20
University of Minnesota (Jacob Johnson)
Since the establishment of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980, research institutions are responsible for the transfer of technology to the public via commercialization. Research institutions are reporting record numbers of disclosures and implementing new business development functions. Because the ecosystem of extraction, evaluation, and potential business formation of commercializable technology can be an expensive and daunting task, many institutions need to implement new sources of funding. This report will focus on one type of funding known as “gap funding.” The first section of this report shows that the gap between research grants and external investments is growing and creating a hindrance in the transfer of technology from the lab to the marketplace. Research funding from federal grants is really meant for unapplied research often too “young” to deem commercializable. Angel investors, while coming together in groups, still need some organization to truly be effective at the early funding stages. Venture capitalists are investing larger amounts in later stage companies but only 1.67 percent in the earliest stage deals. Today at research institutions, it appears advantageous, if not necessary to establish either an internal fund or gain access to an external fund to increase options and opportunities for the efficient development of commercializable technology. While a research institution, with a “gap fund” may have to deal with political and structural issues that potentially arise from a funding program, it is my opinion that the positives outweigh the negatives, which in an effective program can be minimized and even avoided completely. Overall, a “gap funding” program provides a research institution power over the commercialization of its inventions by allowing it to create movement in a sometimes static process. It also adds value to technology by making money available to do further research, proof of concept, or due diligence. The rest of this report will focus on results of surveyed current “gap funding” institutions and how they structure their funds to most effectively meet these objectives dependent on location in the “gap.”
22
Arizona State University (Geral Heydty)
The second section of this report looks at the survey results of 50 research institutions, utilizing nearly 90 funds currently attempting to fill this funding void. After tabulating results, the funds were broken down by both regional location and the “need” each fund was seeking to aide. The four regions considered were Midwest, East, West, South. The “needs” were determined by one of four positions along the length of the gap, where funds played the biggest part. These include Research, Prototype/Proof of Concept, Pre-Incorporation, and Post-Incorporation. N/A
Collective Genius: Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and the Commercialization of University Research
127