Blue Ribbon Committee on Tech Transfer and Commercialization

Committee Members

Chair Andrew Hargadon, Graduate School of Management

Kyriacos Athanasiou, Biomedical Engineering

Gino Cortopassi, Molecular Biosciences: VM

Ralph deVere White, UCDHS: Urology

Katherine Ferrara, Biomedical Engineering

Bruce German, Food Science and Technology

Fred Gorin, Neurology: Med

Bruce Hammock, Entomology

Ian Kennedy, Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

Martin Kenney, Human and Community Development

Bill Lacy, University Outreach and International Programs

Kit Lam, UCDHS: Hematology and Oncology

Carlito Lebrilla, Chemistry

Claude Meares, Chemistry

Clint Neagley, InnovationAccess

Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Plant Pathology

Raju Pandey, Computer Science

Pam Ronald, Plant Pathology

James Sanborn, Entomology

Doug Shaw, Plant Sciences

Stan Nosek, Administrative Process Redesign Initiative

February 2010


Blue-ribbon report: Put higher value on tech transfer (Dateline 7.30.10)

Final faculty report

The committee recommends specific actions to improve the impact of UC Davis research on the region, state, country and world, and improving the long-term effectiveness of delivering this impact.

The independent analysis

The Washington Advisory Group, a higher education consulting company, was engaged by Chancellor Katehi to review UC Davis's research programs and make recommendations to boost the research enterprise at UC Davis.  

The chancellor created a committee charged with reviewing the processes of technology transfer and commercialization within UC Davis. The committee finished its task in late July 2010 and its report is included below. Also included is the report from an independent group hired to assess UC Davis' research practices and effectiveness.

Committee Responsibilities

Charge:  The committee is charged with reviewing the processes of technology transfer and commercialization within UC Davis.  Specifically the committee is to:

  • Evaluate campus needs for support of technology transfer and commercialization.
  • Review the existing role, structure, objectives, organization and leadership of InnovationAccess.
  • Recommend to the Chancellor specific ways and means by which the university can improve its support of technology transfer and commercialization.

The committee is asked to recognize and review the following activities that fall under the general category of technology transfer and commercialization:

  • Intellectual property disclosures
  • Filing of provisional and formal patent applications
  • Marketing and licensing of intellectual property
  • Commercial sponsored research agreements
  • Entrepreneurial education and training programs
  • Faculty outside activities (consulting relationships, for example)
  • University spin-out starts (companies that are formed to commercialize university technologies and create new jobs and economic growth).

The committee is asked to not offer formal recommendations on other aspects of technology transfer that fall directly under the purview of "sponsored research" or are recognized as outside activities, but to instead simply note where and how such activities affect or are affected by the process of technology transfer.

The committee is asked to address these questions:

1)    What are the range of activities that comprise technology transfer and commercialization activities on the UC Davis campus?  What are the legal obligations of a Technology Licensing Office under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980?  What are the legal obligations and policy guidelines of the University of California?

2)    What are the current role, structure, objectives, organization, and leadership of the Technology Transfer Office at UC Davis?  What is its relationship to the Office of the President?  What alternative roles, structures, objectives, organization, leadership have been developed by our peer institutions?  In answering this question, the committee is asked to give careful consideration to the following topics:  planning and goal setting processes, merit review procedures, organization, leadership, and coordination of collaborations across university offices as well as with industry.

3)    What quantitative and qualitative metrics are available for managing, monitoring, and comparing technology transfer and commercialization activities across universities?  Which of these should be used as key performance indicators to guide the roles, structures, objectives and oversight of a technology transfer office?

4)    What complementary resources on campus (for example, the Center for Entrepreneurship, Sponsored Programs) influence the effectiveness of the Technology Transfer office and the processes of technology transfer and commercialization?  To what extent do these complementary resources shape the key performance indicators and what can be done to enhance or mitigate these influences?

The first draft of the internal committee report is due in late March 2010.  By late April 2010, the external committee meeting and draft report are due to be completed.  By late May 2010, the final report is due.