UK and Europe · Public discussion

THES response

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 2 posts · 250 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
17 September 2006
Last activity
17 September 2006
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
250
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Been playing with the response to the THES article over the weekend and
    below is the current draft. If anyone is around to comment by early
    Monday please do so but we need to get it in fairly pronto to hit this
    week's deadline.

    Dear Sir

    In “Transfers prove costly” (THES 15 September 2006) the results of the
    THES survey on Technology Transfer Office (TTO) income versus
    expenditure are almost certainly not a reflection of TTO performance but
    an artefact of the survey.

    While the costs of a TTO will be accurately known, the revenue generated
    by the TTO through research contracts, consultancy, licensing and spin
    out share sales often goes direct to the University or School, not the
    TTO. Exactly how a particular University accrues this income will
    significantly affect the answer to the THES’s Freedom of Information
    question about income to the TTO, leading to misleading results. Even so
    you report only 11 of the 125 UK University institutions as
    not covering their costs, contrary to the opening claim that
    "many....spend far more than they earn"

    The Government is to be congratulated for supporting a long term view
    that University technology transfer is essential to the future health of
    the UK’s knowledge based economy. Since 1997 it has invested £500m (not
    the reported £100m) to support Universities across all areas of
    knowledge commercialisation. Already, in spin outs alone, the last three
    years have seen 25 University spin out companies listing on
    international stock exchanges with a combined market valuation of £1.5
    billion. Very little of that value has flowed back to the Universities,
    as is also the case with US University spin outs like Yahoo and Cisco.

    For Universities here, as in the USA, the primary purpose of technology
    transfer is not revenue. It's about fulfilling a responsibility to
    ensure that the significant public investment in research is translated
    into economic and social benefit for UKplc. As the President of the US
    Association of University Technology Managers wrote to Fortune last year
    “The number-one goal of academic technology transfer is to deliver the
    benefits of innovative research to society, not to generate revenue.”

    Far from wasting money, University technology transfer is demonstrating
    a significant economic impact from its and the Government's investment.

    Yours etc

    --
    Tony

    "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
    his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
    - Leonardo da Vinci

  2. If anyone got this before I cancelled it, my apologies, sent to the
    wrong destination so please ignore it

    Tony

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.