Maturing Early-Stage Biomedical Research; Proof of Concept Program Objectives, Decision Making and Preliminary Performance at the University of Colorado.

Abstract

This manuscript focuses on organizational objectives, decision criteria and performance of biomedical technology commercialization programs as a context for understanding university technology maturation programs. The primary contention is that university technology maturation programs are not different in kind from public and private technology development programs, and the difference from these broader programs is primarily a difference of degree related to aspects of the university research context. The University of Colorado (CU) has developed three different programs within its overall Proof of Concept (POC) funding process. Although the CU POC program relates to all areas of university technology, for this manuscript data will be presented from three program elements solely related to biomedical technologies (therapeutics, diagnostics, medical devices and to a lesser extent, tools and materials). In order to understand the objectives, decision criteria and performance of CU’s POC programs, it is important to understand how the program developed and evolved. Conclusions are provided in the form of lessons learned, and implications for university technology transfer practice. The main work on the topic is descriptive and primarily derived from practitioner reports and promotional literature (Johnson, 2005). There has been a philosophical debate about whether it is the proper role of universities to develop technology, spin companies out, and commercialize technology and how to resolve the conflicts apparent in such activity. Faculty and administrators are divided, to various degrees, on this issue at many institutions (Siegel et al, 2003). Economic development and political leadership of many economic regions see their respective universities and public assets with a broader role than just advancing the frontiers of science. Universities are seen as economic engines, beyond the people they employ and educate. Many universities are seen as an integral and critical component of the knowledge economy. The progression is as follows: science leads to knowledge, which in turn leads to technology, which in turn leads to products and services, which in turn lead to business creation and eventually sustained job and wealth creation. The progression is not a consequence of happenstance; it must be planned and skillfully executed (Vohora et al. 2004). The major gap in this economic development system is generally agreed to be the transition from technology to product (Gulbranson and Audretsch, 2008).