Written evidence submitted by Brian McCann, Tim Harper, and
Alex Stewart (MIP0033)

• Brian McCann OBE, MD Manchester Graphene Technologies Ltd
• Tim Harper, CEO G2O Water Technologies Ltd, World Economic Forum Global Advisory Council Emerging Technologies 
• Alex Stewart, Convener of the Bessemer Society

1. The uncertainly following Brexit has made it imperative that the UK makes the best use of its resources, and the academic sectors is currently punching as far below its weight in commercialising technology as it punches above its weight in pure research.

2. But in the new world there should be more emphasis on looking at how to benefit the 'local' economy - whether that is a micro economy such as a city, a region such as the North West or the national economy (the UK) rather than selling out to a fast buyer.

3. The recent inquiry by the House Science and Technology Committee into Graphene has also highlighted the persistent gap between the UK’s world class scientific research base and its historical inability to commercialise technologies in a way that adds value to the UK economy.

4. When a technology goes overseas the University's input to the technology's development ceases, as does the shared learning, and, of course, there will be no further benefit to the UK, so that none of the significant funding from EPSRC would be recovered.

5. To recap, Graphene was first isolated in Manchester in 2004, a Nobel Prize was awarded for its discovery in 2010 and only then did the University of Manchester realise that there may be some valuable intellectual property generated.

6. To date, twelve years after its discovery, graphene has had no impact on the Manchester or UK economy beyond the construction of new laboratories for the University. Neither has the university spawned a single successful spin out company. The value in being the discoverer has now been lost and the UK has been overtaken by non UK institutions.

7. Companies in the US, China, Japan and Korea who were aware of the Manchester research gained a significant lead in both developing commercial applications of the discovery and protecting it through patent filings.

8. A 2015 report from the UK Intellectual Property Office[1] concludes “one aspect that does not appear to have changed over the last 18 months is the lack of impact made by the UK, both in terms of UK applicants or UK inventors.”

9. The dismissal of most of the patents for being either Chinese and or junk fails to understand the implication of the potential commercial barriers raised by those patents, as anyone with experience of commercialising IP in Asia will attest.

10. The situation at Manchester, or in regard to graphene, is in no way atypical. Many other sectors from life sciences to nanotechnology exhibit a similar pattern of ground breaking academic work, in many cases funded by UK tax payers, being commercialised overseas and yielding no tangible benefit to the UK.

11. The lack of university spin out SME’s is of great concern.  While as experienced entrepreneurs we know that many of them will fail, the greater the number of businesses the greater the chance of success.

12. Among the significant barriers to improving the efficiency of commercialisation of intellectual property highlighted in The Dowling Review of Business-University Research Collaborations[2] were:

13. The perception that collaborating with industry, or spending time in industry, is damaging to an academic career path and must be changed and
14. Technology Transfer Offices (TTO’s) need to prioritise knowledge exchange over short-term income generation, and further work is required to improve approaches to contracts and IP agreements

15. Furthermore, Universities are institutions primarily devoted to teaching and research, not commercialising technologies. The quest for profit by TTO’s puts them in direct competition with the entrepreneurial and investment communities and provides a significant barrier where none should exist. They both limit the rights of post doctorial researchers and often lack any skills that industry needs.  We believe that the sole aim of TTOs should be to facilitate the transfer of publicly funded research into the UK economy.

16. TTOs should not focus on profits for their organisation (now usually treated as a trading operation), but profits instead for the start-up innovation community. It means going back to first principles: why are they trying to commercialise university IP?  To generate successful commercial outcomes for companies, and in the process to cover their costs and make a profit for the university. 

17. We suggest below a number of policy actions that may improve economic impact of the UK academic sector. This should be focussed on technology manufacturing companies which are currently badly served, as opposed to service, IP licencing or IT companies.

18. One highly successful model of best practice is the MIT linQ[3] program which when recently applied to biomedical research in Madrid successfully created a community of academics, clinicians, entrepreneurs and investors. This spawned three start-ups, 56 technology innovation projects, 26 invention disclosures, 15 patent applications and 50 publications and generated 33% more licence and option activity than comparable research at MIT. 


19. Other measures may include:

20. Simplification of IP licencing: Technology transfer offices vary greatly in their approach to dealing with SME’s ranging from enlightened to obstructive. A simplification and standardisation of licencing policies for SME’s would benefit spin outs.

21. Improved funding mechanisms for spin outs: While Innovate UK works with a limited budget, it is insufficient to stimulate technology spin outs. Providing small amounts of funding in the range of £50,000 is often sufficient for companies to demonstrate proof of market, attract talented management and position themselves to raise funds from the investment community.

22. Embedding an entrepreneurial culture in academic establishments: It is unfair to expect academics with little or no commercial experience to make decisions about the impact of their research. Closer links with the entrepreneurial community, whether embedding ‘entrepreneurs in residence’ within university departments or holding regular show and tell or brokerage events are essential. 

September 2016