Very little of the biotechnology research at Washington-area universities is making it out of academia and into the commercial sector, according to a report released Wednesday. Not one local school was among the top 25 universities that have had success turning research into marketable products.
The report, published by the California-based Milken Institute, measured the success rates of tech transfer programs at U.S. and international universities. The programs assist university researchers in taking their discoveries commercial.
Among the winners were schools near Boston and San Francisco, long considered the undisputed leaders in biotech commercialization. MIT, Stanford and the University of California system all ranked in the top five.
“They are the big biotech hubs because of their universities,” said James Greenwood, president and CEO of the Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization. “This study will drive competition. It should spur greater investment in [tech transfer offices].”
Johns Hopkins University — recognized as one of the top research universities in the nation — ranked No. 37. The University of Maryland, College Park came in at 51 and George Mason University, which has invested millions in its biotech programs, ranked 135. Johns Hopkins received the low ranking despite the fact it secured the third highest number of patents, which typically indicates a product or idea may be headed for commercialization.
“The outcomes haven’t … been consistent with the research quality,” said Ross DeVol, director of regional economics at the Milken Institute and lead author of the study.
Johns Hopkins intense focus on academics over commercial enterprise kept the university out of the top rankings, said Jill Sorensen, executive director of Johns Hopkins Technology Transfer.
However, the university started promoting commercial opportunities in earnest in 2001 when it merged its tech transfer and licensing offices. Last year, Johns Hopkins launched eight startup companies based on university research. Prior to 2005, two to four startups were typically launched in a year.
“The reality is there are opportunities to translate the value of its science,” Sorensen said. “The institution recognizes that we can build up commercially in ways that don’t detract from scholarship. Technology transfer should be in sync with research expenditures. They should go hand-in-hand.”
