>>In the previous video, we introduced knowledge exchange and how universities are helping their students and academics to make the most of their research output. This video will give you insight into two different approaches to knowledge exchange. The first approach is focused on technology transfer. The second, on collaboration. So, how did these two approaches come about? Knowledge exchange in itself is nothing new. Medieval universities interacted with society through students and staff. Students and staff engaged in teaching and discourse and were sent out into the world. However, debate and research remained limited to academic circles. It isn't until the Second World War that governments actively start to promote the direct exchange of academic knowledge with outside partners, to bring outside partners on board in research and more importantly, the appliance of the results. Research is seen as the foundation of a better, healthier and wealthier society. In the words of Vannevar Bush, an adviser to President Roosevelt, Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress. After the war, both the US and UK invested unprecedented amounts of money in research and the infrastructure for knowledge exchange. Unfortunately, the results of the latter weren't as good as expected. In the 1970s, the US annually invests $75 billion in research, resulting in little economic growth. Of the 28,000 patents coming out of government-funded research, fewer than 5% are commercially used. This leads to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. This legislation makes the institutions which perform federally-funded research, responsible for patenting the resulting inventions and subsequently using them. As universities are poorly equipped to engage in commercial activities, they prefer to license the patent rights to a commercial partner. To facilitate this, Technology Transfer Offices or TTOs are set up. First, in the 1980s, in the US and subsequently, in the United Kingdom. The key aim of a TTO is to have inventions used and to make money from their use. This is why TTOs traditionally focus on two things. The first is patents, which are intellectual property rights and offer legal protection for inventions. And the second is technology, which can be protected by patents such as engineering, chemistry, et cetera. In addition, the word transfer assumes a one directional interaction from universities to companies. This has been successful, increasing the likelihood of licensing to 25%. But it's also too narrow focused for a number of reasons. Firstly, patents can protect only part of the research results. Secondly, the protection offered is only in the context of a specific commercial activity. Universities are drafting but not using the patents. They are often written without the input of the commercial partner who will exploit the invention and without understanding the partner's customers. Lastly, patents and technology exclude a sizable part of the academic community. For a large part of the academics, the technical context is entirely irrelevant and their partners have little use for patents. In addition, the overwhelming majority of the patents cost the university only money because it's still a long and arduous process with a relatively low chance of success. To balance the one-sidedness, universities have pivoted towards a more holistic approach, where the focus is on collaboration and exchange. This change occurred to a large extent in Europe. The European Union and national governments are funding research and expect that their funding benefits society as a whole. Consequently, academics are required to explain why their research has impact on society. This is nowadays a requirement for many funding instruments. Governments expect universities to provide answers. Universities are key stakeholders when it comes to understanding and solving societal challenges, not just technical but also behavioral and lifestyle issues. For example, around obesity or diversity and inclusion. Meanwhile, in many industries, the structure of the value change has changed. Large corporations want to avoid risks and offer little room for innovation. This has led to the rise of startups who tend to execute high risk research and development and are therefore essential to innovation. Another big change has been the rise of IT, which has introduced ways to connect people and analyze and handle data. This has allowed knowledge exchange in bigger quantities and in a far more complex manner. The emphasis in this kind of knowledge exchange, therefore, lies on building networks and facilitating a true exchange between academics and partners. Meaning, the partner also contributes his or her expertise both related to the problem at hand and also the context in which the solution must play a role. Intellectual property remains important but plays a more subservient role. Funding sources come in a wide variety as do legal frameworks. This leads to a more diverse and flexible approach with a much broader and deeper impact on society. In the next video, we'll discuss the different stakeholders of knowledge exchange and their different drivers and values. See you next time.
