PraxisUnico gives evidence at House of Commons Science & Technology Select Committee Inquiry: ‘Managing IP and Technology Transfer’

Last week Dr Phil Clare appeared in front of the House of Commons Science & Technology Select Committee as one of the first witnesses for the Inquiry ‘Managing IP and Technology Transfer’. Phil represented PraxisUnico and AURIL members in his capacity as Chair of PraxisUnico’s Advocacy Committee.

Last week Dr Phil Clare appeared in front of the House of Commons Science & Technology Select Committee as one of the first witnesses for the Inquiry ‘Managing IP and Technology Transfer’. Phil represented PraxisUnico and AURIL members in his capacity as Chair of PraxisUnico’s Advocacy Committee. He spoke alongside National Centre for University Business’ Rosa Fernandez and Toby Basey-Fisher from Imperial College London spin-out Eva Diagnostics, who shared their perspectives on the issues. Giving evidence in the previous session were Dr Tony Raven, Cambridge Enterprise, and Dr Claire Brady, Edinburgh Research and Innovation; both PraxisUnico members and actively involved in advocacy for the sector.

The Inquiry was launched in July 2016: one in a long-line of similar inquiries into how universities and businesses can do more together for greater economic and social impact. This inquiry asked specifically about ‘Technology Transfer’ but in both written and oral evidence we emphasised the need to broaden the conversation out to encourage understanding of different parts of the research to impact continuum. In response to a question on the re-launched Lambert Agreements, for example, Phil noted that they are designed to deal with projects that haven’t yet generated IP, which is why negotiations can be so difficult. Nonetheless, they provide a valuable starting point for many universities and their partners and the terms agreed on at this stage have an important bearing on later stage commercialisation options. Businesses have as much a role to play in understanding university constraints around contractual terms – they are charities and have social obligations – as universities do in understanding commercial motivations.

Written evidence to the Committee was unanimous in stating that there was no ‘one-size fits all’ solution to commercialising academic research. It also revealed common issues around resourcing in TTOs and an awareness of the constraints under which staff operate. The majority pointed out that commercialisation (patents, licensing, spin-outs) is a relatively niche activity dominated by no more than ten research-intensive UK HEIs. (This is clear from annual HE-BCI returns.) The KEC sector, therefore, emphasises the value of wider KE activity which has outcomes that are often harder to measure. In her response to MP’s questioning around metrics, Claire Brady noted that ‘repeat business’ was a simple indicator that an external partner had valued a previous engagement and wanted to do more. 

Questions from the Committee’s MPs ranged broadly across engaging with SMEs, early stage finance, and tech transfer policies and process. The Dowling Review was referenced a number of times for its illustration of the sector’s complexity. Phil Clare noted that this complexity could be a symptom of its maturity rather than symptomatic of a problem. However, all witnesses agreed that the formation of UKRI could be an opportunity for better communication between funding bodies and better signposting in terms of how different funds complement each other along a commercialisation pipeline. This is something that PraxisUnico is committed to supporting through its work with sector stakeholders.

This Inquiry has provided PraxisUnico another opportunity to set-out the challenges and complexities of commercialising university research but, importantly, also to present evidence that demonstrates the strength of the sector and the skilled professionals who work in KEC; something that was emphasised most recently in the McMillan review of Technology Transfer (HEFCE). The Select Committee will continue to hear evidence over the next few months before producing their final report. All evidence can be accessed via the Select Committee’s Inquiry webpage