Biotech Tech Transfer

The Milken Institute has put out a new report on commercialization of biotech research by universities worldwide. The report can be downloaded here. (Be careful; it's huge.)

The title is "Mind to Market: A Global Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer and Commercialization." Here are the "key findings":
• Harvard ranks first in terms of biotech research, as measured by papers and citations, followed by the University of Tokyo and University of London. U.S. universities hold eight of the top 10, and 28 of the top 40 positions. California universities hold five of the top 25 rankings; the UK and Japan hold three each.
• The University of Texas system scores first on our Biotech Patent Composite Index, followed by UC San Francisco — which is likely first among individual campuses since the University of Texas doesn’t report data on individual campuses — and Johns Hopkins. Nine of the top 10 patent holders are U.S. universities. The University of London ranks first among foreign universities (10th overall). (U.S.-issued university biotech patents grew from a cumulative total of 433 through 1995 to 11,430 in 2004.)
• Our University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index shows MIT first on outcome measures, which include such factors as licensing income and startups. The University of California system ranks second (led by UC San Francisco), with Caltech third, Stanford fourth and Florida fifth. The University of British Columbia was the highest-ranked Canadian institution, coming in eighth overall.
• Among U.S., Canadian and European universities, the United States leads in invention disclosures, patents filed and granted, licenses executed and licensing income. However, European universities surpass their U.S. counterparts in startups established.
• Research activity has a high rate of return. Each 10-point increase in our Research Papers score contributes an additional $1.7 million in annual licensing income.
• Investments into OTTs also offer high returns. For every $1 invested in OTT staff, the university receives a little more than $6 of licensing income.
• In terms of job creation, the Amgens and Genentechs most differentiate the economic impact of U.S. university-based biotech commercialization that originates from universities in other nations.

Run a search through the PDF to see how Pitt stacks up worldwide in biotech commercialization. My very quick take: For all the money that Pitt invests in biomedical research -- not so well.


1 Response to "Biotech Tech Transfer"

Anonymous said... 9/24/2006 10:11 PM

Is the regional economy more of a driver or the university?

Search Pittsblog

About Pittsblog

Pittsblog 2.0 is written by Mike Madison, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Send email to michael.j.madison[at] Mike also blogs at, on law and technology. Chris Briem of Null Space drops by from time to time.

All opinions expressed at Pittsblog 2.0 are those of their respective authors and of no one (and no thing) else, least of all the University of Pittsburgh.

Pittsblog 2.0 has a motto: "It's steel good in Pittsburgh." Say it aloud, with a Pittsburgh accent.

Comments are moderated.
Subscribe to Pittsblog comments


Blog Archive

Header Background

Header background images licensed from (left image) lemonad and (right image) plaskota under Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - Share Alike 2.0 Generic licenses.


Copyright 2003-2010 Michael J. Madison - WP Theme by Brian Gardner - Blogger Blog Templates,