Dr. Ben McCallister reports of the significant progress that has occurred since the KC area’Äôs life sciences movement was launched in 2000. Michael Helmstetter of MRI and David Franz of MRI and K-State observe.

To the Marketplace

To have dramatic regional impact, Tracy Taylor argued, researchers in the area need to be able to commercialize their discoveries, to be able to take intellectual properties from the labs to the marketplace. He then asked what the major issues that the various institutions faced were.

The always-pithy Ron Trewyn was at his pithiest. He held up a sheet of paper with a symbol on it that came close to saying all that needed to be said on this issue. That symbol was a dollar sign.

Expanding a bit, Trewyn stressed the need for “driving a new economic paradigm.” He observed that a lot of the historic practices in place in the various universities have not necessarily encouraged researchers to think and act entrepreneurially. “We need to figure out how to remove those impediments,” he contended.

Trewyn was not alone in this thinking. Joan Hunt observed that in medical circles, it is often easier and safer and even more rewarding to secure an NIH grant than it is to risk the development issues involved in a commercial tech transfer. “These obstacles need to be overcome,” she added.

Tracy Taylor has been involved in the commercialization process for ten years, and he shared the challenges with his colleagues, specifically the need to have all the components in place: the venture capital, the seed capital, the series of entrepreneurs, the workforce. “If you are weak in any area, the commercialization will occur elsewhere,” said Taylor, “or worse it won’t occur anywhere.”

Mike Helmstetter confirmed the difficulties in the commercialization process even within MRI, an institution that is relatively well prepared to manage it. “It’s a culture change to get scientists to think entrepreneurially,” said Helmstetter. And even when they do, the time and cost of moving a product to market is substantial. Still, MRI accepts the responsibility to find commercial outlets as “a challenge and an opportunity.”

All the participants agreed that commercialization was one area where partnerships proved useful. For Betty Drees, those partner-ships begin within the university. Historically, the med school has not exploited the business and law schools that are part of the same university. She suggested that these various internal partners design research differently and together “so there is not a clumsy hand-off of the baton.”

For Jim Roberts, the missing piece in the process, the one at which universities have not been terribly skilled, is “the in-between piece of getting stuff out.” Typically, Roberts would rather see an outside entity pick up the process than to have an excellent university researcher find a new career as a less than stellar businessperson.

(Left) Ralph Kauffman of Children’Äôs Mercy discusses advancements at the hospital. (Right) Tracy Taylor explores the commercialization process.

Jim Spigarelli referred to this piece as the “Death Valley gap.” Ted Knous suggested the need for a funded institute to help universities get projects out the door. Jim Coleman agreed. “Universities are good at research,” he argued, “and pretty good at identifying properties that are worth something, but they are not good at commercializing.”

Tracy Taylor suggested that it is wise to get private entities involved, “So people can specialize in what they do well.” As Taylor pointed out, the state of Kansas has already developed a system of business assistance incubators, directed by a private sector committee, to fund specific research and development projects. Missouri is trying to come up to speed in this area as well.

As Taylor summarized the commercialization process, “It’s a home run game.”