Technology transfer – A contact sport that gets results

Dr Koen Verhoef, a scientist with a biology background, is manager of the technology transfer office at the Netherlands Cancer Institute as well as a vice-president at the Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals (ASTP). Here he talks to William Davis about the growing importance of technology transfer and the need for planning

Technology transfer has become increasingly important in the research landscape, with projects needing to identify both commercial and academic outcomes from the very early stages of proposal. Impact strategies are sought by funding organisations, while in these times of economic hardship, private sector partners will more often than not look for less risk rather than more when it comes to their return on investment.
Dr Koen Verhoef, who is a molecular biologist by training, is manager of the technology transfer office at the Netherlands Cancer Institute as well as a board member at ASTP. He is also responsible for co-ordinating the valorisation (translating scientific results into societal and economic benefit) side of the Dutch Cancer Genomics Centre. When considering technology transfer from the perspective of all these positions he holds he is certain of one thing – “Do not do it for the money.” He maintains that those who do this can only focus on short-term gains and won’t really be acting in the interests of the organisation they are working for. “You need a long-term focus,” he adds.
It is Verhoef’s role to help bring the technology transfer profession to a higher level and set common standards, while at the same time generating new business opportunities, especially in healthcare. “You should not expect that engaging in technology transfer as a research organisation will bring in millions a year,” says Verhoef. “In six to 10 years’ time, especially in the healthcare arena, perhaps you will see results. You should do it because it is part of your mission to facilitate transfer of technology to industry, because we need industry to achieve our mission, and industry needs us to achieve their business objectives.”
Verhoef used to work as a business developer/IP specialist within the Technology Transfer Office of VU University, Amsterdam and the university’s medical centre. A biology graduate from VU University who also worked as a post-doctoral scientist at Oxford University in the early 2000s, he is both optimistic and realistic about what he sees as his mission. “ASTP is the professional organisation for technology transfer within mainland Europe,” he says. ASTP’s mission is to support and enhance academic technology transfer in Europe and act as a voice for the profession. Through the development of skills of the technology transfer specialist and applying these to research projects, more can be done to help scientists and researchers achieve the goals they set out with at the start of their work programmes.
“There are similar organisations outside of Europe such as AUTM in the US, while the UK has its own separate organisations. We also collaborate with the Australiansv and the Taiwanese and many other countries and with a number of like-minded technology transfer organizations we formed a global alliance last year, called the Alliance of Technology Transfer Professionals (ATTP). Within ATTP, we have jointly set a professional standard and have come up with a register for technology transfer professionals working around the world that meet this standard,” he continues. “It’s a diverse profession. There are people almost exclusively working to set up new companies and those like myself who do bits of everything,” he says. “Technology transfer is a contact sport, a people business. As well as formal qualifications you need to demonstrate you can work effectively with other people.”
With the development of clear standards for technology transfer and the acknowledgement that potential outcomes for research will need to be identified at the very start of the proposal phase, project leaders are now more than ever having to consider either involving tech transfer professionals or developing their own strategies for involving industry in their work.
“If you set up a research proposal you should have identified who can benefit and the outcome you expect,” says Verhoef. “Here in the Netherlands, the Foundation for Applied Sciences (STW) requires you to submit supporting letters from industry before they grant you money. But much of what we do is basic research,” he continues. “So it’s hard to get industry on line every time. What I say, however, is that it’s good to get them involved and if there is someone with a concrete plan and you know someone will benefit from your work, then groups like the ATTP can help you put it into practice.”
Of course, some of the most exciting and commercially relevant research results emerge from blue sky thinking and are totally unexpected. There is a great deal of academic research being done that may not yield anything but, as Verhoef contests, “it may! The most exciting research results are those you don’t plan for.” In a sense, that has always been the case and it always will be. What Verhoef believes, however, is that researchers should try to put themselves in a position whereby if and when the results start to look promising they are ready to engage with industry if necessary. In that way, technology transfer has moved on a great deal in recent years.
“There has been a growing realisation that technology transfer is part of what an institution should be involved in. We should be beating cancer, but you have to actively transfer that knowledge; you can’t just publish a peerreviewed article and hope someone picks it up.” Verhoef’s methodology is clear. “We tend to attend institute meetings where preliminary results are being discussed; we have meetings with principal investigators, talking to them to identify the IP. We review draft scientific annual reports and identify anything that we haven’t heard of and follow up on that. First you need to find a business case. Once that is clear, you need to roadtest it if possible - perhaps phone up a potential client to check that your assumptions about a particular market opportunity are correct. Then it becomes a matter of getting the technology to a level where you can successfully partner with a company. You need to take away the technological risks that companies perceive.”
Much of his work has been in collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry, and Verhoef says there are laboratories at the NCI which can bridge the gap with industry, but he is realistic about the difficulties of developing a drug to cure cancer, for instance. “The first molecule you find to be active against a particular form of cancer almost certainly won’t be the one to end up in the clinic. There are many stages at which the drug may fail.
“If we have something of value to the scientific world we will share it,” he continues. “We have organised ourselves in the Amsterdam area, where we have given pharmaceutical companies a ‘menu’ saying these are the capabilities and specialities we have. About 80 per cent of what we do here is research support – making sure that agreements are negotiated and facilitating research, for example. Verhoef’s biggest licence deal is in software for radiotherapy planning. “Doing the deal is more important than trying to negotiate the best deal ever,” he says. “You should try for efficiency and win-win rather than the absolute bottom line.
“Speed is of the essence though. Big companies can be tedious to work with – may take three-quarters of a year to get some kind of a deal signed. We do deals mainly with big businesses but also SMEs in our own environment – much depends on how well networked they are.” Verhoef feels that through his work there is a greater understanding developing between academics and industry. “In the 1990s if you left an academic career and moved over to industry you had gone to the dark side, and there is still, of course, a tension between the two sides as they ultimately have different goals, but views about industry have improved and that is better for everyone.”
He is adamant about the importance of keeping an eye on the bottom line for commercial research, but says that this commercial focus should be balanced by a freedom for researchers to try what they can, even if it may now bear fruit – a culture of trial and error[k2] should also be encouraged. “We should be a bit more forgiving about people who try and fail,” he says. “I think we should be a little less risk-averse and more opportunistic when it comes to what we do with our research results.
“From my point of view you can’t teach people to become entrepreneurs; they either are or they aren’t, all you can do is help develop the skill sets that they lack, if any. Entrepreneurship isn’t about being as audacious as you can be, it is about taking calculated risks.”

Published: Tuesday, 26th July 2011 by William Davis