- Michael Coyle - Drug Repurposing and Repositioning SIG
Drug repurposing and reformulation can open new possibilities for therapies that already exist, but these projects come with commercialization challenges that can look very different from traditional drug development. Questions around patent protection, regulatory pathways, market exclusivity, and industry interest can all affect whether a promising opportunity ever makes it out of the university.
Helping us explore this unique area of tech transfer is Michael Coyle, a licensing officer at Vanderbilt University’s Center for Technology Transfer and Commercialization. Mike manages more than 200 technology disclosures across roughly 45 therapeutic research programs, but his path into tech transfer began in the lab, where Parkinson’s disease research led him through NSF I-Corps, the launch of a startup, and eventually into licensing. That experience also helped inspire him to create AUTM’s Drug Repurposing and Reformulation SIG.
We talk about what Mike learned moving from research and entrepreneurship into tech transfer, why repurposed drugs require a different commercialization approach, and how the new SIG is bringing people together to share experience and practical resources. We also discuss the growing interest in drug repurposing, what the SIG has learned from its members so far, and how greater participation from industry could help move more of these opportunities forward.
In This Episode:
[02:11] Michael Coyle shares how Parkinson’s disease research, NSF I-Corps, and the launch of a startup ultimately led him to a career in technology transfer.
[05:12] Mike explains how I-Corps helped him understand the market, regulatory landscape, investor needs, and other commercialization considerations that researchers may not encounter in the lab.
[08:10] Mike discusses the broad range of technologies he worked with at Binghamton University and why he developed a particular interest in small molecules and drug development.
[11:28] Managing roughly 200 disclosures across 45 therapeutic programs may sound overwhelming, but Mike explains how Vanderbilt’s team structure and pipeline approach make that portfolio manageable.
[14:20] Rather than marketing individual technologies, Mike often presents companies with an entire pipeline of related assets that can include multiple compounds, disclosures, and patents.
[17:54] Mike describes how an AUTM mentorship experience and an unexpectedly strong response on the AUTM Discussion Board led to the creation of the Drug Repurposing and Reformulation SIG.
[20:35] Mike defines drug repurposing and reformulation and explains why these projects present distinct regulatory, intellectual property, and commercialization considerations.
[23:36] Growing federal, nonprofit, university, and investor interest is creating new momentum around drug repurposing, but understanding which opportunities have real commercial potential remains essential.
[26:25] An early SIG survey revealed members with experience levels across the entire spectrum, reinforcing the need for both foundational education and more advanced discussions.
[29:18] Mike explains how the SIG’s webinars, case studies, and other educational resources can help licensing professionals and researchers evaluate different repurposing strategies.
[31:40] In addition to educational resources, SIG meetings give members an opportunity to discuss current projects and connect with others facing similar regulatory or commercialization challenges.
[34:19] Looking ahead, Mike would like to see greater industry participation, stronger connections between members working on similar projects, and more opportunities for advocacy around drug repurposing.
[35:32] Mike shares how AUTM members can join the Drug Repurposing and Reformulation SIG and become part of the growing community working to move these opportunities forward.
Resources:
Michael Coyle - Vanderbilt University
37m - Sep 9, 2026 - A National Treasure: How UAB’s Moon Nahm Revolutionized the Global Fight Against Pneumococcal Disease
Pneumococcal disease remains a serious global health threat, particularly for young children, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems. Developing effective vaccines has never been simple. The bacterium can produce roughly 100 different serotypes, each protected by its own sugar capsule, which means immunity against one strain may offer little protection against another. In this episode, we look at the science that changed how these vaccines are tested and the technology transfer strategy that helped those advances reach developers around the world.
At the center of that story is Moon Nahm, M.D., an emeritus professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and one of the world’s leading authorities on pneumococcal vaccines. Born in Seoul shortly before the Korean War, Moon came to the United States as a teenager and went on to earn degrees in physics and medicine from Washington University in St. Louis. During more than two decades at UAB, he and his team characterized approximately 20 pneumococcal serotypes and developed the Multiplexed Opsonophagocytic Killing Assay, better known as MOPA. The assay is now a global standard for evaluating whether vaccine-generated antibodies can actually protect against disease.
Joining him is Diptiman Chanda, Ph.D., a Senior Licensing Associate at UAB’s Bill L. Harbert Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Diptiman brings more than 20 years of research experience spanning reproductive endocrinology, cancer therapies, and fibrotic lung disease. Since joining the Harbert Institute in 2021, he has helped manage the international licensing of Moon’s technologies, supporting a non-exclusive approach that has made MOPA strains and related tools available to pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, and vaccine developers in low- and middle-income countries.
We talk about the scientific breakthroughs behind more effective pneumococcal vaccines, why research tools can be just as valuable as patented inventions, and how more than 80 licenses helped turn one laboratory’s work into a worldwide public health resource. Moon also shares the story behind SunFire Biotechnologies, the company he founded to provide clinical-stage vaccine testing services, while Diptiman explains what this portfolio can teach other technology transfer offices about access, long-term thinking, and strong relationships with inventors.
In This Episode:
[04:35] Moon and Diptiman join the conversation, and Moon explains why the many protective “sugar coats” surrounding pneumococcal bacteria make vaccination so challenging.
[07:15] The discovery of serotypes 6C and 6D revealed important gaps in vaccine coverage and changed how researchers approached vaccine design.
[08:20] Conjugate vaccines connect the bacterial sugar coat to a protein, producing a stronger immune response in young children.
[10:05] MOPA measures whether vaccine-generated antibodies can functionally destroy bacteria rather than simply counting how many antibodies are present.
[12:40] Early skepticism gave way to worldwide adoption as researchers traveled to UAB to learn the assay, which eventually became a global standard.
[14:30] A more accurate third-generation ELISA earned World Health Organization acceptance and helped establish UAB as a WHO reference laboratory.
[16:15] Seeing vaccines developed with his assays gives Moon a personal sense of satisfaction, especially knowing that millions of people may benefit.
[18:20] Diptiman describes how Moon’s scientific reputation and persistence became the foundation of UAB’s commercialization strategy.
[19:35] Non-exclusive licensing allowed multiple companies to develop vaccines at the same time, expanding supply and improving access around the world.
[22:45] Managing a global licensing portfolio creates new opportunities when vaccine developers need strains that have not yet been characterized.
[24:15] A close working relationship keeps the science and licensing strategy aligned while allowing each person to focus on his area of expertise.
[26:20] Making MOPA strains freely available through the NIH’s BEI Resources has supported academic research and vaccine development in lower-resource settings.
[28:10] Training more than 100 researchers created an international support network that continued long after participants left the UAB laboratory.
[30:40] The portfolio demonstrates the value of thinking long term, recognizing the importance of research tools, and using non-exclusive licenses strategically.
[33:20] Research tools can retain significant value without traditional patent protection when their quality has been validated across laboratories over many years.
[34:15] Moon explains how his childhood dream of using a successful company to support research eventually led to the creation of SunFire Biotechnologies.
[35:45] SBIR funding gave the young company the equipment, staff, and financial foundation needed to accept larger vaccine-development projects.
[38:00] UAB’s technology transfer office helped Moon navigate unfamiliar business, university, and state requirements during the transition from inventor to entrepreneur.
[40:10] New university resources now connect faculty founders with experienced executives, fundraising guidance, laboratory space, and support for SBIR and STTR applications.
[41:20] Affordable pneumococcal vaccines are already being produced for only a few dollars per dose, fulfilling a goal Moon once hoped to achieve.
[43:10] Federal research funding and the Bayh-Dole Act helped turn discoveries from a university laboratory into licenses, jobs, companies, and widely available vaccines.
[45:15] Curiosity continues to drive Moon’s research into the molecule responsible for producing the pneumococcal capsule and its potential as an antibiotic target.
[46:10] Next-generation vaccines with broader strain coverage are creating continued demand for newly characterized strains and corresponding MOPA testing tools.
[47:05] Moon encourages researchers to choose a major problem and pursue it like a North Star, while Diptiman stresses trust, communication, and understanding an inventor’s mission.
Resources:
Moon Nahm - UAB Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine
Diptiman Chanda - UAB Bill L. Harbert Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
51m - Sep 2, 2026 - PanCystPro™ and Early Pancreatic Cancer Detection with Diana Caldwell and Joseph Kasper
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most difficult cancers to detect early, and that challenge leaves clinicians and patients facing uncertainty when pancreatic cysts are discovered during imaging for other health concerns. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, we look at how a discovery from a Purdue University lab became the foundation for PanCystPro™, a diagnostic test developed by Amplified Sciences to help clinicians better distinguish between benign pancreatic cysts and those that may carry a higher risk of malignancy.
Joining us are Diana Caldwell, CEO of Amplified Sciences, and Joseph Kasper, Assistant Director of Business Development and Licensing for Life Sciences at the Purdue Innovates Office of Technology Commercialization at the Purdue Research Foundation. Diana brings more than 25 years of life science leadership experience, including senior roles at Eli Lilly, co-founding and scaling Pearl Pathways before its acquisition by Versiti, and serving as an Entrepreneur in Residence at the Purdue Foundry. Joe works with Purdue’s life science technologies, helping evaluate commercial potential, identify licensing partners, negotiate agreements, support intellectual property strategy, and guide inventor-led startups through the Purdue Incubator.
Together, Diana and Joe walk us through the journey from Dr. V. Jo Davisson’s research and the BioMatra™ platform to the creation of PanCystPro™, showing what it takes to move a promising university discovery toward real-world clinical impact. Their conversation offers a closer look at the science, the startup path, the role of technology transfer, and the ecosystem support needed to turn an academic innovation into a tool that could help improve decision-making for one of medicine’s most challenging cancers.
In This Episode:
[04:44] Diana Caldwell explains why pancreatic cancer is so difficult to detect early, including the lack of general screening guidelines and the challenge of identifying patients before the disease reaches later stages.
[05:54] Diana describes pancreatic cystic lesions, why they can signal elevated risk, and how the comparison to colon polyps helps explain the clinical challenge.
[08:36] Joseph Kasper discusses the Purdue origins of the technology, including Dr. V. Jo Davisson’s lab, the early intellectual property, and the reagent technology behind BioMatra™.
[10:19] The conversation explores how Amplified Sciences joined forces with Purdue and how the platform’s ultra-sensitive dyes created opportunities for diagnostic innovation.
[12:40] The discussion turns to how pancreatic cancer became the right first market, including UCSF collaborations and the need for better tools in pancreatic cyst risk stratification.
[15:15] PanCystPro™ is explained as a tri-analyte test supported by the BioMatra™ platform, with discussion of the optical detection system and the importance of sensitivity and specificity.
[19:24] The technology transfer journey is outlined, including Purdue’s IP strategy, early startup support, I-Corps resources, and the express license program.
[22:14] Purdue’s institutional support, including Purdue Strategic Ventures, startup investment, and the credibility university backing can bring to an early-stage company.
[24:14]How Purdue’s support has continued as Amplified Sciences has grown, from marketing assistance to the launch of a pivotal clinical utility study.
[26:28] The potential patient impact of PanCystPro™ is discussed, including how it could help reduce uncertainty, avoid unnecessary procedures, and guide appropriate monitoring.
[28:53] Indiana’s life sciences ecosystem and how university research can support broader economic development.
[31:06] Amplified Sciences’ decision to grow in West Lafayette is discussed, including the importance of proximity to Purdue, wet labs, and scientific talent.
[33:56] The value of Purdue’s research park ecosystem is explored, including shared resources, lab capabilities, collaborations, and access to scientific services.
[36:26] The Purdue team’s role in supporting the PanCystPro™ journey is discussed, including IP protection and continued engagement as the company developed.
[38:47] What makes Purdue Innovates helpful for startups, along with the challenges entrepreneurs can face when navigating a large academic institution.
[40:54] The need for more flexible wet lab space, shared services, and lower barriers to entry for research-intensive startups is discussed.
[42:35] Amplified Sciences’ next steps are outlined, including reimbursement, Medicare coverage, early access, and building a broader diagnostic pipeline beyond PanCystPro™.
[44:09] The guests share final takeaways on what it takes to move a university discovery into real-world impact, emphasizing people, teamwork, risk-taking, and a strong innovation ecosystem.
[47:12]How PanCystPro™ demonstrates the real-world value of technology transfer, university research, and experienced entrepreneurial leadership.
Resources:
Diana Caldwell - Amplified Sciences
PanCystPro™: A Breakthrough Test for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer Risk
Vincent Jo Davisson, PhD - Amplified Sciences
48m - Aug 26, 2026 - A New Golden Age — What the White House’s Research Overhaul Means for Tech Transfer with Jeffrey Mervis
The way the federal government supports scientific research could be headed for a significant shift. A new White House report, *Science: A New Golden Age*, lays out a different vision for federal research funding—one that places less emphasis on the traditional university-centered grant model and more on mission-driven research, commercialization, and fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, semiconductors, space, and robotics. For universities and technology transfer offices, those changes raise some big questions about research funding, peer review, indirect costs, and the infrastructure that supports moving discoveries from the lab into the marketplace.
Today, we are joined by Jeffrey Mervis, a veteran science policy reporter for Science who has spent more than three decades covering the intersection of science and government. His reporting has taken him across five continents, and since joining Science in 1993, he has closely followed federal research policy, science education, and the changing scientific workforce.
We talk with Jeff about what the White House report is actually proposing, why universities may have reason to pay close attention, and how ideas such as regranting and alternatives to traditional peer review could change the way federal research dollars are awarded. We also look at the push toward faster commercialization, the potential impact of cuts to grants and indirect-cost support, and what technology transfer professionals should be watching as agencies begin translating these priorities into budgets and funding decisions.
In This Episode:
[01:49] Jeffrey Mervis explains the origins of Science: A New Golden Age, how it draws on Vannevar Bush’s landmark vision for postwar science, and why the report was released just before a House Science Committee hearing.
[04:33] The timing of the report’s release and how it fits with executive orders and other actions the administration has already taken on research funding and universities are discussed.
[07:24] The report’s call to prioritize individual scientists over legacy institutions is examined, along with why separating researchers from the university infrastructure that supports their work may be difficult in practice.
[10:28] The push to direct more federal funding toward grand challenges and mission-driven research rather than relying primarily on the traditional investigator-led grant model is explained.
[13:41] The administration’s concerns about university indirect costs are discussed, along with why changing how research overhead is funded could have broad consequences for institutions.
[16:56] The conversation explores how the administration could redirect existing research dollars toward its priorities even when Congress does not support the major budget cuts it has proposed.
[19:53] The concept of regranting is explored, including how federal grant recipients could redistribute funding to individuals or organizations that may not have the infrastructure to compete directly for federal awards.
[22:46] The risk that reduced indirect-cost support and changing funding models could place pressure on university laboratories, shared facilities, compliance operations, and technology transfer offices is discussed.
[25:53] Concerns that changes to federal grantmaking could give political appointees greater influence over which research receives funding are examined.
[28:59] The conversation explains how political oversight could affect the traditional peer-review process at multiple stages, from the initial screening of proposals through decisions to terminate grants that have already been awarded.
[32:00] The administration’s emphasis on fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, space, semiconductors, and robotics is discussed, along with what that shift could mean for institutions with large biomedical and life sciences portfolios.
[35:28] The tension between accelerating technology development and commercialization and maintaining the long-term fundamental research that makes those advances possible is considered.
[38:45] The conversation explains how priorities are likely to appear in the fiscal year 2028 budget process as federal agencies begin translating the administration’s broader vision into funding requests.
[41:32] Proposals involving national laboratories, industry partnerships, SBIR, and STTR are discussed, including whether those changes are likely to significantly alter how university technology transfer offices operate.
[43:55] University funding, grant levels, and indirect-cost support are identified as the issues technology transfer professionals should watch most closely over the coming months.
[45:11] The episode closes with where technology transfer and research professionals should look for signs of what comes next, including agency solicitations, funding announcements, and changes involving cost sharing.
Resources:
White House Report Calls For Big Changes To ‘Calcified’ U.S. Science System
Trump Adviser’s Golden Age Report On U.S. Science Is A Missed Opportunity, Critics Say
Science a New Golden Age - White House Report
48m - Aug 19, 2026 - Patents, Plant Variety Protection, CRISPR, and What Every TTO Needs to Know with Heidi Sease Nebel
Plant discoveries can be some of the trickiest inventions for a technology transfer office to manage. A new variety may come out of years of breeding work, field trials, university research, or newer tools like CRISPR, but the protection strategy is not always obvious. Depending on the plant, the market, and how it will be commercialized, a TTO may need to think about utility patents, plant patents, Plant Variety Protection certificates, contracts, international rights, and the practical realities of working with breeders and licensees.
Today, we explore what every TTO needs to know about plant IP with Heidi Sease Nebel, a Member and Chairperson of the Biotechnology/Chemical Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC in Des Moines, Iowa. Heidi is an intellectual property attorney with more than 30 years of experience obtaining patents and developing IP strategies in biotechnology, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, with deep expertise in plant-related intellectual property. Her work has supported more than 30 universities and research institutions, as well as Fortune 500 companies around the world.
Heidi brings a rare perspective shaped by some of the most important developments in plant IP law, including her involvement in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., which confirmed the availability of utility patent protection for plant varieties. She has also served on the USDA Plant Variety Protection Advisory Board, as Vice Chair of the USPTO Patent Public Advisory Committee, and as a member of CIOPORA, and more. She is a longtime AUTM contributor, a 2022 Iowa Biotechnology Association Biotech Leader Award recipient, AV Preeminent® rated by LexisNexis/Martindale-Hubbell, and has been recognized for multiple consecutive years by IAM Patent 1000 for her top-tier patent expertise.
We discuss the practical issues that make plant IP different from many other university technologies. We also talk about how CRISPR and gene editing affect patent strategy, why TTOs need to be careful with AI tools and public databases, and why it is so important to protect the actual product that will reach the market, whether that is a seed, plant, fruit, or trait-bearing variety. We also walk through licensing, enforcement, MTAs, international protection, and the relationship-building that needs to happen with plant breeders long before a variety is ready for release.
In This Episode:
[04:42] Heidi Sease Nebel explains the main forms of plant IP protection in the U.S., including utility patents, plant patents, and Plant Variety Protection certificates.
[07:18] Why utility patents often provide broader protection for plant varieties, and when a university might consider additional forms of protection.
[10:36] The J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred case and how it confirmed utility patent protection for traditionally bred plant varieties.
[13:42] How the 2018 Farm Bill expanded PVP protection to asexually reproduced plants, hemp, and cannabis.
[16:45] International plant protection, UPOV, plant breeders’ rights, and the importance of tracking first-sale dates.
[19:55] Why experienced foreign counsel matters when pursuing plant protection outside the United States.
[20:34] CRISPR and gene editing strategy, including the need to claim the actual commercial product rather than only the molecular invention.
[22:45] The CRISPR patent pool created by Pioneer/Corteva and how it can help universities address licensing obligations.
[24:02] AI in plant breeding, potential public disclosure risks, and why TTOs should ask more specific questions about tools like ChatGPT and BLAST.
[27:00] Licensing challenges unique to plants, including saved seed, breeding rights, sequencing, genetic modification, and downstream ownership.
[28:49] Royalty structures for plant varieties and how the role of a parent line or asexually reproduced plant can affect licensing terms.
[31:16] Enforcement strategies, including sequencing, third-party storage, chain of custody, private investigators, and sampling licensee offerings.
[33:06] The role of the Seed Innovation Protection Alliance and how it can support TTOs with audits, tips, and enforcement concerns.
[34:47] Building relationships with plant breeders, keeping assignments current, and avoiding disclosure issues during field days.
[36:20] Material transfer agreements, germplasm sharing, and the cultural shift from informal seed exchange to stronger protection strategies.
[39:03] Enablement trends in biotech case law and how they may affect patent claims involving genetically modified plants.
[40:42] Section 101 patent eligibility concerns, naturally occurring traits, and how breeders can create patentable commercial varieties from wild plant material.
[43:25] Europe’s approach to plant patents, essentially biological processes, and the strategic considerations around the Unified Patent Court.
[45:38] Emerging issues Heidi is watching, including future PVP litigation, enforcement standards, and questions around seed deposits.
[48:26] Why plant IP protection can encourage investment while still allowing breeding under plant breeders’ rights systems.
[49:34] AUTM’s growing plant IP community, experienced university resources, and organizations that can help TTOs learn more.
[51:10] Final takeaways on plant IP strategy, CRISPR, licensing, enforcement, and the importance of talking with plant breeders early.
Resources:
Heidi Sease Nebel - McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
52m - Aug 12, 2026 - Collective Behavior, Decentralized Systems, and Lessons from Ant Colonies with Deborah M. Gordon
It might seem like a leap to connect ant colonies with technology transfer, but the connection is closer than it sounds. Ant colonies operate without a boss, a formal plan, or anyone directing traffic, yet they still find food, protect the colony, respond to threats, and adjust when conditions change. For anyone working in research commercialization, where progress often depends on many people and institutions moving in the same direction without anyone controlling the whole system, that’s a fascinating place to begin.
My guest is Deborah M. Gordon, Professor of Biology at Stanford University and one of the world’s leading experts on collective behavior. Deborah has spent decades studying how ant colonies operate across very different environments, from harvester ants in the desert Southwest to arboreal turtle ants in the tropical forests of Mexico and invasive Argentine ants in Northern California. She is also the author of Ants at Work, Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior, and The Ecology of Collective Behavior.
In this conversation, Deborah explains how simple interactions between ants can add up to surprisingly sophisticated group behavior. She also talks about what changes when a colony is dealing with desert heat, a crowded forest canopy, a blocked trail, or a changing climate. This conversation focuses on the question of how complex systems keep moving, adapting, and solving problems when no single person is in charge?
In This Episode:
[03:27] Deborah explains collective behavior as a process that operates without central control, using examples like bird murmurations, fish schools, brains, and ant colonies.
[04:36] Complex group behavior emerges through distributed interactions rather than individual direction, which makes natural systems redundant, adaptable, and surprisingly effective.
[05:50] The ecology of collective behavior shows how systems evolve in response to changing environments, from predators in the sky to shifting conditions on the ground.
[06:45] Ant colonies coordinate largely through smell, with pheromones and cuticular hydrocarbons helping ants respond to the rate and pattern of contact with one another.
[08:15] Deborah’s long-term study of harvester ants reveals that colonies can live 20 to 30 years, with the queen producing generations of workers over the colony’s lifetime.
[10:14] Harvester ants in the desert and turtle ants in tropical forests show how very different environments shape very different forms of collective behavior.
[13:15] Working across biology, mathematics, ecology, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience helps Deborah understand ant behavior in ways that a single discipline could not fully explain.
[14:16] The strongest parallels between ant colonies and human systems come from zooming out to look at how networks operate rather than focusing only on individual identity.
[15:40] Ant task allocation prioritizes redundancy and resiliency, allowing one individual to step into another role when conditions change or a crisis occurs.
[17:15] Turtle ants respond quickly to disruption by using local search within a dense network, while harvester ants may shut down and wait when the cost of adapting is too high.
[18:54] Network structure matters because modular systems can respond quickly to local changes, while centralized systems may be more thorough but slower to act.
[20:23] Research on collective movement in insects, birds, and fish has influenced technologies such as drone swarms and other distributed systems.
[21:05] Deborah distinguishes ant colonies from AI systems by noting that no one programs an ant colony, even when its behavior appears complex or difficult to trace.
[21:46] Comparisons between brains and ant colonies show that networks of simple interactions can be organized in many different ways to produce very different outcomes.
[22:33] Universities are facing a difficult period of uncertainty as students, faculty, and researchers try to predict what kinds of work and support will remain available.
[23:14] Climate change has become a central concern in Deborah’s harvester ant research as the desert grows hotter and drier faster than evolutionary adaptation may allow.
[23:26] The water stress facing harvester ants mirrors larger human challenges, especially in the Southwest where rivers, climate, and resource sharing are under growing pressure.
[24:56] Deborah recommends her TED Talk and Ant Encounters as good starting points for listeners who want to learn more about collective behavior.
Resources:
Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior
The Ecology of Collective Behavior
Ants At Work: How An Insect Society Is Organized
What Ants Teach Us About The Brain, Cancer And The Internet
The Emergent Genius Of Ant Colonies
26m - Aug 5, 2026 - Training the Next Generation of Innovation Leaders with Kendra Hargis-Stenzel
Training the next generation of technology transfer and commercialization leaders requires more than exposure to the field. It also means helping researchers think earlier about the real-world impact of their work, the communities they hope to serve, and the pathways that can move an idea beyond the university. At the University of Kentucky, Kendra Hargis-Stenzel has built practical, structured programs designed to bring those pieces together.
Kendra is the Director of Innovation Talent Development at the University of Kentucky, where she works within UK Innovate and its Launch Blue initiative. Her mission is to develop the next generation of innovation, commercialization, and entrepreneurial leaders by providing educational and experiential training opportunities that complement students’ current studies. She also works directly with researchers on campus to help them frame their research outcomes in ways that can ultimately impact the populations they seek to serve.
Kendra brings a deep, hands-on understanding of the full commercialization pipeline. She has served as a Commercialization Manager for Medical Devices, managed the XOR Program for XLerateNetwork, and served as Project Manager for KYNETIC, the Kentucky Network for Innovation and Commercialization. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in forensic science from Eastern Kentucky University, a Ph.D. in pharmacology, and an MBA with a concentration in entrepreneurship from the University of Kentucky.
In this episode, Kendra shares how her own non-linear career path shaped her work, how the Commercialization and Innovation Leadership Program and Innovation Training Micro-Certification help students and researchers build real-world innovation skills, and why universities need to introduce impact, translation, and commercialization thinking much earlier in the academic experience.
In This Episode:
[04:21] Kendra Hargis-Stenzel shares her non-linear path from forensic science to graduate research, a postdoctoral fellowship in the Technology Transfer Office, and eventually work focused on commercialization, translation, and impact.
[07:46] Graduate training exposed Kendra to careers beyond academia, but she saw a gap in helping students understand how to network, communicate their value, and meaningfully engage in opportunities outside the lab.
[10:05] CILP, the Commercialization and Innovation Leadership Program, gives undergraduate students hands-on experience with real university innovations through projects tied to market research, licensing, stakeholder mapping, and commercialization.
[13:18] The ambassador tracks allow students to apply shared foundational learning in different areas, including social innovation, deep tech commercialization, faculty-driven research, and startup support through Invest Blue.
[16:05] A typical ambassador week involves real innovation-focused work, giving students experience with ambiguity, ownership, communication, stakeholder engagement, and transferable professional skills.
[18:24] The Innovation Training Micro-Certification was created to help faculty, students, and researchers understand how research moves from idea to impact through innovation, commercialization, and entrepreneurship.
[20:03] Kendra explains the distinction between lowercase “i” impact and capital “I” Impact, encouraging researchers to think about long-term benefit for the populations and communities their work is meant to serve.
[22:05] Social innovation broadens the commercialization conversation by helping community-focused researchers recognize themselves as innovators and understand how tech transfer can support sustainability and long-term impact.
[24:16] The entrepreneurship theme helps researchers think through stakeholder engagement, entrepreneurial ecosystems, funding sources, and how to communicate commercialization or sustainability strategies in grants.
[26:43] The micro-certification was intentionally designed as a compact on-ramp, using short modules, reflection prompts, and scenarios to help learners apply innovation concepts without overwhelming them.
[29:38] The micro-certification complements CILP by giving students a shared foundation and common language before they begin hands-on innovation and commercialization projects.
[32:17] Kendra describes the “aha moment” when researchers begin seeing their work as something that could be used beyond the lab, not just studied.
[34:56] Institutions interested in building similar programs should begin by identifying the problem they are trying to solve and considering how a scalable framework could support culture change and earlier engagement.
[36:58] Time and attention have been major challenges, making it important to embed innovation training into existing experiences and clearly demonstrate its value to students, faculty, and partners.
[38:03] Future plans include expanding the micro-certification through external partnerships, licensing opportunities, and more intentional integration into academic experiences such as capstone courses and undergraduate research.
[40:03] Kendra believes universities should introduce innovation, impact, translation, and stakeholder thinking much earlier so translational awareness becomes part of the academic culture.
[41:02] For students and early-career professionals interested in technology transfer or innovation, Kendra recommends starting with curiosity, asking questions, attending events, and looking for small ways to get involved.
Resources:
Kendra Hargis-Stenzel - University of Kentucky
Kendra Hargis-Stenzel - LinkedIn
Commercialization and Innovation Leadership Program
Innovation Training Micro-Certification
43m - Jul 29, 2026 - Advancing Biopharma Innovation with Ruben Flores-Saaib
Biopharma commercialization has always required more than a promising discovery. It takes the right team, the right timing, and often, the right kind of capital to move an idea from the university lab toward patients. My guest is Ruben Flores-Saaib, PhD, Senior Director of Investments and Business Development at Ligand Pharmaceuticals, a publicly traded biopharma company with a broad portfolio of partnered programs and approved medications. Ruben brings a rare perspective to this conversation because he has worked inside university tech transfer offices, life science companies, new company formation, and now the investment side of the industry.
We talk about Ligand’s evolution from a traditional drug development company into one of the largest biopharmaceutical royalty financiers in the industry, and what that shift means for companies, universities, inventors, and tech transfer offices. Ruben explains how Ligand evaluates opportunities, why the company focuses on programs that address high unmet medical needs, and how non-dilutive capital can sometimes help late-stage biopharma programs move closer to approval and commercialization. He also shares what his time in university tech transfer taught him about the challenges of bringing academic innovation into the market.
For tech transfer professionals, this is a practical look at how investment, commercialization strategy, and university innovation can intersect. Ruben talks through what makes a program a potential fit for Ligand, what universities should think about before exploring a royalty-based transaction, and why these conversations are really about matching capital needs with the right asset at the right stage. It’s a useful discussion for anyone thinking about how promising discoveries move beyond the institution and into the hands of companies, investors, and ultimately, patients.
In This Episode:
[04:24] Ruben Flores-Saaib explains how curiosity and a desire to add value have guided his career across industry, university tech transfer, and investment.
[06:26] Time inside university tech transfer helped shape his understanding of how academic innovation moves through complex, sometimes inefficient commercialization pathways.
[09:46] Ligand’s shift from traditional drug development to a royalty aggregator model created a more diversified portfolio with multiple shots on goal.
[11:00] Royalty finance works by providing non-dilutive capital to late-stage biopharma companies in exchange for future royalties once products reach the market.
[13:58] Programs that address highly unmet medical needs are especially attractive because they may have stronger clinical, regulatory, and commercial potential.
[15:59] Ligand’s portfolio includes more than 100 partnered commercial and development-stage programs, with approved medications across several therapeutic areas.
[18:56] A patient-centered investment lens is both a philosophical commitment and a business strategy, since meaningful therapies may face fewer commercial and reimbursement headwinds.
[19:53] Ligand’s Captisol platform supports drug formulation and delivery, helping partners address solubility and bioavailability challenges across multiple approved products.
[22:11] Capital can be provided directly to universities or academic centers in exchange for future royalty income, depending on the institution’s needs and the asset involved.
[25:36] Inventors may also be part of royalty financing conversations, but Ruben emphasizes that these discussions should happen through the proper tech transfer channels.
[26:03] The best first conversation starts with a clear look at the university’s licensed technologies, their development stage, and whether they address highly unmet needs.
[28:15] Non-dilutive royalty capital can help late-stage licensees reach the finish line while potentially increasing future royalty returns for the academic institution.
[30:06] One misconception is that royalty aggregators simply want to take a university’s best asset, when Ligand is also taking on substantial pre-approval risk.
[32:11] Waiting until approval may lead to a better deal, but that choice comes with the major risk that the product may never make it through approval at all.
[33:02] Royalty financing is gaining visibility as companies look for capital options beyond traditional venture funding and equity markets.
[35:20] Ligand invests across royalty finance, M&A, project finance, and platform technology acquisitions while keeping a broad view across therapeutic areas.
[37:15] Oncology, inflammatory disease, cardiology, pulmonary, kidney, and other areas continue to present opportunities where innovative treatments may meet major patient needs.
[38:29] Ligand plans to keep focusing on new therapies that fill unmet medical needs, especially pre-approval investments under $100 million.
[39:02] Researchers, inventors, and tech transfer professionals are encouraged to reach out if they have questions or potential programs that may fit Ligand’s model.
Resources:
Fall 2025 Connect and Collaborate
Rubén Darío Flores Saaib - LinkedIn
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Royalty Portfolio
41m - Jul 22, 2026 - World Intellectual Property Report 2026: Technology on the Move with Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento and Julio D. Raffo
A breakthrough can happen in one lab, but its real value depends on what happens next. How does a new technology move beyond its point of origin, reach the people and industries that can use it, and eventually become part of everyday life? The World Intellectual Property Organization’s “World Intellectual Property Report 2026: Technology on the Move” takes a wide-ranging look at those questions, drawing on 250 years of technological history and five decades of patent data to explore why some innovations spread rapidly while others take years, or even decades, to gain traction.
Joining us are Julio D. Raffo and Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento, two members of the WIPO team behind the report and returning guests to AUTM on the Air. Julio is Head of the Innovation Economy Section in WIPO’s Department of Economics and Data Analytics in Geneva, where he led the team that prepared the 2026 report. He holds a PhD in Economics from the Université de Paris Nord and has conducted research at institutions including the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, the Institut Français des Relations Internationales, and the Pan American Health Organization. His work focuses on innovation, intellectual property, and development, and he has helped expand WIPO’s patent and innovation analytics capabilities.
Intan is a Senior Economist in the same department and has contributed to the World Intellectual Property Report since its inaugural edition in 2011. She earned her doctoral degree in Economics of Innovation from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and holds advanced degrees in international economics and international law and economics. Before joining WIPO, she worked at the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. With more than 15 years of experience in innovation economics and international trade, her work has placed particular emphasis on intellectual property and less developed economies.
In this conversation, we look at the difference between technology diffusion, adoption, transfer, and knowledge spillovers, and why those distinctions matter for anyone working to move research into the marketplace. We also talk about the role of patents as both a source of protection and a global repository of technical knowledge, the growing speed of international knowledge flows, and the challenges of bringing deep-tech discoveries from basic science to practical use. From agriculture and digital technology to absorptive capacity, leapfrogging, and public policy, the discussion offers a broader view of what it takes for innovation not only to travel, but to take hold and create lasting value.
In This Episode:
[04:20] We discuss why technology diffusion became the focus of the 2026 report and why widespread adoption matters.
[08:02] The conversation breaks down the differences between technology diffusion, adoption, transfer, and knowledge spillovers.
[11:16] Incorporated technologies can improve productivity even when users do not understand the science behind them.
[13:31] Knowledge spillovers show how proximity, professional relationships, and informal exchanges help ideas spread.
[16:49] The type of technology, available infrastructure, cost, regulation, and local adaptation all influence adoption.
[21:06] A comparison between older inventions and digital tools reveals how dramatically the pace of technology adoption has accelerated.
[24:15] Adoption lags and intensity of use help explain why first use does not always lead to widespread economic impact.
[27:40] Intellectual property supports innovation incentives while also encouraging access to knowledge and technology.
[31:00] Advances in patent databases and AI translation demonstrate how technology is accelerating access to information.
[33:32] Patent repositories help innovators identify solutions, potential partners, and new pathways to technology access.
[36:14] We examine how intellectual property policy can support diffusion without weakening incentives to innovate.
[40:47] Different economies need intellectual property systems and innovation strategies suited to their capabilities.
[43:40] Patent citations provide a way to trace technological knowledge as it moves across borders.
[47:37] Strong innovation ecosystems tend to contribute more knowledge while also capturing more value from it.
[49:30] Deep-tech discoveries often require a much longer journey from scientific research to practical application.
[52:23] Key lessons for technology transfer offices include the need to balance speed, competition, patience, and long-term support.
[56:16] Technology transfer offices can strengthen absorptive capacity by connecting university knowledge with industry needs.
[58:02] Smart specialization aligns institutional strengths with industry opportunities, public policy, and available financing.
[01:00:54] Leapfrogging can create opportunities when newer technologies bypass missing or outdated infrastructure.
[01:04:28] We weigh the risks of ambitious technological jumps against the value of building from existing capabilities.
[01:06:50] Repurposing technology can uncover new markets and practical uses beyond its original purpose.
[01:07:45] Deliberate policy action can help firms and regions absorb technology and turn it into broader economic impact.
[01:10:39] The discussion considers the promise of faster global adoption alongside concerns about concentrated innovation capacity.
[01:13:18] Policymakers face the challenge of spreading the benefits of innovation more evenly across countries and regions.
[01:14:10] The episode closes with resources for exploring the report, its interactive data, and future WIPO research.
Resources:
World Intellectual Property Report 2026
WIPO Intellectual Property Resources
Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento - LinkedIn
1h 17m - Jul 15, 2026 - Why Communication Matters in IP Strategy with Stephen Hall
University IP strategy can look straightforward from the outside. Protect the invention, manage the policy, move the technology toward the market. But anyone working inside a tech transfer office knows the process is rarely that simple. Faculty inventors, licensing teams, university leaders, outside counsel, and industry partners may all be working toward the same broad goal, but they often come into the conversation with very different expectations. That is where communication becomes more than a soft skill. It becomes part of the strategy itself.
My guest is Stephen Hall, intellectual property team lead at Bricker Graydon Wyatt in Louisville, Kentucky. Stephen brings a rare blend of experience to this discussion. He began his career as an R&D chemist, spent 12 years handling medical malpractice and civil defense litigation, and later transitioned into patent, trade secret, and contract law. Today, he works with universities, companies, and independent innovators across fields including biotechnology, therapeutics, solar energy, catalysts, chemical sampling, healthcare, software, and more. He also advises universities on IP policy and best practices, serves as an adjunct MBA professor at the University of Louisville, and is a certified coach trained through the International Coaching Federation.
That background gives Stephen a practical way of looking at the human side of technology transfer. We talk about what litigation taught him about telling a clear story, why faculty disclosures can create mismatched expectations from the very beginning, and how coaching skills have shaped the way he listens, asks questions, and helps clients see the larger picture. He also shares thoughtful guidance on making IP policies easier to understand, approaching AI-related inventorship questions with care, and building more meaningful engagement across the university innovation ecosystem.
In This Episode:
[05:32] Stephen Hall reflects on the patience involved in moving from medical malpractice litigation into patent law and how some career paths only make sense in hindsight.
[06:42] His litigation background taught him the importance of giving every story a clear beginning, middle, and end, especially when presenting complex information to an audience.
[08:31] Working with universities, corporations, startups, and independent inventors has shown Stephen how important it is to understand each stakeholder’s accountability and perspective.
[10:20] One of the biggest communication gaps in university IP strategy comes from mismatched expectations between faculty inventors and tech transfer professionals.
[11:30] Kentucky Commercialization Ventures offers an example of how universities can approach IP policy as an ongoing process rather than a one-time document rollout.
[13:26] Tech transfer offices have to make IP policy make sense, especially when faculty awareness and engagement around policy expectations may be limited.
[14:30] Stephen explains why effective IP communication starts with understanding the audience’s knowledge, experience, and level of interest.
[16:00] Innovation stories become more compelling when they connect the technical idea to a personal experience, an unmet need, or something hiding in plain sight.
[17:33] The conversation turns to university IP policies and why they can be sensitive because they touch academic freedom, faculty incentives, institutional values, and revenue expectations.
[19:54] Stephen shares his framework that people are wired for structure, crave clarity, and need action to bring the process together.
[21:00] Case examples such as Felana v. Kent State and Stanford v. Roche show how IP policy and assignment issues can create real consequences for universities.
[22:15] Storytelling can reduce friction around IP policy by reframing it as a practical tool that helps people move forward, rather than simply a list of rules.
[23:25] Stephen explains how the “expert’s paradox” led him toward coaching, especially as he thought about helping highly trained innovators communicate more clearly.
[24:54] Coaching principles help Stephen facilitate better conversations by encouraging clients and stakeholders to generate their own insights.
[26:00] The generation effect explains why people are more likely to act on ideas they come up with themselves rather than ideas simply handed to them.
[26:55] Active listening means paying attention not only to what people say, but also to what is left unsaid.
[28:12] Stakeholder alignment often starts by recognizing where people already agree before spending focused time on the areas where they differ.
[30:00] Stephen shares an example of slowing down, asking more questions, and completing the picture before giving legal advice.
[33:39] In his MBA teaching, Stephen helps future business leaders understand the difference between patentability before a patent is granted and infringement after a patent exists.
[35:51] Teaching has sharpened Stephen’s ability to explain patent law by connecting unfamiliar concepts to ideas his students already understand.
[36:45] Artificial intelligence presents both challenges and opportunities for university TTOs, especially as machine learning continues to influence research and invention.
[39:17] Stephen cautions that inventors and institutions should be careful with anything AI generates, particularly when records could become relevant in future litigation.
[40:53] AI-related discovery could add significant cost and complexity to litigation, even when the underlying inventorship or patentability arguments are still unsettled.
[41:49] A simple way to improve meetings is to ask what one thing would make the conversation successful for the other person.
[43:47] Stephen’s closing advice is that involvement leads to engagement, especially when faculty are invited into the IP process in meaningful ways.
[45:37] Bringing faculty into policy conversations, presentations, or patent-related storytelling can create stronger engagement and professional development opportunities.
[46:30] Reinforcing that strong IP strategy depends not only on patents and policies, but on aligning people around a shared vision.
Resources:
Stephen C. Hall - Bricker Graydon, Wyatt
International Coaching Federation
Kentucky Commercialization Ventures
48m - Jul 8, 2026 - How Venture Philanthropy Helps Move Rare Disease Research Forward with Tim Brent
Getting discoveries out of the lab is only part of the commercialization journey. At some point, a promising idea reaches the stage where investment decisions can determine whether the science moves forward, stalls out, or becomes something that can truly reach patients. That moment is especially important in rare diseases, where the path to market can be long, complex, and difficult for traditional capital to support.
My guest today is Tim Brent, Venture Principal with Pathway to Cures, the venture philanthropy fund of the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation. Tim brings experience across patient advocacy, specialty pharmaceutical operations, and venture investment, along with a personal family connection to rare disease communities. In his role, he sources and evaluates investment opportunities, supports diligence and transactions, and helps manage relationships with biotech companies after investment.
We also discuss the practical side of the work, including how Tim finds opportunities, what makes a founder conversation stand out, and where promising science can start to lose momentum. He shares what patient input adds to diligence, why clear milestones and a strong mechanism of action matter, and how venture philanthropy can sometimes help early-stage programs keep moving when traditional capital is not quite ready to step in.
In This Episode:
[02:06] Tim Brent shares how his nonprofit career led him into the bleeding disorders space and mission-driven life science investing.
[03:05] How his long connection to the bleeding disorders community and his daughters’ diagnoses add personal intensity to the work.
[05:20] How Pathway to Cures works with university spinouts, licensed technologies, scientific advisors, legal counsel, cap tables, and investment documents during diligence.
[08:17] Why patient perspective is central to Pathway to Cures and how the history of the bleeding disorders community shapes the way new therapies are evaluated.
[10:02] Risks traditional investors may overlook, including treatment burden, side effects, patient preferences, and whether a new therapy is compelling enough to replace existing options.
[11:52] How patient engagement shows up in diligence through the National Research Blueprint, lived experience experts, and the newer Bleeding Disorders Research Collaborative.
[13:33] The importance of engaging patients and community members early, rather than waiting until a company is close to clinical trials.
[14:24] What makes university tech transfer offices easier to work with, especially when researchers are genuinely excited about the discovery and open to scientific discussion.
[15:55] What can slow deals down, from scheduling the first meeting to unclear founder pitches, slow NDAs, missing data room reports, IP questions, and unclear mechanisms of action.
[18:11] What the relationship looks like after Pathway to Cures invests in a startup, including milestone check-ins, consultant referrals, and support without becoming a distraction.
[19:46] Why very early-stage companies often need more post-investment support than later-stage companies.
[20:22] Post-deal challenges that can come up unexpectedly, including slow decision-making, sudden management changes, and questions about cash burn.
[21:09] Where promising programs can lose momentum, fall behind on timelines, or run out of capital before reaching the next funding round.
[22:10] How venture philanthropy can help bridge the “valley of death” by taking on more risk, supporting rare disease markets, and helping companies de-risk early science.
[25:00] Advice for tech transfer offices that want to make early-stage opportunities more attractive to mission-focused investors.
[27:15] The future role of patient registries, patient-reported outcomes, access for underserved communities, affordability questions, and stronger partnerships.
[28:36] A personal way to think about science, investment, and patient impact by asking what you would want if someone in your own family had a chronic disease or condition.
Resources:
Bridging the Early-Stage Funding Gap in Innovation with Teri Willey
31m - Jul 1, 2026 - How Thermo Fisher Evaluates University Innovation with Hsiaoli Chen
Industry partnerships can look very different depending on which side of the table you’re sitting on. For technology transfer professionals, the work often centers on preparing the opportunity, supporting the inventor, protecting the IP, and finding the right commercial partner. For companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific, the question is slightly different: does this technology solve a real problem, fit an existing product area, improve on something already in the market, or open the door to a new capability?
My guest today is Hsiaoli Chen, Senior Manager of Corporate Innovation Partnerships at Thermo Fisher Scientific. Hsiaoli brings nearly 20 years of experience in business development, technology scouting, and licensing across the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries in the U.S. and Europe. She started her career as a biomedical researcher, and that scientific foundation still shapes how she evaluates new opportunities, talks with inventors, and looks at the evidence behind an emerging technology.
In this conversation, Hsiaoli shares how Thermo Fisher works with universities, startups, researchers, and tech transfer offices to identify promising technologies and build productive partnerships. We talk about what catches her attention in a technology offering, why benchmarking against an existing product can make a disclosure easier to evaluate, and how validation data helps industry partners understand what still needs to happen before a technology can move forward.
We also get into the practical side of licensing, including timelines, royalty expectations, contract templates, and the flexibility needed to get deals done. Hsiaoli also shares her perspective on global differences in university partnerships, the technology trends she’s watching in AI, automation, proteomics, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy, and the simple things TTOs can do to stand out as strong, prepared, and collaborative industry partners.
In This Episode:
[02:03] Hsiaoli Chen shares how her path from academic biomedical research to a startup in Munich opened the door to business development, licensing, and technology commercialization.
[03:31] Her research background still shapes how she evaluates new technologies, especially when looking at the science, experiments, and validation behind an invention.
[05:12] Thermo Fisher’s university partnerships often begin through researchers who already use the company’s products or through introductions from tech transfer offices.
[07:06] Benchmarking a university technology against an existing Thermo Fisher product can help the right internal team quickly understand where the opportunity fits.
[08:42] Early-stage academic technologies may still be worth evaluating when inventors can clearly identify what additional validation or development work is needed.
[10:02] Licensing conversations with Thermo Fisher often look different from biopharma deals because many technologies may reach the market within 12 to 24 months.
[11:28] Royalty expectations, contribution from multiple technologies, and royalty management mechanisms can all affect whether a university deal makes commercial sense.
[12:36] Flexibility around contract templates can help reduce friction and move licensing conversations forward more efficiently.
[14:03] Global partnership structures vary, with U.S. tech transfer offices often taking the lead while some European inventors may have more direct influence over commercialization.
[15:48] AI, automation, and predictive models for peptides, proteins, and antibodies are becoming increasingly important in chemistry and biology screening.
[16:52] Proteomics, single-cell analysis, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy manufacturing workflows are among the university research trends Thermo Fisher is watching closely.
[18:39] Thermo Fisher uses a robust internal funnel to evaluate technologies coming from universities, startups, biotechs, and even other companies.
[19:34] Product managers, R&D colleagues, IP counsel, business teams, and legal partners may all become part of the evaluation process as an opportunity advances.
[21:07] A strong tech transfer partner often provides complete information up front, including benchmarking, publications, and public patent details when available.
[22:21] Some promising technologies do not move forward because exclusivity is unavailable, consortium terms are limiting, or the deal structure does not fit the business needs.
[23:38] A technology that looks strong on paper may still fail to advance if it does not perform well under Thermo Fisher’s internal technical evaluation conditions.
[24:36] Hsiaoli’s advice for tech transfer professionals is to prepare clear, concise technology offerings, stay flexible on negotiation terms, and keep building relationships through conferences and direct engagement.
Resources:
27m - Jun 24, 2026 - Royalty Stacks: Turning Tech Transfer Into a Strategy Game with Guru Venkatesan
Technology transfer is often described through patents, licenses, startups, and commercialization strategy, but rarely through the lens of a board game. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, we talk with Guru Venkatesan, a business development manager at Fred Hutch and the creator of Royalty Stacks, a tech-transfer-inspired game built around patents, licenses, and leverage. The game gives players a chance to take ideas, decide how broadly to protect them, and choose whether to bring them to market through startups, exclusive licenses, or non-exclusive partnerships, all while navigating knock-offs, hostile takeovers, shifting market conditions, and the occasional boost from a rich uncle’s seed fund.
Guru’s own path into technology commercialization has been anything but linear. He grew up in a small town in India with an early interest in visual arts, but after a classic family plot twist, he studied engineering instead. He earned his bachelor’s degree in India, moved to Tennessee for a PhD in Biomedical Engineering, and later founded Tech Carnivol, a Coachella-style festival for science and engineering during graduate school. His introduction to technology commercialization came at the University of Minnesota, where he worked under Leza Besemann and quickly fell in love with the field.
The conversation explores how Royalty Stacks turns the everyday decisions of tech transfer into something people can actually sit down and play. Guru shares how he designed the game to balance strategy, humor, and education, why accessibility mattered as much as authenticity, and how concepts like patent enforcement, licensing pathways, portfolio building, collaboration, and market risk show up around the table. He also reflects on AI’s growing role in tech transfer, the challenge of explaining the profession to people outside the field, and what he hopes players will better understand about the long, risky, and often creative journey from idea to product.
In This Episode:
[03:00] Guru Venkatesan shares how his early interest in visual arts, a missed medical school cutoff, and encouragement to pursue engineering eventually led him to biomedical engineering.
[06:13] The idea for Royalty Stacks came during a late-night moment when Guru realized tech transfer naturally behaves like a strategy game built around patents, licensing, risk, timing, and market forces.
[09:43] Student-led technology festivals in India inspired Guru to create Tech Carnivol, a U.S. event with competitions, hackathons, robotics, and other hands-on science and engineering activities.
[12:18] The challenge of explaining specialized fields to broader audiences leads into how Royalty Stacks makes patents, licensing, and commercialization easier to understand.
[15:02] Guru walks through the basic gameplay of Royalty Stacks, including idea cards, patent filing, development, launch cards, play money, and power cards.
[18:57] Patent regions, licensing territories, and revenue payouts are simplified for gameplay while still pointing toward real tech transfer concepts.
[21:50] Launch Knock-Off and Enforce Patent introduce competition, copycats, and patent enforcement, with rock-paper-scissors adding a quick and lighthearted way to settle disputes.
[25:25] Hostile Takeover and Collaborate create both adversarial and cooperative paths, giving players a chance to attack, protect, partner, or take strategic risks.
[29:23] Corporate Roulette brings advanced gameplay into the mix through market events, windfalls, risks, moats, and humorous cards that can help players or disrupt opponents.
[31:25] New players often begin to understand that patents matter, but also that protection alone is not enough without enforcement and commercialization strategy.
[34:12] The game’s two winning conditions create more strategic tension by allowing players to win through cash or through a diversified portfolio and a late-game acquisition.
[36:25] Guru sees Royalty Stacks as a tool for the AUTM community, whether for family play, office team building, faculty engagement, or startup incubator education.
[39:20] Guru reflects on the irony of being a tech transfer professional commercializing a product about tech transfer, while relying more on copyright, branding, and a possible trademark than patents.
[42:33] AI could reshape licensing and portfolio management roles by reducing time spent on document review and creating more space for marketing, relationship management, and overlooked technologies.
[44:40] Royalty Stacks is launching on Kickstarter, with the campaign planned for June 16 through July 17 and expected delivery to backers in January 2027.
[45:18] Guru hopes players walk away with a better appreciation for the work, risk, and execution required to move an idea from concept to product.
Resources:
48m - Jun 17, 2026 - How Novartis Approaches External Research Collaboration with Dr. Yogesh Sharma
University-industry partnerships often sound straightforward from the outside. A promising discovery is made, a company sees potential, and a collaboration begins. But anyone who has worked inside these agreements knows the reality is far more complex. Research goals, publication timelines, IP rights, background technology, data sources, and internal review processes all have to be understood before a partnership can move forward in a productive way.
My guest today is Dr. Yogesh Sharma, Global Head of External Research Collaboration at Novartis. In this role, he works at the intersection of academic research and corporate R&D, helping shape the structures that allow early-stage research collaborations to succeed. With deep experience in technology transfer, licensing, IP management, alliance governance, research agreements, and term sheet negotiations, Dr. Sharma brings a practical view of what it takes to build partnerships that protect innovation while still allowing science to move.
We talk about how Novartis approaches external research collaboration, where alignment and friction often show up between universities and industry, and why relationships matter just as much as contracts. Dr. Sharma also shares his perspective on background IP, publication review, AI, and data-source diligence, and the importance of keeping the tech transfer office and PI aligned from the earliest stages of a collaboration.
In This Episode:
[01:32] Dr. Yogesh Sharma defines external research collaboration at Novartis as work focused on early-stage research rather than clinical trials, with an emphasis on understanding disease biology and identifying new therapeutic possibilities.
[04:30] Dr. Sharma explains how his background in academic technology transfer helps him understand pressure points on both sides of the table, especially when universities and corporate partners approach collaboration with different needs.
[06:00] The conversation turns to friction around the use of research results, including why Novartis may need flexibility for research programs or regulatory filings while universities need to preserve academic research and publication rights.
[09:11] Dr. Sharma describes the recurring issue of non-exclusive royalty-free licensing and explains why Novartis does not ask for broad rights in every agreement, but may need them when important clinical drugs or pipeline compounds are involved.
[10:27] Strong collaborations depend on more than contract language, with Dr. Sharma emphasizing the importance of trust and communication between the PI and company scientists when research changes direction or results do not go as planned.
[12:39] Dr. Sharma discusses the practical realities of review cycles, publication timelines, and internal approvals at a large company, including the importance of giving industry partners enough time for IP attorney review.
[14:30] Background IP becomes a major focus as Dr. Sharma explains how Novartis may take an option and help cover ongoing patent costs when existing university IP is important to a proposed collaboration.
[17:19] The discussion shifts to AI, platform science, and data ecosystems, with Dr. Sharma noting that AI is already shaping drug discovery, chemistry, target identification, data analysis, and research collaborations.
[19:10] AI collaborations require careful diligence around data sources, existing tools, open-source licenses, and whether any restrictions could limit what Novartis can do with collaboration outputs.
[21:35] Dr. Sharma offers advice to tech transfer professionals, stressing the need for early alignment with the PI around the research plan, diligence, data sources, deliverables, and what each side is bringing into the collaboration.
[23:45] After a deal is signed, Dr. Sharma explains that larger collaborations require continued engagement, project management, kickoff meetings, and a reliable point of contact beyond the PI’s lab.
[25:27] The episode closes with a look at how larger collaborations may involve structured alliance management, while smaller projects are often handled directly by scientists unless a problem arises.
Resources:
Novartis Biomedical Research / Novartis Research
Helmholtz Munich Launches Collaboration on AI-Driven Kidney Disease Research
26m - Jun 10, 2026 - Bridging the Early-Stage Funding Gap in Innovation with Teri Willey
There’s a stretch of time in innovation where things feel the most uncertain, when the science is promising but the path forward isn’t clear and the capital hasn’t quite caught up. It’s a space that can quietly stall even the most compelling ideas. In this episode, the conversation zeroes in on that early stage gap and what it really takes to move something forward when the usual funding sources aren’t ready yet.
My guest today is Teri Willey, founding managing director of Pathway to Cures, the venture philanthropy fund of the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation. Teri has worked across nearly every part of the innovation ecosystem, from leading tech transfer offices to building venture funds and advising investors. That range of experience shapes how she thinks about translation, especially the less obvious pieces that influence whether a deal comes together or falls apart.
We talk about how venture philanthropy works in practice and why it’s becoming an important tool for advancing therapies that might otherwise struggle to find early support. Teri also shares why understanding human behavior can matter just as much as understanding the science, how patient input can change the trajectory of a company, and what tech transfer professionals can do to better align with early-stage investors. It’s a grounded look at how progress actually happens and what it takes to keep it moving.
In This Episode:
[02:17] Teri Willey reflects on her career and the common thread of working between for-profit and nonprofit worlds to commercialize early-stage science.
[03:13] Why science, IP, and funding alone aren’t enough, and how human behavior plays a critical role in getting deals done.
[04:27] Practical advice on managing stakeholder dynamics and keeping negotiations focused on shared outcomes.
[05:12] Defining venture philanthropy and how it differs from traditional venture capital and grant funding.
[06:24] How Pathway to Cures reinvests returns to support future innovation rather than distributing profits.
[07:08] Inside the fund: small team, targeted focus, and leveraging expert advisors and volunteers.
[08:19] Reviewing hundreds of opportunities and acting as both investor and resource for companies in the space.
[09:26] The value of deep scientific advisors and staying close to emerging, sometimes stealth-stage innovations.
[10:53] Where therapies most often stall, especially in the seed and Series A funding gap.
[12:07] Why early patient engagement is critical for clinical success and long-term adoption.
[13:34] The structure of Pathway to Cures and how independence within a foundation enables flexibility.
[14:57] How tech transfer offices can think of venture philanthropy funds as partners or potential licensees.
[16:11] What investors look for and why understanding an investment memo can help TTOs evaluate opportunities.
[17:23] The importance of speed and clarity in licensing negotiations to avoid losing momentum.
[18:49] Strategies for anticipating capital needs across different types of technologies.
[20:16] How IP is viewed as the starting point, not the endpoint, of building a company.
[21:38] Defining success beyond returns, focusing on delivering real therapies and patient impact.
[22:52] The growing role of disease-focused foundations in venture investing.
[24:18] Why traditional investors value foundations for their patient access and domain expertise.
[25:27] How TTOs can better collaborate by engaging early and asking what makes a project investable.
[26:33] What keeps Teri optimistic despite challenges across funding, regulation, and commercialization.
[27:41] Closing reflections on progress, persistence, and the growing impact of innovation.
Resources:
29m - Jun 3, 2026 - Detecting Alzheimer’s Earlier with a Simple Blood Test with Yuanbing Jiang
Early detection is everything when it comes to Alzheimer’s, but for years, the tools available have made that nearly impossible at scale. Today’s conversation takes a closer look at a breakthrough that could change that equation in a very real way. My guest is Dr. Yuanbing Jiang, also known as Jason, a research assistant professor in the Division of Life Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His work sits at the intersection of neuroscience, proteomics, and large-scale data analysis, with a focus on finding practical ways to detect and understand neurodegenerative disease much earlier than we’ve been able to before.
We talk about the development of a 21-protein blood biomarker panel for Alzheimer’s disease, a test that’s reaching about 96% accuracy in detecting early-stage cases and has already been used in clinical settings in Hong Kong. Jason walks through how advances in high-sensitivity proteomic assays made it possible to measure thousands of proteins at once, and why moving beyond a narrow focus on amyloid markers has been key to improving accuracy. We also get into what it actually means to stage Alzheimer’s biologically, not just diagnose it, and how that changes the way clinicians think about treatment timing.
There’s also a broader story here about access and impact. This blood-based approach is faster, less invasive, and significantly more affordable than traditional methods like PET imaging, which opens the door for wider use in different healthcare settings around the world. We discuss what earlier diagnosis means for patients and families, how it could accelerate drug development and clinical trials, and why this kind of innovation is a strong example of what can happen when academic research, technology transfer, and real-world application come together at the right moment.
In This Episode:
[03:47] Jason explains why Alzheimer’s begins developing 10–20 years before symptoms appear and why patients often miss the treatment window.
[04:31] Traditional diagnostics like PET imaging and spinal fluid tests are effective but too expensive or invasive for widespread use.
[05:12] The idea emerges to create a simple blood test that could be faster, cheaper, and accessible to a much broader population.
[06:08] New high-sensitivity proteomic technology makes it possible to measure over 1,000 blood proteins with dramatically improved accuracy.
[06:56] His team identifies more than 400 potential biomarkers and narrows them down to a 21-protein panel for detection.
[07:43] Different biomarkers reveal distinct stages of Alzheimer’s, with immune system changes appearing earlier than neurological decline.
[08:37] The test doesn’t just detect disease, it helps determine what stage a patient is in, which is critical for treatment decisions.
[09:41] Early-stage identification becomes essential as certain drugs only work when intervention happens before major decline.
[11:03] Two key innovations drive the breakthrough: ultra-sensitive detection technology and a whole-body view beyond amyloid markers.
[12:06] Expanding beyond amyloid to include immune, metabolic, and vascular signals improves both accuracy and disease understanding.
[13:02] High diagnostic accuracy reduces misdiagnosis, which can significantly impact patient outcomes and care planning.
[13:58] Validation across Chinese and Spanish cohorts shows the test works consistently across different populations.
[15:02] The blood test reduces diagnostic costs by up to 88%, making early detection more feasible in resource-limited settings.
[16:07] Earlier diagnosis allows patients to access treatment sooner and gives families time to plan and prepare.
[16:53] Blood-based biomarkers streamline clinical trial recruitment by quickly identifying qualified patients.
[17:36] Pharmaceutical companies can now screen large populations more efficiently, accelerating drug development timelines.
[18:22] The next phase focuses on large-scale validation, regulatory approval, and expansion into global healthcare systems.
[19:28] AI is expected to enhance diagnosis, risk prediction, and therapeutic development using biomarker data.
[20:34] Jason shares optimism that earlier detection and better tools could significantly change Alzheimer’s outcomes in the next decade.
[21:12] The conversation closes with the broader impact, and how this innovation could reshape diagnosis, treatment, and patient care worldwide.
Resources:
Yuanbing JIANG - The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Yuanbing JIANG - Google Scholar
22m - May 27, 2026 - Turning Research into Real World Impact from the Inside Out with Ravini Moodley
Most people focus on the breakthrough, but there is a massive gap between a scientific discovery and a product that actually reaches the public. Today, we’re stepping into the "engine room" of one of Africa’s premier research institutions to see how that gap is bridged. My guest is Ravini Moodley, Director of the Technology Transfer Office at Stellenbosch University’s Innovus. She has a background in microbiology and a Master’s in Technology and Innovation Management. She also has the ability to speak both the technical language of the scientist and the strategic language of the market.
At Innovus, she leads a specialized team tasked with finding the "gems" buried within university research and polishing them for the real world. While the broader commercial strategy is set at the executive level, Ravini manages the ground-level pipeline that moves ideas from the lab bench to a functional spin-out. This role requires constant navigation between social impact and economic viability. While ensuring that complex science doesn't just sit on a shelf, but transforms into a solution that can survive a competitive global landscape.
We discuss building a high-functioning TTO and why empathy is the most underrated skill in the field. We also learn why South Africa’s unique geography shapes their strategy. Rather than trying to out-compete institutions like MIT or Oxford in every category, Stellenbosch is doubling down on agricultural and sustainability technologies where they can lead the world simply by connecting the right people. We look at what it takes to turn research into something the world can benefit from.
In This Episode:
[02:27] Ravini walks through the rhythm of her day, from early meetings on contracts and licensing to coordinating closely with research management and her team.
[05:10] Much of the work centers on connecting researchers with industry while balancing reporting, policy review, and the constant flow of new opportunities.
[08:20] Identifying strong IP is both proactive and reactive, with the team building relationships in labs to spot promising ideas before publication.
[11:05] A sustainability case study highlights enzyme-based technology for breaking down bioplastics, developed through a collaboration with the University of Padova.
[14:35] Ravini explains how projects move from disclosure through IP protection and early business analysis before transitioning to the LaunchLab incubator.
[17:42] Empathy plays a key role in guiding researchers, especially when navigating tough conversations around patentability and commercialization paths.
[20:02] While tech transfer challenges are similar globally, South Africa faces unique hurdles due to market size and geographic distance, making global partnerships essential.
[22:00] She shares her excitement around sustainability and agricultural technologies, where local impact can often happen more quickly with the right connections.
Resources:
Ravini Moodley - Stellenbosch University
24m - May 20, 2026 - Timing, Trust, and Technical Credibility Building, the Long Game with Ram Krishnan
One of the biggest shifts in technology transfer over the past decade isn’t just the pace of innovation. It’s the realization that value isn’t created at a single moment. It builds over time, shaped by how well research, intellectual property, and real-world application stay aligned. The challenge isn’t only generating strong ideas. It’s understanding how those ideas evolve, how they’re protected, and whether they ultimately solve problems people care enough about to adopt and pay for.
My guest today is Ram Krishnan, Senior Director of Engineering in Qualcomm’s Government Affairs Group, where he focuses on global IP ecosystem development. Ram's career has taken him across engineering, business, and intellectual property in standards-driven industries such as wireless communications, AI, XR, and autonomous driving. Now he works with universities, startups, and government organizations around the world, focused on how innovation gets taught, protected, and turned into real products and technologies that can actually scale.
We talk about what it means to think about innovation as a full lifecycle rather than a single breakthrough, how strong IP portfolios are built over time, and why the most durable technologies consistently solve meaningful, “pay-for” problems. Ram also shares how industry approaches long-term university partnerships, what signals a tech transfer office is thinking beyond a single transaction, and why early education around IP can change the trajectory of entire ecosystems. It’s a grounded look at how ideas move from research labs into global standards and what makes that journey successful.
In This Episode:
[02:30] How wireless R&D runs on long innovation cycles, where each generation from 3G to 5G builds over time through continuous problem-solving.
[04:15] Ram describes his current work at Qualcomm, focusing on global IP ecosystem development and engaging universities, students, and startups around innovation and entrepreneurship.
[05:55] What successful technologies have in common early on, centering on solving real problems that people are willing to pay for.
[06:57] Looking back at 3G, we reflect on how bringing internet access to mobile phones once felt groundbreaking, even if it seems routine now.
[07:35] We discuss 4G and 5G, and how video, content creation, and network demands evolved with each wave.
[08:25] A look ahead to 6G, where AI and wireless technologies are expected to become increasingly intertwined.
[09:21] IP strategy, with an emphasis on building strong portfolios across the lifecycle rather than relying on single patents.
[11:05] Universities come into the picture, especially their strength in foundational research and the growing need to translate that into commercially useful IP.
[12:35] A deeper look at university relationships shows why long-term, trust-based partnerships tend to outperform one-off engagements.
[14:10] Programs like the Inventors Patent Academy come up as examples of how early education around IP is being built into the pipeline.
[15:45] The balance between standards and proprietary innovation is explored, showing how both play a role in scaling technology globally.
[18:00] In areas like AI and 6G, universities are engaging more deliberately, including increased participation in standards development.
[20:05] Internal alignment across engineering, legal, and business teams is highlighted as a key factor in making external collaborations run smoothly.
[21:30] Strong university partners tend to stay aligned on outcomes and connect their research to real-world problems, even as projects and people change.
[23:03] Expanding a single invention into adjacent use cases comes up as a practical way to build a more valuable and durable IP portfolio.
[24:10] When universities reach out, things like entrepreneurial culture, maker spaces, and spinout track records signal whether there’s real alignment.
[25:45] Ram reflects on lessons learned, especially the importance of being disciplined about IP disclosure before sharing ideas in collaborative settings.
[26:43] Tech transfer works best when it takes a full, 360-degree view from early education all the way through commercialization.
Resources:
30m - May 13, 2026 - The Missing Link Between Research and Real-World Impact with Ben Reinhardt
There’s a moment every tech transfer professional recognizes, when a discovery feels like it could matter, but you can’t quite see how it gets from the lab into the real world. That gap is where a lot of promising ideas stall out. In this episode, the conversation takes a closer look at that in-between space and asks a simple but uncomfortable question: what if the problem isn’t just funding or timing, but the lack of the right kind of institution to carry these ideas forward?
This is our 300th episode, and I’m happy to introduce Ben Reinhardt, founder and CEO of Speculative Technologies. His career has taken him through academia, NASA, startups, and venture capital, and that perspective shapes how he thinks about innovation. We talk about what he calls “big-if-true” technologies, how to recognize them, and why the current system often struggles to support them. Ben shares why the traditional, linear view of innovation breaks down in practice and how different environments each bring strengths that don’t always connect the way we assume.
We also get into the structural gaps that leave technologies stranded in the valley of death, what earlier models like Bell Labs actually got right, and why simply recreating them isn’t realistic today. Ben walks through how his organization approaches early-stage ideas, from identifying the biggest risks to thinking ahead about how something eventually reaches the market or becomes a public good. It’s a thoughtful look at how innovation really happens and what might need to change to help more ideas make it all the way through.
In This Episode:
[03:02] Ben Reinhardt shares how frustration across academia, NASA, startups, and venture capital led him to create a new kind of research institution.
[03:55] The idea behind Speculative Technologies emerges from seeing the same barriers repeated across every innovation environment.
[05:28] Why recognizing breakthrough ideas often starts with a researcher’s intuition before it can be clearly articulated.
[07:05] A dual strategy for sourcing ideas: high-touch conversations and broad outreach signals to attract unconventional thinkers.
[08:15] Lessons from working across institutions and why innovation doesn’t follow a simple linear path.
[10:22] How different environments excel at different types of work, from deep research to rapid execution.
[11:30] Why many promising technologies get stuck in the valley of death due to a lack of system-level ownership.
[13:45] Revisiting Bell Labs and similar models, and why modern equivalents need to look very different.
[14:50] The importance of combining small exploratory teams with the ability to scale successful ideas.
[17:05] Why large corporations no longer sustain these labs due to financial pressure and changing incentives.
[18:20] How innovation has shifted toward universities and startups as primary sources of new technology.
[20:10] Breaking down the four phases of Speculative Technologies’ research model from idea to transition.
[21:05] Why identifying the biggest technical risk early is more important than showing incremental progress.
[22:10] The “monkey and pedestal” analogy for focusing on what actually matters in early-stage research.
[24:45] The complexity of intellectual property and when it may or may not be the right tool.
[27:20] Why universities are not structured to fully develop or commercialize most technologies.
[29:10] Signals that a technology is ready to move beyond exploration into real-world application.
[31:05] The risks of pushing technologies out too early and damaging their long-term potential.
[32:10] Emerging areas of excitement, including advanced manufacturing, AI-enabled science, and new transportation systems.
[34:10] The value of embedding real-world practitioners into research environments to guide direction.
[35:00] Why breakthrough innovation requires new systems, incentives, and ways of thinking.
Resources:
35m - May 6, 2026 - Thriving in Small Tech Transfer Offices with Caitlin Long and Sanaz Shahi
Collaboration is one of the defining strengths of the technology transfer community, and it often becomes even more important when resources are limited. This conversation takes a closer look at what it really means to operate in a small or under-resourced office, where the work can feel both expansive and unpredictable. From managing intellectual property to handling budgets, compliance, and stakeholder relationships, the scope of the role is broad, and no two days look quite the same.
My guests are two leaders who have spent a great deal of time thinking about how these offices not only function, but find ways to grow and succeed. Caitlin Long is Director of Technology Transfer and Innovation at Alvernia University and serves as the AUTM Small Office co-chair and an AUTM Foundation board member, with a focus on translating ideas into real-world health impact through a student-powered, community-engaged model. She is joined by Sanaz Shahi, Administrative Director of Intellectual Property at Rowan University and co-chair of the AUTM Small Offices Committee, who also plays an active role in supporting diversity, mentorship, and professional development across the AUTM community.
We talk about the realities of wearing multiple hats, the unexpected responsibilities that come with running a small office, and the moments when you realize you need help that may not exist within your own institution. We also explore the role of the AUTM Small Office Special Interest Group as a practical, day-to-day resource, along with strategies for avoiding burnout, building support systems, and learning from others instead of starting from scratch. We take a grounded look at how collaboration, shared knowledge, and community can turn what might feel like an isolated role into something far more connected and sustainable.
In This Episode:
[02:09] A look at what day-to-day work actually involves in a small tech transfer office, where one person often handles multiple roles at once.
[03:10] How responsibilities can range from licensing and IP strategy to stakeholder engagement and student supervision.
[04:20] The challenge of constantly switching between big-picture strategy and detailed operational work is explored.
[05:05] Real-world examples show how deadlines, competing priorities, and limited time can create pressure in small teams.
[06:10] A surprising aspect of the role is the amount of financial and administrative work involved, including budgets and legal invoices.
[07:15] Early career moments are shared where there was little internal support and a need to seek guidance externally.
[08:05] The importance of the broader tech transfer community becomes clear as a source of advice, mentorship, and practical solutions.
[09:20] Fellowship experiences are discussed as a way to gain knowledge, build confidence, and connect with experienced professionals.
[10:30] The idea of becoming “trilingual” in science, business, and law is introduced as a key skill in tech transfer.
[11:40] A discussion on why the community is so willing to share knowledge and support one another.
[12:50] The AUTM Small Office Special Interest Group is introduced as more than a forum, but a support system for under-resourced teams.
[13:40] Examples of real, practical conversations within the group, including patent strategy, budgeting, and compliance challenges.
[14:50] The value of sharing templates, workflows, and real-world examples to avoid reinventing the wheel.
[16:00] A shift toward sustainability and the importance of managing workload to prevent burnout.
[17:10] Strategies for setting boundaries and building support systems, even when staffing is limited.
[18:05] Creative approaches to staffing, including the use of student workers to extend capacity.
[19:00] The feeling of isolation in small offices is addressed, along with encouragement to connect with the broader community.
[19:50] Practical advice on building relationships, asking questions, and reaching out for one-on-one support.
[20:40] Reflections on how being part of the AUTM community changes decision-making and leadership approach.
[21:20] A reminder that collaboration and shared knowledge are key to long-term success in tech transfer.
Resources:
Caitlin Long - Alvernia University
Sanaz Shahi - Rowan University
21m - Apr 29, 2026
