaders are encouraged to ask staff directly what they need instead of guessing from a distance.[57:58] Resilience loses meaning when constant pressure leads to exhaustion rather than growth, and rest must be part of the equation.[1:01:43] How system-level responsibility must match expectations placed on individuals to support mental well-being truly.[1:05:24] Practical holiday-season reminders include being present, seeking help, and allowing yourself to unplug without guilt.[1:08:46] The power of leadership modeling, transparency, and ongoing communication in rebuilding trust.Resources: Daniel Boamah, Ph.D., LCSW - Western Kentucky UniversityDaniel Boamah, Ph.D., MA, LCSW - LinkedInKimberly J. Green, Ed.D., CCC-SLP - Western Kentucky UniversityKimberly J. Green - LinkedInDevelopment of a Multitenant Virtual Reality Platform for Increasing Awareness of Implicit Bias in Child Welfare Decision-Making A Public Health CrisisImproving Mental Health Across IP and Tech Transfer with Jane WainwrightBreaking the Silence on Mental Health in Technology Transfer with Megan Aanstoos, Anji Miller, and Ed Ergenzinger

Every now and then, someone inside a Tech Transfer office tries something small, something meant for their own team, and it ends up resonating far beyond their campus. That’s the path our guest followed, and it’s a great reminder of how ideas in this profession can ripple outward in ways we don’t always expect.My guest today is Chadwig “Chad” Riggs, former marketing associate at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital’s Office of Technology Licensing and the creator of Technology Transfer Professionals Day, which is celebrated each year on December 12, the anniversary of the Bayh–Dole Act. Chad talks about how this whole effort began with a quick holiday video meant to help colleagues understand the licensing process, and how it slowly turned into a day of recognition, education, and connection. He also shares small touches, like custom inventor mugs or light-bulb candy favors, that helped bring faculty into the conversation and made tech transfer feel more approachable.From there, the idea eventually made its way to AUTM, and Chad explains what it took to turn an internal activity into a national recognition day. Along the way, we touch on why acknowledgement matters, especially now, and how stories like St. Jude’s ALK gene journey show the real-world impact that can come from sustained licensing and partnership work. It’s an encouraging reminder that shining a light on the people behind commercialization can strengthen the whole ecosystem.In This Episode: [00:33] We discuss Chad Riggs’ background at St. Jude’s Office of Technology Licensing.[01:20] How marketing, outreach, and internal engagement became central to his Tech Transfer role.[02:45] He recalls how a simple holiday video sparked the idea for broader year-round education and recognition.[04:13] Chad describes the early holiday videos at St. Jude and why Tech Transfer needed its own presence.[05:40] We learn how he wanted to build excitement around disclosures and increase faculty participation.[07:05] The team brainstorms their first set of activities for Technology Transfer Professionals Day.[08:10] Chad talks about St. Jude’s culture of celebrating different professional groups across the hospital.[09:30] The realization hits: Tech Transfer deserves its own day, too.[10:15] He outlines the initial reaction from colleagues and leaders when he proposed the idea.[11:00] Chad explains why choosing December 12, the anniversary of Bayh–Dole, was non-negotiable.[11:43] The team launches their first celebration with inventor mugs, quizzes, and creative giveaways.[13:10] He discusses the importance of pairing recognition with education about the disclosure and licensing process.[14:30] Chad shares how elevator screens, newsletters, and repeated messaging helped build internal awareness.[15:45] He breaks down why the Bayh–Dole Act remains central to Tech Transfer’s identity and purpose.[17:25] The story shifts to how Chad brought the idea to AUTM and pushed for national adoption.[18:50] He talks about navigating committees, lobbying concerns, and sticking to the holiday’s true intent.[20:15] Chad reflects on watching institutions nationwide make the celebration their own.[21:40] Creative examples, like office competitions, stickers, and venture program spotlights, start appearing.[23:00] The AUTM toolkit expands the day with graphics, hashtags, and award ideas.[24:10] Chad shares how recognition days help fight burnout and remind researchers that TTOs are real people.[25:35] He emphasizes the importance of visibility and human connection in a “black box” profession.[26:50] The conversation turns to morale, retention, and why small acknowledgments matter.[27:55] Chad explains how giving people ownership of ideas increases engagement and buy-in.[29:15] He talks about the value of creative exercises and “batting practice” for building stronger innovation habits.[30:40] Chad shares the ALK gene story as a powerful example of the long-term impact of Tech Transfer.[32:20] The discussion covers how one discovery evolved into multiple FDA-approved therapies.[34:05] He highlights the economic and clinical reach of ALK inhibitors around the world.[35:10] Chad reflects on decades of work that eventually returned to benefit pediatric patients.[36:00] Tech Transfer is the bridge that takes research from the benchtop to the bedside.Resources: Celebrate the Contributions of Tech Transfer ProfessionalsBetter World ProjectBayh–Dole CoalitionSt. Jude Children’s Research HospitalChad Riggs - St. Jude Children’s Research HospitalChad Riggs - LinkedIn

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