https://skysonginnovations.com/startups/list/
It's interesting they got a lot of funding from over 100 families with autism children:
Also keep in mind that most sciences usually don't produce commercially viable research (think social sciences, archeology, geography etc.)
And as others said: how the universities gets a cut from the spin offs differs from university to university.
I understand the researchers lean on the infrastructure of the university, but I’m sure they paid their dues both in money payments to the university, depraved sleep and sweat. People need to eat, so I see nothing wrong with them putting their effort to work if that means the research continues and gets to the people, the university likely gets a cut as others mentioned.
Universities love this and encourage it. Any big place will have an office of "technology transfer" or similar to help researchers make this happen.
> Pregabalin was discovered largely on the basis of publicly funded research at Northwestern University
it happens all the time, and in many countries. Its quite common in the UK.
Don’t worry, the money is usually coming from taxpayers so the universities don’t have to dip into their endowments
In terms of why the public funds research, your statement might be true, but isn’t addressing the concern that many in the public have raised before: the results of the research should be public, given that the research was publicly funded. We have laws about open access to government functions, so why is research different?
Also you could argue that patents are open access. The whole point of a patent is you give a complete summary of what the invention is and how to replicate it (with a level of detail that would allow someone knowledgeable in the field to recreate it) in exchange for a time limited legal moat.
Yes this is what I meant. We fund research because we think pure research is valuable. It needs to be done without requiring a financial return. Products sometimes come out of it and that's also a public benefit, but direct results of the research are not a "product" they are the starting point to a possible product. There is still a lot of development that has to occur to get to the product stage.
The alternatives are lengthy court battles between universities and their best (e.g. most commercial) researchers. This creates bad PR for the university and uncertainty for the researcher & their startups because potential investors don't like open court cases.
So people came around to make this kind of license fee contract and researchers check it before deciding to join a certain university.
Not a fan of gene / bacteria patents though.
Most universities have IP policies giving them ownership of most of the IP their academics create, and student IP may or may not be included. Some exceptions are Duke and Waterloo.
I was a little surprised to see this.
So the university researchers use time and money from the university to make a discovery, extending on previous published research, and then patent it and start their own for-profit?
Excuse my ignorance, but is that how it's done generally? Where's the upside for all those who are potentially affected?
It kinda makes sense - Presumably the university is involved somewhere still, and it needs to be commercialised somehow, but..