Such arguments are seductive at the macro-economic level, but ignore the fact that uni-versity researchers, unlike their corporatecounterparts, have a primary commitment totheir subject, rather than to the organizationin which they work.

For a scientist, industrial collaborationsraise many issues, including personal incen-tives and rewards, what types of interactionare acceptable within the boundaries of acad-emic good taste, the ease with which intellec-tual property can be managed within educa-tional and charitable establishments, andwhether the potential sequestration ofresearch results for private gain is at odds withthe primary purpose of their institution.

In reality, the conservative view of thenotional purity of academic research is notbased on fact, and “blue sky” research is actu-ally surprisingly rare. It can be argued thatvast areas of activity within universities,including computer science, materials sci-ence, engineering, medicine, and manage-ment studies, would not exist without thecognate industries with which they interact.Biotechnology is little different from thesemore established areas, except perhaps in thespeed of new developments. Justifiably, fearsare expressed about a possible loss of impar-tiality of the public sector, about conflicts ofinterest, and about the manipulation of scien-tific agendas. Inevitably, the increased blur-

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 16 SUPPLEMENT 1998 35

STRATEGIC PLANNING

Modern molecular biology and thebiotechnology industry werefounded on the expertise andexcellence of university research.The elucidation of the structure ofDNA by Watson and Crick and ofrecombinant DNA technology byCohen and Boyer provided thebasis for the science that createdthe commercial opportunity. Cur-rently, intense activity in molecularbiology and biotechnology is dri-ven by two goals: the possibility ofunprecedented levels of under-standing of the structure and func-tion of living organisms, and thepossibility of unprecedented levelsof wealth creation and improve-ments in the quality of life as a result of com-mercial applications in medicine, agriculture,and the environment. Ironically, these goalshave brought into focus concerns about therole of universities and the nature of theirinteractions with the biotechnology industry.

Benefits and misgivingsOver the past two decades, policy makers havelatched on to the concept that national eco-nomic growth and productivity may beimproved by maximizing the relationshipsbetween national institutions, both publicand private, that contribute to the innovationprocess. This is because the growth of tech-nology-based industries, and especially smalland medium-sized enterprises, is viewed as apowerful driver for business growth and apotential source of major employment.

Because universities carry out the majori-ty of basic research in molecular biology andbiotechnology, it is argued that economicsuccess in these areas will be achieved byensuring realization of the full commercialpotential of the results of academic research.

ring of the borders between thepublic and private sectors has ledto an increase in accountability onthe part of universities to the bod-ies, private and public, who fundtheir research and, sadly, adecrease in the levels of trust.

Brain trust and brain trystUniversities have been describedby Gordon Johnson, in his bookUniversity Politics1 as “peculiarforms of social organizationswhich have evolved for the expresspurpose of creating, discovering,preserving and transmittingknowledge.” Their primary teach-ing task is to provide properly

educated and trained people who are capableof not only creating new knowledge, but alsoassimilating and applying existing knowledgein innovative ways. Universities thus have acritical role in supplying personnel for indus-try, particularly to the research-intensivebiotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors.

A major contributory factor to the suc-cessful growth of science-based industryaround Cambridge in the United Kingdom,and of Silicon Valley and Route 128 on theeast coast of the United States, is the supply ofhigh-quality science graduates from themajor local universities. Growth in such com-panies is applauded, but the rewards to theuniversities for their contribution to thisprocess are slow in arriving because theresulting benefits to society are essentiallynonquantifiable economically. Yet, this is avital national role that universities perform.

In the UK, tremendous demands are cur-rently being made on university researchers,against a backdrop of stringent financial con-straints. Not only do current funding mecha-nisms require ever more sublime heights ofresearch excellence, but researchers haveincreasing teaching burdens (because ofincreasing student numbers) and expecta-tions to exploit fully the intellectual propertyarising from their research. Rapid expansionof the number of students in the universitysector (without concomitant expansion of

Cementing links betweenindustry and the universityUniversity research is driven not by market-led considerations, but by the search for new knowledge. In this light, how can academic–industry alliances be fostered effectively?

Richard Jennings

Richard Jennings is director of industrialliaison, Wolfson Industrial Liaison Office,University of Cambridge, 20 TrumpingtonStreet, Cambridge CB2 1QA, UK(rcj1000@cus.cam.ac.uk).

For a scientist, industrial collaborationsraise many issues, including personalincentives and rewards, what types ofinteraction are acceptable within theboundaries of academic good taste, theease with which intellectual property canbe managed within educational and char-itable establishments, and whether thepotential sequestration of researchresults for private gain is at odds with theprimary purpose of their institution.

© 1999 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com©

199

9 N

atu

re A

mer

ica

Inc.

• h

ttp

://b

iote

ch.n

atu

re.c

om

36 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 16 SUPPLEMENT 1998

STRATEGIC PLANNING

resources) means that academics can nolonger merely reproduce students in theirown image as ultimate replacements forthemselves.

At the same time, the job market has neverbeen healthier in the rapidly evolvingbiotechnology sector. Exceptionally able peo-ple are required because the growth inemployment is in small companies that lackthe training resources present in larger com-panies. Universities can no longer train indi-viduals purely in research techniques; addi-tional training in technology transfer, man-agement, legal knowledge, and commercialskills is both desirable and necessary to enableemployees to operate successfully in anincreasingly complex, often multidiscipli-nary, environment. All of this is needed inaddition to the familiar transferable skills,such as communication and problem-solvingthat industry seeks from today’s graduates.

The academic researcher thus is chargedwith the task of educating and trainingtomorrow’s employees of the biotechnologyindustry in addition to producing theresearch results that will form the basis of thatindustry.

A changing environmentThree decades ago, universities suppliedcompanies with employees and with person-al consultancy through their academics. Re-search was pursued largely independently,driven by traditional academic imperatives,and the results of university research werepublished in the open literature. Small,technology-based companies were very rare.Instead, industry supplied funds, often asdonations and often to act as good citizens,rather than to affect their bottom line.Research funds were relatively plentiful andacademic salaries—hard as it is to believetoday—were competitive with, if not aheadof, those of comparable scientists in indus-try.

Economic changes in the 1970s squeezeduniversity budgets, and industry itself becameincreasingly focused on short-term objectivesand increased shareholder value. Researchbudgets in large companies were increasinglypared back, but new, venture capital-fundedcompanies started to appear, first in the USand then in the UK. As a result of the passageof the Bayh–Dole Act and the loss of themonopoly of the then-public BritishTechnology Group (London) respectively,university researchers were given the task ofexploiting the intellectual property that theythemselves created in the normal course oftheir academic research.

More recently, the UK Charity Com-mission (London) has charged the majormedical charities that fund a huge proportionof biomedical research in universities toensure that the intellectual property assets

generated from their funded work are ade-quately exploited. Elsewhere, new funds arespringing up, such as Merlin Ventures(London) and the Medical Research Council’s(London) UK Medical Ventures, specificallyto encourage the growth of new biotechnolo-gy firms based on results largely emanatingfrom public and charitably funded research.In its recent budget, the UK governmentannounced the formation of a £50 ($84) mil-

lion seed-corn fund with substantial backingfrom The Wellcome Trust (London) to pro-mote early-stage investment in new technolo-gies.

Universities are trying to come to termswith the full impact of these new develop-ments and can no longer regard publicationof their results in the open literature as a fulldischarge of their duties to their sponsors andto the community. New resources and awhole new set of skills are necessary to trans-fer technology successfully.

Adequate numbers of professional tech-nology licensing and industrial liaison offi-cers are needed, who should be appointedusing different criteria from those in the aca-demic world (and also paid better salaries).Contacts with a whole range of expertgroups—including patent agents, lawyers,and sources of funding—ranging from busi-ness angels to venture capitalists are needed.Increasingly, the need for high-quality men-toring is becoming apparent through whichexperienced serial entrepreneurs work with,and assist, newcomers through the process oftechnology transfer.

As university inventions arise as the by-product of long-term fundamental research,there is no guarantee that they will operateoutside a laboratory environment. Withoutexception, there is need for a huge investmentof time and money to turn these ideas intoanything resembling a commercial product.Any financial returns to the universities willtake a long time to arrive; yet in the biotech-nology sector (in marked contrast to the elec-tronics and software industries), it is the aca-

demic research base that is producing theideas that form the basis for the industry.

Opportunity knocksThe potential uses of biotechnology are myri-ad, but it is not at all obvious which areas willbring commercial rewards. The timescalebetween invention and product seems to getlonger and longer, despite the early optimismthat biological agents could be brought to themarket more quickly and cheaply than thepharmaceutical industry’s traditional outputof new chemical entities.

Despite the rise in value of the pharma-ceutical sector as a whole, the extraordinaryvolatility of the biotechnology sector is adirect result of the promise of successfulproducts and technological fashions waxingand waning with astonishing rapidity. Mono-clonal antibodies were replaced by gene ther-apy, which was in turn replaced by functionalgenomics and proteomics with combinatorialsolutions to every problem. In the US, it isestimated that some 1,400 biotechnologycompanies have produced only 50 products.But hope rightly continues to triumph overexperience.

Faced with such a changing environmentand faced with spectacular opportunities forboth academic and commercial progress, col-laboration between the public sector researchbase and industry is crucial. Flexibility isessential, as is a wish and enthusiasm to copewith change.

A clear analysis of what activities areacceptable in the academic environment isneeded, and there must also be an informedview taken on those areas that are not suscep-tible to traditional notions of accountability.Policies that provide proper motivation andreward at the individual level are crucial in auniversity environment, especially whenbacked up by adequate resources to ensurethat inventions are exploited with the samelevel of expertise and professionalism as thosewith which the academic results of researchare disseminated.

Faced with a future of increasingly com-petition search for grants, and increasinglyunattractive academic salaries, it is apparentthat a younger band of academics is embrac-ing opportunities in both industry and uni-versity and bringing great energy and com-mitment to both. This, coupled with the longhistory of productive and mutually beneficiallinks between the private and public researchsectors, bodes well for the future of linksbetween the biotechnology industry and theuniversities, provided that there is a mutualwill to succeed, a reciprocal respect for eachother’s aims and objectives, and a will toshare equitably in the benefits of success.

1. Johnson, G. 1994. University politics. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Universities are trying tocome to terms with the fullimpact of these new devel-opments and can no longerregard the publication oftheir results in the open lit-erature as a full dischargeof their duties to their spon-sors and to the community.

© 1999 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com©

199

9 N

atu

re A

mer

ica

Inc.

• h

ttp

://b

iote

ch.n

atu

re.c

om