Students key in start-ups

PhD students, not just their professors, are important as entrepreneurs in getting inventions from university lab benches to the market, according to academic research.
 
The paper, From Lab Bench to Innovation: Critical Challenges to Nascent Academic Entrepreneurs, looked at 10 nascent academic entrepreneurs (NAEs) involved in eight ventures at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Venture Mentoring Service and the implications of their experiences for universities and policymakers. Nine of these NAEs were students at initiation of venture idea and all-but-one of the technologies resulted directly from students’ research. However, those technologies are embryonic  so the NAEs first launch as a research-based startup (RBSU) as it can take up to a decade of significant additional research to mature their inventions to the point of commercialization.  This period is far longer than any of them anticipated.
 
The decision to launch a venture evolves as the NAE gains confidence in his or her entrepreneurial abilities and determines that the technology likely cannot be licensed unless they bring it to maturity first. When the NAE first recognized the potential impact of their research the study found the dominant perception (eight out of 10 NAEs) was that somebody else would commercialize the technology. But all of the student NAEs concluded the best chance for their technology to advance was to form their own start-up to finish the research or it would never be used. Using the entrepreneurial ecosystem, especially business plan competitions, was critical for eight out of 10 NAEs but conflicts could develop with the other team members, particularly between the founder and MBA students.
 
Roman Lubynsky (pictured), senior venture adviser at MIT Venture Mentoring Service and author of the paper, said: “The unique needs of an NAE in the idea exploration or RBSU [research-based start-up] phase may require a very different set of advice or actions than a typical new technology start-up, and the support programs may not be geared to identify and differentiate between the types of startups….”
 
“In contrast to regular high-technology start-ups [TBSU] that take existing technologies and combine them in novel ways to create new products, ventures based on discoveries originating from a lab bench must first demonstrate that the technology development is complete prior to its marketability.”

“A conclusion drawn was that academic ventures launch as RBSUs with the mission of maturing an embryonic technology before reaching the same point as a regular TBSU. The RBSU phase is distinct, has unique challenges, and differs from the startup process typical high-technology ventures follow.”
 
And the study found academic entrepreneurs were more likely than typical technology entrepreneurs to experience serious conflicts – particularly with their faculty advisers if they had yet to complete their academic studies – over intellectual property and equity participation.
 
Lubynsky defined an NAE as a faculty, staff or student researcher at a university who has left the university, or intends to leave, to devote full-time attention to the development of a company based on research that originated at the university in which he or she was involved, and which has not yet achieved real economic activity through sales of the product or services.
 
He said: “Nascent academic entrepreneurship provides the foundation for future innovators. “It is important to help transform these inventors into leaders. Invention alone is not innovation; innovation is the long, hard work of taking new technologies and bringing them to commercialization.” He authored the paper after a commission by the non-profit Kauffman Foundation and said as academic and research career options become increasingly limited, greater numbers of students likely will be exploring and potentially launching academic ventures as NAEs.
 
Lesa Mitchell, vice-president of innovation and networks at the Kauffman Foundation, said: “This research supports the notion that graduate students have an important role in commercialising their inventions from the university lab and they need support models to help them advance to the commercial marketplace.
 
“This is significant because many universities in the US do not clearly define intellectual property rights in support of student entrepreneurs. I’m hoping this paper will encourage universities to consider more open policies.
 
“The paper also reinforces the value of competitions that allow students access to robust resources and experiences that can help them move their science inventions from lab to market.”