U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–222PDF 2013

IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AT 

UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH INSTITUTES, 

AND NATIONAL LABORATORIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

Serial No. 113–43 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Brian R. Wamhoff, Vice President of Research & Development, Co-founder, HemoShear, LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Dr. Elizabeth Hart-Wells, Assistant Vice President for Research, Associate 

Director of the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship, Purdue 

University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. Erik Lium, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Office of Innovation, Technology 

& Alliances, University of California, San Francisco 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 47 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 58 

(1) 

IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AT 

UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH INSTITUTES, 

AND NATIONAL LABORATORIES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:08 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry Bucshon 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

tAMAR S. SMITH. Texas 

CHAIRMAN 

Q:ongress of the tinitcd ~tates 

il'tou.sc of'Rcprc.smmtioc.s COMMITIEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BU1LD!NG 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(2021225-6371 

wwwscitmctl.house.gov 

Subcommittee on Research and TechDology Hearing 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

Improving Technology Transfer at Universities, Research Institutes 

and National Laboratories 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 

2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Dr. Brian Wamhoff, Vice President of Research & Development and Co-founder, HemoShear, LLC 

Dr. Elizabeth Hart-Wells, Assistant Vice President for Research and Associate Director of the Burton D, 

Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship, Purdue University 

Dr. Erik Lium, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Office of Innovation. Technology & Alliances, University of 

Califomia. San Francisco 
3 

Purpose 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

Improving Technology Transfer at Ulliversities, Research Illstitutes 

alld Natiollal Laboratories 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 

2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Wednesday, July 24, the Subcommittee on Research and Technology will hold a legislative 

hearing on innovative approaches to technology transfer at universities, research institutes, and 

national laboratories, and on potential improvements to the Small Business Technology Transfer 

(STTR) program. The hearing will focus specifically on a discussion draft of legislation, titled 

the "Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of20 13." The legislation would 

dedicate a portion of STTR funding to establish a program that awards grants for innovative 

technology transfer programs at universities, research institutes, and national laboratories with 

the goal of improving technology transfer. 

Witnesses 

• Dr. Brian Warn hoff, Vice President of Research & Development and Co-founder, 

IIemoShear. LLC 

• Dr. Elizabeth Hart-Wells, Assistant Vice President for Research and Associate Director of the 

Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship, Purdue University 

• Dr. Erik Lium, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Ortice of Innovation, Technology & Alliances, 

University of California, San Francisco 

Background 

In fiscal year 2012, the Federal Government funded more than $131 billion in research and 

development (R&D) activities. Colleges and universities conduct the majority of basic research 

in the United States, and cumulatively receive more than half of their total research funding from 

federal agencies. I Because of the large amount of funding expended by the Federal Government 

on basic research by nonprofit institutions like universities, research institutes, and national 

laboratories, efforts to improve the transfer of federally-funded research are of interest to both 

the Federal Government and stakeholders across the nation. 

Several researchers at policy think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, Heritage 

Foundation, Center for American Progress, and the Information Technology and Innovation 

Foundation, have called for improvements to technology transfer and return on investment of 

I Christine M. Matthews, Federal Supportfar Academic Research, Congressional Research Service, October 18, 

20 12, http://www.crs.gov/pages/Reports.aspxoPRODCODE-"R41895&Source=search 
4 

federally funded R&D at research universities, nonprofit research institutes, and national 

laboratories2

, 

Bayh-Dole Act 

The Amendments to the Patent and Trademark Act of 19S0 (P,L, 96-517), commonly known as 

the Bayh-Dole Acl, were designed to improve collaboration between commercial concerns and 

nonprofit organizations, including universities, in addition to promoting the utilization of 

inventions arising from federally supported research and development, In order to encourage the 

two sectors to work together (0 generate new technologies for the marketplace, the Act gave U,S, 

universities, small businesses, and nonprofits intellectual property control of their inventions and 

other intellectual property that resulted from such funding, Bayh-Dole changed the incentive 

structure for non profits and small businesses to patents and licenses of inventions, In 19S0, 390 

patents were awarded to universities;) by 2009, the number increased to 3,OSS.4 

Small Business Technology Transfer Program 

The Small Busincss Technology Transfer Program (STTR), created by P,L, 102-564 and most 

recently reauthorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P. L. 112-

SI), is a small business program that provides federal research and development funding for 

proposals that are developed and executed cooperatively between a small firm and a researcher 

in a nonprofit research organization. 

Federal agencies and departments with annual extramural research budgets of more than $1 

billion are required to operate STTR programs. The Departments of Energy, Defense, and 

Health and Human Services, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the 

National Science Foundation participate in the STTR program. Under the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the formula funding for STTR is 0.35 percent of all 

extramural research for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013, will increase to 0.4 percent for Fiscal Years 

2014 and 2015, and will increase again to 0.45 percent for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017. 

Undcr the reauthorization, up to $150,000 in Phasc I funding may be awarded to partnerships 

between small businesses and researchers to evaluate a concept's scientific or technical merit and 

feasibility; Phase II awards of up to $ J ,000,000 may be awarded for the performance of the 

principal R&D. The reauthorization provides a degree of flexibility on award amounts for 

participating agencies. In fiscal year 2012, federal agencies and departments participating in the 

STIR program provided 635 awards totaling more than $215 million. 

2 S. Ezell and R. Atkinson, 25 Recommendations/or the 2013 America COMPETES Act Reallthori~ation, ITIF, 

April 2013; D. West, Improving University Technology Transfer and Commerciali=atiol1, Brookings Institution~ 

December 2012; M. Stepp, S. Pool, J. Spencer, and N. Loris, Turning the Page: Reimagilling the National Labs in 

the 2/'{ Century Innovation Economy, ITIF, Center for American Progress, Heritage Foundation, June 2013. 

1 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-I 993 (Washington, National Science Foundation, 

1993),430 . 

. , National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012 (Washington, National Science Foundation, 

20 I 0), Appendix table 5-48, available at http://www.nsf.govistatistics/scind 12/append/c5/at05-48.pdf. 

2 
5 

Hearings and Legislation 

In March, 2011, the Committee held a hearing on reauthorization of the Small Business 

Innovation Research (SBIR) and STTR programs. Mr. Mark Crowell, Executive Director and 

Associate Vice President for Innovation Partnerships and Commercialization at the University of 

Virginia, recommended dedicating a pOliion of STTR funds for early stage proof of concept 

work at research institutions, after an evaluation by panels of experts in translational and proof of 

concept research.5 

The Committee approved H.R. 1425, the Creating Jobs Through Small Business Innovation Act 

of2011 to reauthorize the SBIR and STTR programs on May 4, 2011. As pati of the markup of 

H.R. 1425, the Committee agreed to an amendment offered by Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL) to pilot a 

proof-of-concept grant program through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Several key 

portions of H.R. 1425, including the proof-of-concept grant program, were incorporated into P.L. 

112-81. 

Disenssion Draft of Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of 2013 

The discussion draft of legislation provided to the witnesses would direct federal agencies and 

departments that participate in the STTR program to establish a grant program to fund proposals, 

through a competitive, merit-based process, that help facilitate and accelerate the transfer of 

federally funded research and technology into the marketplace. 

In determining which proposals are awarded grants, participating federal agencies and 

departments shall consider whether the proposals demonstrate proven strategies that could 

achieve greater impact with grant funding, or whether the proposals outline new approaches that 

have the potential to increase or accelerate technology transfer outcomes and can be adopted by 

other qualifying institutions. 

The draft legislation authorizes each patiicipating federal agency and department to expend up to 

0.05 percent of its extramural research budget on the STTR program in fiscal years 2014 and 

2015, and up to 0.1 percent of its extramural research budget on the program in fiscal years 2016 

and2017. 

The draft legislation also requires participating federal agencies and departments to develop a 

plan for program evaluation and appropriate data collection to assess the effectiveness of the 

program. In addition, the legislation requires the Small Business Administrator to include, on a 

publicly-available database required under the Small Business Act, information on the evaluation 

plan, recipients of program funding, and information on the use of program funding by 

recipients. 

5 W.M. Crowell, Testimony before the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Technology and 

Innovation hearing on ··The Role of Small Business in Innovation and Job Creation: The SBIR and STTR 

Programs," March 31. 20 II. 

3 
6 

Issues for Examination 

Witnesses have been asked to provide comments and recommendations on the discussion draft of 

the Innovative Approaches to Technology 11'ansfer Act 0/2013 in their testimony. In addition, 

Dr. Wamhoffhas been asked to describe how proof of concept funding helped to launch his 

business. University witnesses have been asked to describe innovative approaches to technology 

transfer at their respective universities. 

The hearing will examine whether the proposed legislation can improve the STTR program and 

general technology transter outcomes at research institutions. 

4 
7 

Chairman BUCSHON. The Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order. 

Good afternoon. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Improving 

Technology Transfer at Universities, Research Institutes, and National Laboratories.’’ In front of you are packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies, and truth in testimony disclosures 

for today’s witnesses. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing is being held to review innovative approaches to 

technology transfer at universities, research institutes, and national laboratories, and to examine a discussion draft of legislation 

titled, ‘‘The Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of 

2013.’’ 

In 2012, the Federal Government funded more than $131 billion 

in research and development activities. More than half of all basic 

research conducted at our Nation’s colleges and universities is 

funded by the Federal Government. 

According to the Association of University Technology Managers, 

technology transfer is the process by which universities and research institutes transfer scientific findings from one organization 

to another for the purpose of further development or commercialization. 

The Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, changed the incentive structure for universities and research institutes to work with commercial entities, including small businesses, to license and patent technologies. The Small Business Technology Transfer or STTR Program was created to provide Federal R&D funding for proposals 

that are developed and executed jointly between small business 

and a researcher in a nonprofit research organization. My own 

State of Indiana has seen 99 STTR awards totaling more than $26 

million. Both Bayh-Dole and the STTR Program have helped to create jobs and translate new technologies into the marketplace. 

However, while the rate of technology transfer at our Nation’s 

universities, research institutes, and national laboratories has increased since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act and the creation of 

the STTR Program, I believe we can do even better. 

The draft legislation, which is being developed under the leadership of my colleague from New York, Mr. Collins, will create a program to incentivize research institutions to implement innovative 

approaches to technology transfer to achieve better outcomes. The 

legislation would dedicate a portion of STTR Program funding to 

provide grants to research institutions to help facilitate and accelerate the transfer of federally funded research and technology into 

the marketplace. 

We will be hearing today from the co-founder of a growing biotechnology business based in Charlottesville, Virginia, that was developed out of federally funded R&D, with the assistance of private 

foundation technology transfer grant funding. We will also hear 

from the Assistant Vice President for Research and Associate Director of the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship at 

Purdue University in my home State of Indiana and from the Assistant Vice Chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Technology, 

and Alliances at the University of California, San Francisco. Our 

witnesses have first-hand experience in technology transfer and 
8 

can provide insight into how the proposed grant program could 

help facilitate better technology transfer outcomes. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on their 

thoughts about the proposed legislation, including any recommendations they have for improvements. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, 

and we look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

Good afternoon, I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, which is being 

held to review innovative approaches to technology transfer at universities, research 

institutes and National Laboratories, and to examine a discussion draft of legislation, titled the ‘‘Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of 2013.’’ 

In 2012, the Federal Government funded more than $131 billion in research and 

development activities. More than half of all basic research conducted at our nation’s colleges and universities is funded by the Federal Government. 

According to the Association of University Technology Managers, technology 

transfer is the process by which universities and research institutes transfer scientific findings from one organization to another for the purpose of further development or commercialization. 

The Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, changed the incentive structure for universities and research institutes to work with commercial entities, including small businesses, to license and patent technologies. The Small Business Technology Transfer 

or STTR program was created to provide federal R&D funding for proposals that 

are developed and executed jointly between a small business and a researcher in 

a nonprofit research organization. My own state of Indiana has seen 99 STTR 

awards totaling more than $26 million. Both Bayh-Dole and the STTR program 

have helped to create jobs and translate new technologies into the marketplace. 

However, while the rate of technology transfer at our nation’s universities, research institutes and national laboratories has increased since the passage of the 

Bayh-Dole Act and the creation of the STTR program, I believe we can do even better. 

The draft legislation, which is being developed under the leadership of my colleague from New York, Mr. Collins, will create a program to incentivize research 

institutions to implement innovative approaches to technology transfer to achieve 

better outcomes. The legislation would dedicate a portion of STTR program funding 

to provide grants to research institutions to help facilitate and accelerate the transfer of federally funded research and technology into the marketplace. 

We will be hearing today from the co-founder of a growing biotechnology business 

based in Charlottesville, Virginia that was developed out of federally funded R&D, 

with the assistance of private foundation technology transfer grant funding. We will 

also hear from the Assistant Vice President for Research and Associate Director of 

the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship at Purdue University in my 

home state of Indiana. And from the Assistant Vice Chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Technology, and Alliances at the University of California, San Francisco. 

Our witnesses have first-hand experience in technology transfer and can provide insight into how the proposed grant program could help facilitate better technology 

transfer outcomes. 

I’m looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on their thoughts about the 

proposed legislation, including any recommendations they have for improvements.We thank our witnesses for being here today and we look forward to your 

testimony. 

Chairman BUCSHON. I will now recognize the Ranking Member, 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for an opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing, and thank each of our witnesses for being here to 

share your thoughts on this topic and the draft legislation we are 

considering today. 
9 

Today concerned Americans continue to ask the question, ‘‘What 

is the future of American jobs?’’ A big part of our future competitiveness depends on our ability to move new and emerging technologies out of the lab and into the mainstream of commerce. 

Accelerating technology transfer from our universities and national labs is one of my highest priorities since I have come to Congress. I believe the potential for job creation emanating from research being performed at these institutions is immense. We must 

capitalize on these opportunities and get the best possible return 

in our investments in research through the creation of new 

projects, new companies, and new American jobs. 

Let me make one point clear. Our competitors have noticed how 

well our innovation system works and many are trying to imitate 

it. Countries like China and members of the European Union are 

now investing heavily in their own R&D programs. Combined business and government spending in R&D in China, for instance, has 

been increasing by almost 20 percent a year over the past decade, 

and China has already overtaken Japan as the number two publishers of scientific articles. They are determined to move up the 

value chain into higher-tech, higher-paying jobs. We need sustained 

investments and smart policies if we want to remain the world 

leader in science and technology. 

However, the path from the lab to a successful business is anything but straightforward. It depends on an integrated network of 

private companies, scientists and engineers, universities, venture 

capitalists, startups, and entrepreneurs. It also depends on the entrepreneurial environment, timing, and luck. 

Some universities have had more success in technology transfer 

than others. Some scientists are better prepared or more inclined 

to be entrepreneurial, and some parts of the country have cultivated networks of entrepreneurials and venture capitalists who 

have vast experience turning ideas into products that can transform our everyday lives. 

This draft legislation attempts to increase the successful transition to thriving startup by supporting innovative approaches to 

technology transfer. The draft bill language is similar to an amendment I sponsored two years ago to the Creating Jobs Through 

Small Business Innovation Act of 2011. My amendment was incorporated into SBIR/STTR Reauthorization with bipartisan support 

and allowed for a Proof of Concept Pilot Program at the National 

Institutes of Health. That amendment, similar to the legislation 

being discussed today, did not spend any new money. 

Instead, it allowed NIH to use money from their STTR fund to 

set up a grant program to support translational research and entrepreneurial education activities at universities across the Nation. 

At a time when we struggle with job creation in a fast-changing 

global economy, we need to be looking more closely at how best we 

can help our universities and national labs, filled with the world’s 

best researchers, be even better economic engines that power 

America’s future. When technologies have been developed with 

Federal taxpayer resources, we should explore whether there is a 

role for the government to play in aiding potential commercialization. Most venture capitalists are unwilling to take on the risk in 
10 

the early-stages of the innovation ecosystem, and in fact, their investments are moving farther and farther downstream. 

I believe this legislation has the potential to improve our return 

on investment and research, and I am interested in our witnesses’ 

recommendations on a draft bill. 

In particular, I am interested in hearing their comments on 

using funds from the STTR Program to support technology transfer 

activities, as well as their thoughts on the reporting obligations of 

the draft bill and whether this information is readily available or 

would be overly burdensome to collect. I know that alleviating bureaucratic burdens on universities has rightfully been the focus of 

this Subcommittee. 

I also hope the witnesses will provide us with some information 

on best practices, model programs, or policies that can improve the 

technology transfer process, and appropriate role of the Federal 

Government in supporting such efforts. 

The draft legislation as written gives agencies discretion on what 

types of programs to fund with these grants. I would like to understand the most useful places for the Federal Government to be involved and the major gaps or barriers that our resources can help 

overcome. 

I look forward to working to advance legislation on this important topic. We need to do all we can to help turn American discoveries into American jobs, and as I said, I very much like this—the 

draft legislation we have out there, maybe because I believe Mr. 

Collins is a mechanical engineer, the most brilliant people that 

there are, but I think that we have—there is a lot that we can 

learn from the witnesses today about how best to take the draft 

legislation and put it into a final bill. 

But I appreciate the opportunity to hear from our witnesses 

today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to our witnesses 

for being here to share your thoughts on the topic and the draft legislation we are 

considering today. 

Today, concerned Americans continue to ask, ‘‘What is the future of American 

jobs?’’ A big part of our future competitiveness depends on our ability to move new 

and emerging technologies out of the lab and into the mainstream of commerce. Accelerating technology transfer from our universities and national labs has been one 

of my highest priorities since coming to Congress. I believe the potential for job creation emanating from research being performed at these institutions is immense. 

We must capitalize on these opportunities and get the best possible return on our 

investments in research through the creation of new products, new companies, and 

new American jobs. 

Let me make one point clear: Our competitors have noticed how well our innovation system works, and many are trying to imitate it. Countries like China and 

members of the European Union are now investing heavily in their own R&D programs. Combined business and government spending on R&D in China, for instance, has been increasing by almost 20% a year over the past decade, and China 

has already overtaken Japan as the number two publisher of scientific articles. They 

are determined to move up the value chain into higher tech, higher paying jobs. We 

need sustained investments and smart policies if we want to remain the world leader in science and technology. 
11 

However, the path from the lab to a successful business is anything but straightforward. It depends on an integrated network of private companies, scientists and 

engineers, universities, venture capitalists, startups, and entrepreneurs. It also depends on the entrepreneurial environment, timing, and luck. 

Some universities have had more success in technology transfer than others. Some 

scientists are better prepared or more inclined to be entrepreneurial. And some 

parts of the country have cultivated networks of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who have vast experience turning ideas into products that can transform our 

everyday lives. 

The draft legislation attempts to increase the successful transition to thriving 

startup by supporting ‘‘innovative approaches to technology transfer.’’ In fact, the 

draft bill language is similar to an amendment I sponsored two years ago to the 

Creating Jobs Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2011. My amendment was 

incorporated into the SBIR/STTR reauthorization with bipartisan support and allowed for a Proof of Concept Pilot Program at the National Institutes of Health. 

That amendment, similar to the legislation being discussed today, did not spend any 

new money. Instead, it allowed NIH to use money from their STTR fund to set up 

a grant program to support translational research and entrepreneurial education activities at universities across the nation. 

At a time when we struggle with job creation and a fast-changing global economy, 

we need to be looking more closely at how we can best help our universities and 

national labs—filled with the world’s best researchers—be even better economic engines that power America’s future. 

When technologies have been developed with Federal taxpayer resources, we 

should explore whether there is a role for the government to play in aiding potential 

commercialization. Most venture capitalists are unwilling to take on the risk in the 

early-stages of the innovation ecosystem, and in fact their investments are moving 

farther and farther downstream. 

I believe this legislation has the potential to improve our return on investment 

in research, and I am interested in our witnesses’ recommendations on the draft 

bill. In particular, I am interested in hearing their comments on using funds from 

the STTR program to support technology transfer activities, as well as their 

thoughts on the reporting obligations in the draft bill and whether this information 

is readily available or would be overly burdensome to collect. I know that alleviating 

bureaucratic burdens on universities has rightfully been a focus of this Subcommittee. 

I also hope the witnesses will provide us with some information on best practices, 

model programs, or policies that can improve the technology transfer process, and 

the appropriate role of the federal government in supporting such efforts. 

The draft legislation, as written, gives agencies discretion on what types of programs to fund with these grants. I’d like to understand the most useful places for 

the federal government to be involved and the major gaps or barriers federal resources can help overcome. I look forward to working with you to advance legislation 

on this important topic. We need to do all we can to help turn American discoveries 

into American jobs. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I am now going to recognize the Ranking Member of the full 

Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for calling the hearing today on this draft legislation, Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of 2013. I am glad that 

this Subcommittee is taking a serious look at the issue of facilitating the creation of successful, profitable, and sustainable small 

businesses from the discoveries of our research and development 

enterprise. 

The topic today is so critical to our Nation’s economic and national security. As we continue our efforts to keep our economy on 

the path of recovery, it is more important than ever that we recommit ourselves to innovation in the United States. As the President 

remarked two years ago in his State of the Union Address, we need 

to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. 
12 

Our universities and Federal labs are the foundation that America’s future will be built upon. 

We have world-class scientists and engineers engaged in cuttingedge research that can change the world. We must examine how 

to translate and transition this research out of the lab into the 

marketplace. Our innovation model has been the gold standard for 

many years, and nations around the world have been adopting it. 

However, we are all very aware that our competitors are multiplying their investments in not only R&D and STEM education but 

also in commercialization activities. The United States cannot afford to be left behind. The ideas from our researchers and entrepreneurs with the most commercial potential deserve our best efforts. 

In contemplating the next steps for advancing technology transfer, our ultimate goal is to promote the creation of innovation ecosystems that sustain long-term and mutually-beneficial collaborations. Many of today’s most beneficial technologies do not emerge 

out of the straight-line process but rather they involve the interactions of a network of various public and private-sector elements. 

While we understand that university culture and business culture 

are separate and unique entities, we need to learn more about innovative approaches and collaborations that can accelerate technology transfer of federally funded research. 

I believe there is not a clear and distinct line in the innovation 

process at which the public role ends and the private role begins. 

The next development or discovery is built on a shifting platform 

where the line between research, development, and a final product 

in the marketplace are blurred. The feedback is critical and cannot 

continue without consistent support of the people and the institutions that make up the innovation ecosystems. 

The Federal Government has a great stake in the Nation getting 

a return on the investments we make, and we need to know what 

we can do that would be helpful to the academic community and 

startups in improving technology transfer. 

The draft legislation we are considering this afternoon has the 

potential to improve technology transfer, and I hope that the final 

version can reflect good ideas from both sides of the aisle. 

I would like to add my thanks to the witnesses for being here 

today and for providing us with their recommendations on how to 

make this bill better. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to move legislation that addresses this important issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing today on the draft legislation, 

Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of 2013. I am glad that this Subcommittee is taking a serious look at the issue of facilitating the creation of successful, profitable, and sustainable small businesses from the discoveries of our research 

and development enterprise. 

The topic today is so critical to our nation’s economic and national security. As 

we continue our efforts to keep our economy on the path to recovery, it is more important than ever that we recommit ourselves to innovation in the United States. 
13 

As the President remarked two years ago in his State of the Union address, ‘‘we 

need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.’’ 

Our universities and federal labs are the foundation that America’s future will be 

built on. We have world class scientists and engineers engaged in cutting-edge research that can change the world. We must examine how to translate and transition 

this research out of the lab and into the marketplace. 

Our innovation model has been the gold standard for many years, and nations 

around the world have been adopting it. 

However, we are all very aware that our competitors are multiplying their investments in not only R&D and STEM education, but also in commercialization activities. The United States cannot afford to be left behind. The ideas from our researchers and entrepreneurs with the most commercial potential deserve our best efforts. 

In contemplating the next steps for advancing technology transfer, our ultimate 

goal is to promote the creation of innovation ecosystems that sustain long-term and 

mutually beneficial collaborations. 

Many of today’s most beneficial technologies did not emerge out of a straight-line 

process, but rather they involved the interactions of a network of various public and 

private sector elements. 

While we understand that university culture and business culture are separate 

and unique entities, we need to learn more about innovative approaches and collaborations that can accelerate technology transfer of federally funded research. 

I believe there is not a clear and distinct line in the innovation process at which 

the public role ends and the private role begins. 

The next development or discovery is built on a shifting platform where the lines 

between research, development, and a final product in the marketplace are blurred. 

This feedback is critical and cannot continue without consistent support for the 

people and the institutions that make up the innovation ecosystem. 

The federal government has a great stake in the nation getting a return on the 

investments we make, and we need to know what we can do that would be helpful 

to the academic community and start-ups in improving technology transfer. The 

draft legislation we are considering this afternoon has the potential to improve technology transfer, and I hope that the final version can reflect good ideas from both 

sides of the aisle. 

I’d like to add my thanks to the witnesses for being here today and for providing 

us with their recommendations on how to make the bill better. 

I am looking forward working with my colleagues to move legislation that addresses this important issue. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I am going to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Brian Wamhoff, Vice President of Research and Development and Co-Founder of HemoShear, LLC. Dr. Wamhoff has expertise in small and large animal models of vascular disease, molecular biology, cell-based systems, toxicology, and interventional 

vascular device development. Dr. Wamhoff obtained a B.S. in biology with a minor in business administration from Rhodes College 

and received his Ph.D. in medical physiology from the University 

of Missouri in 2001. 

Our second witness is Dr. Elizabeth Hart-Wells, Assistant Vice 

President for Research and Associate Director of the Burton D. 

Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship at Purdue University. Dr. 

Hart-Wells is responsible for managing the commercialization of 

Purdue’s intellectual property assets, which includes responsibility 

of evaluating innovations, developing commercialization strategies, 

memorializing commercialization agreements, promoting discovery 

with delivery, forming startup companies, and overseeing compliance with Federal technology regulations. I don’t know how she has 

time to do all that, but she does. She earned a doctorate in chem-
14 

istry from Rice University where she was a Turner outstanding 

graduate student in organic chemistry and a Harry B. Weiser Research Scholar, and Robert A. Welch Foundation Fellow. She 

earned a Bachelor’s Degree in chemistry from Indiana University. 

She is a member of the American Chemical Society, the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science, and the U.S. Patent 

Bar. 

Our third witness is Dr. Erik Lium, Assistant Vice Chancellor, 

Office of Innovation, Technology, and Alliances at the University of 

California at San Francisco. He has held prior positions at UCSF 

of Vice Chancellor of Research, Director of the Industry Contracts 

Division, and Interim Director of the Contracts and Grants Division of the Office of Sponsored Research, and Director of Business 

Development for the Diabetes Center and Immune Tolerance Network. He served as a post-doctoral research scientist at UCSF, 

earned a Ph.D. from the Integrated Program in Cellular, Molecular, and Biophysical Studies at Columbia University and a B.S. in 

biology from Gonzaga. 

Thanks again to our witnesses for being here this afternoon. As 

the witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes after which the Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize Dr. Wamhoff for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN R. WAMHOFF, 

VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 

CO-FOUNDER, HEMOSHEAR, LLC 

Dr. WAMHOFF. Thank you. Dear Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of this very important Committee, as an entrepreneur 

and scientific executive of a startup company, I can state categorically that the American economy and its 300 plus million consumers of healthcare products and services have benefited profoundly from Federal programs that fund early-stage research in 

the medical sciences, particularly the SBIR mechanism. Thank you. 

I have been invited to address three questions. I want to tell you 

a story first. 

By way of background, I was an Associate Professor at the University of Virginia’s Department of Medicine in the Cardiovascular 

Division from 2006, until 2012. Through collaboration with Dr. 

Brett Blackman, who, Mr. Collins is also a mechanical engineer, in 

the Department of Biomedical Engineering, we developed a technology at the university that became the foundation of a very successful biotechnology research company, HemoShear. We co-founded the company in 2008. 

I now serve as Vice President of Research and Development, and 

Brett serves as Chief Scientific Officer. We are literally changing 

the decades-old global drug discovery and development paradigm. 

The old methods are inefficient, time-consuming, and more than 92 

percent of drugs that go into humans today fail. They either fail 

because they don’t work, or they fail because they are not safe. We 

see it every week in the news. 

The adverse financial impact of these failures, in combination 

with patent expirations, has driven consolidation of the industry in 
15 

recent years. Our technology, which is developed out of the University of Virginia, through mechanisms that we are talking about 

today, has enabled the industry to transform its drug discovery 

paradigm while significantly improving its return on investment 

capital. This is because HemoShear can measure and predict the 

response of a drug before it ever enters the human body. 

HemoShear is a successful American company. We are creating 

high-value, STEM-related jobs right here in Central Virginia, while 

positioning itself to become a world leader in drug development. 

The SBIR mechanism has been critical in this process. 

So how has proof-of-concept funding been used to launch 

HemoShear? The development of the technology at the University 

of Virginia was funded by two seed grants, rather than the traditional NIH funding mechanism that my lab and Brett’s lab was 

being driven by. The two funding mechanisms were the University 

of Virginia Heart Board Partners’ Fund and the University of Virginia Wallace H. Coulter Foundation RoPE Fund. 

Without these seed funding mechanisms, it is doubtful that 

HemoShear would exist as it does today and very doubtful that I 

would be sitting here right now. Equally important to funding the 

critical R&D to launch this technology was the exposure that we 

were getting to very successful board members from both organizations, the endless advice, hands-on help towards translating an 

academic technology to a business model for commercialization, 

going from academia to a commercial endeavor. It is a huge gap. 

It is important to note that at the time this was not common at 

the University of Virginia, and by example of that success this 

mechanism has become a core of the university’s technology transfer ecosystem and philosophy. 

Now, at HemoShear we have also been privileged to secure funding through the NIH Small Business Innovation Research Program, 

the SBIR mechanism. It has been instrumental in the technological 

growth of HemoShear, allowing us to further advance our technologies for drug development in cardiovascular disease, diabetes, 

liver toxicity, and cancer. We have proven that the SBIR mechanism provides a great return on investment for the U.S. taxpayer. 

Thank you for continuing to support that program. 

What are my thoughts on today’s issue? I feel that it would be 

beneficial to dedicate a portion of the STTR Program to proof-ofconcept and other technology transfer programs at universities, research institutions, and national laboratories. Having run a large 

NIH-funded academic laboratory and co-founded a rapidly-growing 

biotechnology company, I have lived in both worlds. It is very challenging, and the investigator often finds himself, herself in conflict. 

The old adage that it is hard to have two bosses couldn’t be any 

more real in that scenario, and often your bosses are diametrically 

opposed; bosses from the commercial side and bosses from the academic side. 

As I stated in question one, if it were not for the exposure to the 

board members of the Heart Board and the Coulter Foundation it 

is highly unlikely that we would have had the foresight or wherewithal to commercialize a very important technology for human 

health. The failure to commercialize academic research is not for 

the lack of entrepreneurial faculty wanting to do so. There are 
16 

many. Rather, it is due in part to the lack of institutional support 

to assist faculty in these endeavors and sometimes creating barriers. Filling this gap is going to be the greatest need for technology transfers in universities. 

My last thoughts or recommendations regarding the draft of this 

proposal, I have read the draft and fully support the award criteria. As it relates to the proposed funding mechanism, I think it 

is really important to establish hands-on oversight committees or 

boards to monitor the accountability of the funded institutions. An 

excellent model for this is the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation and 

how they monitor initial investments in translational research at 

U.S. academic institutions. These investments ultimately led to 

larger endowments for the research institution but also spun out 

many companies at the University of Virginia, including 

HemoShear. 

With that I thank you for your time on this very important matter. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wamhoff follows:] 
17 

HEMO 

THINI< HUMAN. 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 

Testimony of Dr, Brian R. Wamnoff, PhD, hefore the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Suhcommittee on Research and Technology, in the matter of "Improving Technology 

Transfer at Universities, Research Institutes and National Laboratories." 

Dear Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this important Committee; as an entrepreneur 

and scientific executive of;] start-up company, I can state categorically that the American economy 

and its 300+million consumers of health care products and services have benefited profoundly 

from federal programs that fund early stage research in the medical sciences. Thank you. 

I have been invited to address three questions in my testimony today: 

L To explain how proof of concept funding was used to help launch HemoShear as a business; 

2. To provide my thoughts on whether it would be bendkial to dedicate a portion of Small Business 

Technology Transfer program to proof .. of~concept and other technology transfer programs at 

universities, research institutions and national laboratories; and 

3. To provide my thoughts and recommendations regarding the draft "Innovative Approaches to 

Technology Transfer Act of 20 13". 

By way ofbackgroundJ I was an Associate Professor at the University of Virginia's Department 

of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, from 2006-2012. Through collaboration with Dr. Brett 

Blackman, PhD, Department of Biomedical Engineering, we developed a technology at the 

University of Virginia that becarne the foundation of a very successful biotechnology research 

company, HemoShear, LLC, which we co-founded in 2008. I now serve at Vice President of Research 

& Development and Dr. Blackman serves as Chief Scientific Officer at l!emoShear. HemoShear is 

changing the decades-old global drug discovery and development paradigm. The old methods are 

inefficient, tjme~consumjng, and costly because more than 92% of drugs that pass pre-clinical 

animal studies fail in human trials. either due to safety issues or lack of efficacy. The adverse 

financial impact of these failures, in combination with widely publicized patent expirations, has 

driven consolidation of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries in recent years. 

HemoShear's unique laboratory technology enables the pharmaceutical industry to transform its 

drug discovery paradigm while significantly improving its return on invested capital because 

HemoShear can measure and predict the response of human biology to new drug candidates. 

HemoShear is a successful American company that is creating high~value STEM~related jobs in 

central Virginia, while positioning itself to become a world leader in drug development. 

L How proof of concept jimding was used to help launch HemoShear as a husiness. 

The development orlhe technology at the University of Virginia was funded by two "seed" 

grants, rather than the traditional NIH funding mechanisms, such as the NIH R01 mechanism .. 

The two funding mechanisms were the University of Virginia Heart Board Partners' Fund and 
18 

the University of Virginia Wallace H. Coulter Foundation RoPE Fund. Without these seed 

funding mechanisms, it is doubtful that HemoShear would exist as it does today. Equally 

important to funding critical R&D proof-or-concept studies, we were given exposure to very 

successful board members of these organizations and endless advice and hands-on help 

towards translating an "academic" technology to a business model for commercialization. It is 

important to note, that at the time, this was not common at the University and by example of 

success, it is becoming a core of the University's technology transfer ecosystem and philosophy. 

At HemoShear, we have also been privileged to secure funding through the NIH Small Business 

Innovation Research program. The SBlR mechanism has been instrumental in the technological 

growth of HemoShear, allowing us to further advance our technologies for drug development in 

cardiovascular disease, diabetes, liver toxicity and cancer. We have proven that the SBIR 

mechanism provides a great return on investment for the U.S. taxpayer. Thank you for 

continuing to support the SBIR program. 

2. Thoughts on whether it would be beneficial to dedicate a portion of Small Business Technology 

Transfer program to proofofconcept and other technology transfer programs at universities, 

research institutions and notionallaborotories. 

I feel that it would be beneficial to dedicate a portion of the STTR program to proof-of-concept 

and other technology transfer programs at universities, research institutions and national 

laboratories. Having rim an NIH-funded academic laboratory and co-founded a rapidly growing 

biotechnology research company, I have lived in both worlds, It is very challenging and the 

investigator often finds himself/herself in conflict As I stated in Question 1, if it were not for 

the exposure to the board members of the Heart Board and the Coulter Foundation, it is highly 

unlikely that we would have had the foresight or wherewithal to commercialize a very 

important technology for human health. The failure to commercialize academic research is not 

for the lack of entrepreneurial faculty wanting to do so, there are many. Rather, it is due in part 

to the lack of institutional support to assist faculty in these endeavors and sometimes, creating 

unintended barriers of entry. Filling tlli~g;m is perllaJl5J;l1~gr~aJ:es.t need in technology 

transfer for universities. When successful, the return on investment for U.S. taxpayers, who pay 

for NIH-funded academic research, will be new technologies for saving lives, improving human 

health, and speeding new drugs to market 

3. Thoughts and recommendations regarding the draft "Innovative Approaches to Technology 

Transfer Act 0/2013". 

J have read the draft and fully support the award criteria, method of program evaluation, data 

collection and dissemination, As I stated in Question 2 above, establishing mechanisms within 

universities to engage faculty and remove barriers for translating academic discoveries to 

commercialization is paramount to commercia! success. Additionally, as it relates to this 

proposed funding mechanism, establishing "hands-on" oversight committees or boards to 

monitor it(l;Q1J1Jj:.l!lliillY: of the funded institution(s) is imperative. An excellent model for this is 

the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation and how they monitored initial investments in translational 

research at U.S. academic institutions that ultimately lead to larger Coulter Partnership 

Endowments for the successful institutions. 
19 

e arch & Development, HemoShear, LLC 

rofessor, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia 
20 

HEMO 

THINK HUMAN. 

Dr. Brian R. \'I7amhoff is co-f(llIl1der of HemoShear and copharmaceutical. bic)tec,hnolc)gy 

HcmoShear generates human response 

increase confidence in decision-making, 

failures and emcaeious 

systems, toxicology 

interventional device development. During his tenure as 

Associate Professor at the University of Virginia, he obtained 

funding ii'Ol11 the National Institutes of Health, the indus tty, the American 

Heart Association, and other organizations to study meehanisms that regulate 

vascular disease. Dr. Wamhoffhas anthored more than 55 manuscripts, as well 

as several book chapters and commentaries. Dr. also received multiple awards 

for his successes, including the 2004 American Society Cardiovascular 

Investigator Award, the 2008 Atherosclerosis, and Vascular Biology Irvine 

Page Award, the 2010 American Society New A ward for 

Cardiovascular Research, the 2011 Distinguished 

mater and recently, he was a 2012 Center for Innovative 

Award recipient. Dr. Wamhoff obtained a BS in Biology a minor in Business 

Administration from Rhodes in 1996 and received his PhD in Medical Physiology 

from the University of Missouri in 
21 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. Now I will recognize Dr. HartWells for five minutes to present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ELIZABETH HART–WELLS, 

ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE BURTON D. MORGAN 

CENTER FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP, 

PURDUE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. HART-WELLS. Thank you. I wish to thank the Committee, 

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and the entire Subcommittee for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. It 

is an honor to be provided this opportunity to discuss the draft legislation. 

As mentioned, I am Elizabeth Hart-Wells, and I am the Assistant Vice President for Research at Purdue University and Associate Director of the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship. Further, in my spare time, I lead a team of dedicated 

Housiers to manage the Office of Technology Commercialization 

that is housed within the Purdue Research Foundation. To quantify 

the scope of our operation is submitted in the written testimony, 

so I won’t comment on that in my oral. 

Founded in 1869, West Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University 

serves the people of the State of Indiana, the Nation, and the world 

through education, research, and engagement. Purdue educates 

over 75,000 students statewide each year and is home to a very robust research enterprise of over $650 million in research expenditures, primarily originating from the U.S. taxpayers through such 

programs as the SBIR and STTR. 

The Committee is both aware and respectful of the critical role 

the American research enterprise plays in our Nation’s competitiveness. Universities engage in fundamental research to grow our 

knowledge base, to advance understanding, and to encourage 

thinking without constraint or restraint in our next generations. 

Inherent to exploration in uncharted areas of inquiry, however, is 

discovery. Discovery can and should lead to delivery, however, gaps 

in the path that connects discovery to delivery do exist. 

In my reading of its current draft of legislation, it is the filling 

of this gap that is the subject of the proposed draft. 

Specifically, the Committee requested comment on innovative 

practices employed by Purdue University to develop federally funded research projects. The Purdue Trask Innovation Fund and the 

Emerging Innovations Fund are two of such programs. While there 

are details in the written testimony and I look forward to discussing those relevant aspects of the programs as the Committee 

wishes, I will highlight one output data of those proof-of-concept 

fund that we call the Trask Innovation Fund. 

First I will say at the outset this fund is entirely funded with private dollars and not taxpayer dollars. Purdue, in 1973, identified 

this need of a gap between research results and commercial exploitation of those results and set out to fill that gap themselves. And 

as a result in the last five years 48 Purdue technologies have been 

competitively awarded development funding, and of those, 35 percent of those technologies were sponsored by the U.S. taxpayers. 
22 

Over the roughly 35 year history of the Trask Venture Fund support of filling the gap, federally funded Purdue technologies that 

were supplemented with these awards experienced about a 40 percent increased licensing rate than those federally funded Purdue 

technologies that were not supplemented with those awards. 

In addition and with brevity I would like to highlight a few other 

innovative practices that Purdue University has undertaken in the 

last several months. 

The Office of Technology Commercialization has unveiled new 

procedures and policy implementations to accelerate technology 

transfer out of the university, whether Purdue University owns the 

technology or not. Students who create inventions in the performance of their coursework, such as a design project in an engineering course, own their inventions. Purdue inventors who have contributed Purdue-owned intellectual property may elect an, ‘‘as is,’’ 

license contract to establish a new venture based on those inventions to which she or he contributed. 

Of particular pertinence to this authorizing body, Purdue now offers recipients of SBIR and STTR grants aimed at developing a 

Purdue technology, a cash-free first option to license the Purdue 

technology. This express first option allows these recipients to competitively leverage Purdue technology, provides a mechanism to 

support the commercialization of taxpayer-funded technologies, and 

supports speed and transparency of the licensing of the same. 

Accordingly, it should be of no surprise that Purdue University 

strongly supports and encourages the Committee’s sincere consideration of the draft legislation. It would strengthen and promote 

partnerships between universities and small businesses to achieve 

the STTR’s stated goals. Proposed legislation superimposes on its 

predecessor and emphasizes the benefits to the Nation of technology innovation and the proficiency of small businesses to translate federally funded research results into new products and services. 

The proposed legislation offers synergy to these relationships between the university and small businesses towards translation and 

commercialization. So maybe one plus one can indeed equal three. 

I am going to defer the rest of my comments until the Q&A, and 

in close I just wish to express my grateful thanks to the Committee 

for the opportunity to participate today and for your leadership, 

commitment, and partnership on this important topic of technology 

transfer. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hart-Wells follows:] 
23 

REMARKS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SClFNCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY OFTHE U.s, HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, 24 July 2013 

Foremost, I \vish to thank the Committee for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing. It is an honor to 

be provided an opportunity to discuss the proposed legislation provisionally referred to as ~ Improving the 

rransfer of Federally Funded Research and Technology Act of 20 1 r. 

I am Elizabeth Hart-Wells and I am assistant vice·president for research at Purdue University and associate 

director of the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship. With respect to intellectual property, I have 

worn a few relevant hats. I am an inventor on a patented technology resulting fi'om my graduate research at 

Rice University. frol11 which I earned by doctorate in chemistry. As a chemist I have worked \vithin a university 

spin-out. that was located in The Woodlands. Texa<;, as well as a large industria! chemical company principally 

based in the MidWest. At the National Academy of Sciences, and part of the Committee on Science, 

Engineering and Public Policy, I participated in science policy research initiatives in STEM education. I am 

also familiar with the hallowed halls of tile U.S. House of Representatives, having been fmiunate enough to earn 

a congressional fellowship sponsored by the American Chemical Society to participate in the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science's Science and Technology Policy Fellowships program. I am a 

registered patent practitioner \vith the United States Patent & Trademark Office and was with the law firm of 

Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, \\'here I cut my teeth on patent prosecution, primarily working with universities and 

small businesses in the chemical and medica! art fields. 

Over the last decade of my career, I have been responsible for the management of university-generated 

intellectual property within the walls of academic research institutes. including the management of intellectual 

property for the Middle Atlantic Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectiolls 

Diseases, a multi-party consortium of research institutes supported by the National Institute of Allergy and 

Infectious Diseases, led by the Center for Vaccine Development, University of Maryland School of Medicine. 

This brings me to today. With a team of dedicated Hoosiers and Boilermakers, I manage the Office of 

Technology Commerciali7...ation at the Purdue Research Foundation, one of the most comprehensive technology 

transfer programs among leading research universities in the United States. Services provided by our office 

support the economic development initiatives of Purdue University and execute on the university's mission as a 

public land-grant university, Over the last five years, our Otlicc of Technology Commercialization has received 

and reviewed north of 1400 new invention and copyright disclosures. obtained nearly 500 issued Letters patents 

worldwide, granted comrnercial rights vis-a-via over 400 licenses and options to licensc, which translates to 

over 600 Purdue technologies, to the private sector. 
24 

REMARKS BEFORf THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATiVES, 24 July 2013 

Founded in 1869 in West Lafayette, Indiana, as a land-grant university, Purdue serves the people of Indiana, the 

nation. and the world through education. research and engagement. Purdue educates over 75,000 students 

statewide each year and is home to a robust research enterprise of over S650 million in research expenditures. 

Academically, Purdue's role as a major research institution is supported by top-ranking disciplines in pharmacy, 

business, engineering, and agriculture. Irs also a place where those \vho seck an education come to make their 

idea<.; real especially when those transrormative discoveries lead to scientific, technological, social. or 

humanitarian impact. 

The Committee is both aware and respectful of the critical role the American research enterprise plays in our 

Nation's competitiveness. Universities engage in fundamental research to grow our knmv\edge base, to advance 

understanding, and to encourage frcc~thinking in oLlr next generations. Inherent to exploration of uncharted 

areas of inquiry is discovery. Discovery can and should lead to delivery; hmvevcr, gaps in the path that 

connects discovery to delivery exist. 

In my reading of its current draft, it is the filling of this gap that is. provincially defined, the subject of the 

proposed legislatioIl. 

Like many research universities, Purdue University is dedicated to linking the university's assets to 

entrepreneurship activities and societal economic growth. Innovation and collaboration at Purdue connect its 

students, faculty, and staff to a network of state, national, and global partners. These activities catalyze 

economic grov.. th not only in Indiana, but in the nation and around the world. 

An exemplar of such is the cross~discipline Certificate in Entrepreneurship and Innovation Program which 

nffords interested Purdue undergraduate students - whether a future civil engineer, or math teacher, or crop 

Carmer - an opporlunity to cam an academic credential in entrepreneurship complementary to their 111,~jOr. The 

campus-wide ce11ificate program deepens students' understanding of areas pertinent to entrepreneurship that 

will improve their chances of success in creating nc\v business ventures. The competitive advantage a U.S.-

education in STEM wrapped in an understanding of entrepreneurship and innovation offers great potentia! to 

positively affect our nation's compctitivencss. 

Specifically, the Committee requested comment on innovative practices employed by Purdue University to 

develop federally funded research projects. It is my hopc that the Committee finds the Purdue Trask Fund and, 

particularly. the innovative programs its supports, \vhich I \\>i11 detail below, as responsive. 
25 

REMARKS BEroRE THE COMMITIEE ON SCiENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOlOGY SUBCOMMITIEF. ON RE:SEARCH AND TECHNOlOGY OF THE U5. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTAT!VES, 24Juiy 2013 

1. Verne A. and Ramoth H, Trask Venture Fund 

[n 1973, the estate of Verne and Ramoth Traskoflndianapo!is, Indiana. both dedicated and generous Purdue 

University alumni. was bequeathed to Purdue University and the Purdue Research Foundation. A year prior, 

Mrs. Trask wrote, ", .. 1 gather that Purdue has funds and procedures for funding research. and has procedures 

and policies for contracting with private industry to use research results ... l gather also that there is a gap 

between the research activities and these commercial exploitation activities ""here development funds would be 

\ve1come and useful. I also gather that there arc some research results which may be worth developing for the 

v..elfare of Purdue and the general puhlic but which do not attract commercial sponsors. It is my idea that a 

Trask endowment fund might be used to fill tbis gap and to fund development of such ideas. " (emphasis 

added). The Trask's gift established one of tile first university~affiliated gap funding mechanisms dedicated 

specifically to university technology commercialization, and set Purdue on course to make a tangible effort to 

filling the gaps that connect discovery to delivery. 

The gift was substantial - perhaps not by today's university giving standards but certainly given the era - and its 

impact in supporting initiatives that translate and develop research results into products and services for the 

benefit of the public is 'priceless', Today, that visionary Trask Fund seeds proof-of-concept awards that assist 

Purdue researchers in furthering the commercial potential of Purdue technologies. 

Two specific programs crcatcd to execute in on Mrs. Trask's idea of filling the gap are directed to (i) developing 

technologies \vithin the university. to advance development and increase attractiveness for partnering with 

industry and probability of technology transfer; and (Ii) to developing technologies within new ventures, to 

advance development and. by consequence, increasc the new venture's competitiveness and technological and 

economic impact. 

A. Trask innovation Fund 

Technology development awards arc made through the Trask Inllovation Fund (TIF). The competitivelyawarded funds are made to eligible Purdue technologies and inventors of up to $50,000 to support a translational 

or development project that aims to prove the concept of the Purdue technology - hence, Purdue's proof~ofconcept program. Awards are dctermined under the advisement of the TIF Advisory Council. a public-private 

amalgam critical to informed deployment of the TIl:-' funds that meet the proof-of-concept o~jcctive. Advisory 

Council members include representatives from the local and national business communities. as well as Purdue 

University, including the Office of the Vice President for Research, Purdue Faculty, and Purdue Research 

Foundation. Successful projects may seek up to three phases of funding, but the projects must be cornpleted 

within a six-month period, 
26 

Examples of types of development \vorl<. include reducing an 

commercial relevant data such as a comparison to an industrial "gold' 

All projects must make the technology more commercially marketable. 

to inform a decision by thc Purdue Office of Technology ComlTlcn;laliza:liolT 

TH'-SlIP1l0rt"d technology must be lIsed to repay the TIF award back into the 

"«'o;",ohi1;!,, repayment is a requisite of tile Trask Venture Fund, the 

up a solvency that has insulated Purdue's tcchnology commercialization eff011s from the 

acute financial climate and ensured its lack of dependence on future third-party cOIl,trit)l,ti,clls. 

48 Purdue technologies have been competitively awarded development funding, and 

from sponsorship by the U.S. taxpayers. Over the time of the Trask Venture Fund 

years. federally funded Purdue technologies that were supplemented 

sur'ple,mented with such proof-of-concept awards, 

to explore new ways to leverage this funding for targeted industrial partnerships, 

cm,trifllltion< by the industrial partner, such as matching funds, in-kind product development 

Further. also being explored is a fellowship award associated with one or more 

in performing the proof-or-concept work that bears the name of the industrial partner. 

pilot this next generation of proof-or"concept funding in the area of agriculture with the 

Seed Improvement Association, Inc., a non-protit organizlltion located in Romney. 

releases high performance popcorn hybrids. many OfV,ihich contain Purdue genetics. 

Innovations Fund (ElF) is an evergreen fund that is seeded annually by 

for the seed funding through the ElF are either developing a Purdue 

to the new venture to support technology translation and development as well 

4 
27 

Synergistic to education, the ElF serves as an experiential learning opportunity for Purdue graduate and 

undergraduate students. Purdue students recdve 3-course credit hours through the Krannert School of 

Management to undertake diligence reviews of tile ElF applicants, perform an in-depth business analysis and 

present findings to the ElF Economic Advisory Board which includes a recommendation for funding. or not. 

Students frol11 any discipline meeting minimulll requirements lllay apply and ifsc1ected, throughout the 

semester, inure the benefit of interactions \vith the entrepreneurs and theEconomic Advisory Board. who are 

each active investors. financial advisors, bankers or venture capitalist. 

Funding decisions are made in consultation with the Economic Advisory Board. and transacted as convertible 

debt. Amounts invested may be up to $150,000 and are performance-based. 

After three years in earnest of enabling investments. the Emerging Innovations Fund has invested into six new 

ventures, four of whom have received more than $2 million in follow-on dilutive or non-dilutive funding and 

account for 13 new jobs in the State of Indiana. Purdue will track these valuc-innections for the next several 

years to cstablish a multiplier on its overall investments. At that time will the data be sufficient to draw material 

conclusions. 

1I. Othcr Purdue University Innovative Practices that Suppmi Technology Transfer and Development 

In the last sevcralmonths, the Office of Tcchnology Commercialization has unveiled new procedures and policy 

implementations to accelcrate the quantity of technologies transferring out of the university, \vhethcl' owned by 

Purdue University or not. Purdue students who create an invention in the performance of coursework. such as a 

design project for an engineering course, own those inventions. Purdue inventors who have contributed Purdtle~ 

owned intellectual property may elect an 'as is' license contract to establish a new venture based on the 

invention to which she or he contributed. Purdue-O\vned intellectual property will be reviewed and assessed by 

the Purdue Research Foundation on a 6-month timeline, ending in a go/no go decision. 

Of particular note, Purdue is now offering recipicnts ofSBIR and STTR grants aimed at developing a Purdue 

technology. a cash-free first option to license the Purdue technology provided at least 30% of the total award is 

performed at Purdue University. This express first-option allows STTR and SBiR recipients to competitively 

leverage Purdue technology, provides a mechanism to support the commercialization of Purdue technologies 

and supports speed and transparency in the licensing of Purdue tcchnologies. i\ copy of the relevant contract is 

provided as 'Supplemental Material Exhibit A'. 

Turning to related but different and no less important initiatives in support of increasing the impact of Purdue 

technologies to the benefit of the community, Purdue has evolved its business advisement services inward. 
28 

focused primarily as a service to Purdue Research Park tCllants, busincss advisement and ancillary 

support small businesses and their growth have recently heen positioned inside Purdue's Burton D. 

Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship. Coined the Purdue Foundry. it will support the development and 

sustainability of new businesses that are incubating within the university research enterprise by offering grant 

writing support for STTR and S8 JR grants. rnentoring. business plan sllpPOli by specialized staff. and access to 

the University Development Office's network. 

Based on the summary of innovative praclices employed at Purdue University. it is no surprise that Purdue 

University supports and encourages the Committee's sincere consideration of the Improving the Transfer of 

Federally Funded Research and Technology Act of2013. 

The proposed legislation would promote continued progress by university and small businesses in achieving the 

STTR's stated goals as envisioned in pilot form under Title II of The Small Business Research and 

Development Enhancement Act of 1992. The goals of the proposed legislation superimpose on its predecessor, 

as it too emphasizes, albeit subtly, the henefits to the nation of technology innovation and the ability of small 

businesses to translate federally funded research results into new products and services. 

In this spirit, the proposed legislation currently recites a stated outcome of the proposed awards, both generally 

and implicit in the criteria, is the marketplace. While a necessary means, the Committee may consider coming 

full circle and expressly reciting the intended benefactors of tile program, the public, as the proposed programs 

endpoint. It is undisputed that the Committee intends the American people - from whose pockets these funds 

llow ~ to benefit from its investments in research und development through partnerships behveen university and 

small businesses. Making such intent explicit in the proposed legislation would seem appropriate. 

Further. research universities often view sponsors of research as benefactors of such research, contractually. 

Such concept introduced in an explicit manner to this proposed legislation is consistent with the practice of 

research universities today, for other sponsors of research and likely would make clear the foundation from 

which the outcomes and metrics of any funded innovative programs are measured. 

The importance of tile positive impact of federally funded research and development is such that the proposed 

legislation may better articulate the objective if technology transfer strategies were assessed on increased impact 

rather than scale. Talking to a university employee, 'scale' tends to take our minds to more or bigger campus 

buildings. While increased infrastructure may indeed be an effective technology transfer strategy that receives a 

proposed award. embracing impact-driven strategies ofal! types offer creative license to the agency and 

6 
29 

ReMARKS BEFORE. THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESfARCH AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE u.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES. 24 July 2013 

prospective awardces to arrive at strategies that are customizablc, by geographic region. socioeconomic context. 

industry target market. and the like. 

Such creative license turns the foclls to measurable metrics, which when measured ,,,ill drive the outcomes of 

the proposed program. I wish to applaud the Committee's proposed scope of possible evaluation metrics 

currently included in the proposed legislation. As well-documented, informed decision-making requires robust 

and objective data analysis and, until recently, the area of technology transfer and commercialization has too 

long ignored its importance. There is a very good reason: it's difficult and likely requires longitudinal 

examination. Similar to the patient analysis of R&D investments for impact. data collected in determining 

effective technology transfer strategies also requires us to be patient analyzers. 

Fortunately, material attention is being paid by several organizations to better assess the breadth and depth of 

technology transfer contributions to regional and national technological, economic and societal impact. To cite 

just one, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities recently published its' Commission on 

Innovation, Competiveness and Economic Prosperity New Metric User Guide, which was the culmination of 

four years of work by numerous individuals. Appropriately noted as a living document, this guide offers a good 

start in scoping out what activities and outcomes to monitor for accurate and objective assessment of the full 

breadth of impact university technology transfer provides to the nation. 

While 110 one metric wi!! likely ever be sutlicient. a compilation of myriad data along the lines of those in the 

proposed legislation, in which several options are provided. is also a good start. I would caution the confidential 

nature of some of those options to small businesses may ultimately render them underdisclosed. Aggregation in 

a central database, across all awardees despite agency sponsor. in a manner that borrows from the common 

practice employed in clinical research to render anonymous origins of data may ensure increased quality of data 

and, thus. robustly informed decision-making in the futurc. 

In closing, I wish to express my grateful thanks to the Committee for the opportunity to participate today and for 

your leadership. commitment. and partnership on this important topic of technology transfer of federally funded 

research and development. 

7 
30 

EXHIBIT A 

Purdue Express Option to License for SBIR!STTR Recipients 

SBIRISTTR EXPRESS OPTION AGREEMENT 

This Option 

(",Effcctive Dak') 

("/Igreern .. ,!") is effective as or the date of the SBA Award (defined belmv) 

and between tbe PURDUE RESEARCH FOUNDATIOn a statutory body 

corporate formed and existing the Indiana Foundation or Holding Act of 1921, with offices 

located at 1281 Win Hentschel Blvd" 

BACKGROUND 

PRF O\vns valuable kchno!ogy generally known as 

,'\'hich is/are the subject of the patents andior patent applications. 

Patcnt(s)"), 

Ref. No,: XXXXX)" Clnvention(s)), 

in Schedule A (the "Optioned 

ARTICLE L TERMS OF OPTION 

to the terms and conditions or 1his Agreement, PRF 

Term below) an exclusive 

bearing license to the Licensed Patents ili!IiiIi.~.ii."Ii.~ license resulting from 

Patents. 

grants to Optionee during the 

an exclusivC', 

··Option"). The 

in the Inventions ami 

1.2 

ner'f'lfIl10nee of an 

(a) No cash fee is owed to PRF by Optionee during the Term; and 

In consideration for the 

before the Date, a of 

business plan: and (ii) a 

midpoint and conclusion or the 

statement of work. 

1.4 

statement 

submission to PRF of a business 

Optionee. 

to provide PRF with on 01' 

to the SBA Award 

data and results generated in the performance of the 

a written 

use as soon as and (b) 

(If a current capitalization table of 

1.5 exercise of the Option in accordance \vith Section 1.3 and for reasonable period not to exceed 

ninety (90) (or such as tho pmtics agree), PRF and Optionee agree to negotiate in 

faith to the terms (the Agreemenf~). The License 

in PRF's standard form. and wi!! terms. and conditions customary to patent and 
31 

REMARKS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCiENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY OFTIiE U.s. HOUSt OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, 24July 2013 

normally granted by PRF, including without limitation: a defined licensed field; terms consistent with the 

provisions of U.S. law applicable to intellectual property funded in whole or in part by the u.s. Government; a 

reservation of the rights to practice and to grant other not-for-profit organizations the right to practice the 

Inventions and Optioned Patents for research, teaching and other incidental research and educational purposes; 

license fees that may include an ow-nership interest in Optionee; royalty payments: milestone payments; 

reimbursement of expenses including but not limited accrued patent expenses; commercially reasonable due 

diligence obligations for the development and commercialization of the Optioned Patents. the right of PRF to 

terminate the license for failure to meet specified due diligence milestones; liability limitations; wa!Tanty 

disclaimers consistent \vith an "as is" license; and indemnity and insurance provisions in favor of PRF, Purdue 

University and, ifand as app!icable, co-owners of the Optioned Patent(s). 

1.6 This Agreement and the Option shall expire upon the earlier of: (a) the expiration of the S8A Award, 

or (b) any earlier termination of the SRA Award (the "Term"). However, if Optionee exercises the Option 

within the Term, this Agreement will expire at the end of a ninety (90) day negotiation period or upon execution 

of the License Agreement whichever first occurs. 

1.7 During the Term, PRF may afford Optionee a reasonable opportunity to provide input into material 

patent prosecution matters corresponding to the Optioned Patent(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, at all times, 

PRF shall retain sole authority for decisions regarding protection of the Inventions including without limitation 

scope, breadth, prosecution and maintenance of the Licensed Patents. 

1.8 Optionee agrees not to identity PRF or Purdue employee or student or agent thereof 

in any solicitation relating to the fnvention(s), Optioned or Agreement absent the prior written 

consent of PRF. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an endorsement PRF or Purdue University, 

or its personnel, of Optionee or any of its product or services; Optionee shall from representing to the 

contrary in any and all manners whatsoever. Optionee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless PRF, Purdue 

University, and the State of Indiana and each of their respective current and future regents, directors. trustees, 

officers, faculty, medical and professional staft~ employees, students, trainees, and agents. and their respective 

successors, heirs, and assigns against any claim, liability, cost. damage, deficiency. loss, expense or obligation 

attributable in any party directly or indirectly to a breach of the prohibition stated in this Section 1.8. 

ARTICLE 2: MISCELLAl\EOUS 

2.1 This Agreement may not be amended, nor may any right or remedy of either party be waived, unless 

the amendment or \vaiver is in writing and signt!d by a duly authorized representative of each pmty. 

2.2 Notices and invoices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by electronic 

mail and ce!1ified mail return receipt requested. Notices shall be addressed to a party at the address specified on 

the signature page. or at such other place or places as shall from time to time be specified in a notice similarly 

given. All notices shall be effective upon receipt. 

2.3 PRf and Optionee are not (and nothing in this Agreement may be construed to constitute them as) 

partners, joint venturers, representatives or employees of the other. nor is there any status or relationship 

between them other than of independent contractors. No party has any responsibility or liability for the 

actions of the other party except as specifically provided in this Agreement. No party has any right or authority 

to bind or obligate the other party in any manner or make any representation or \varranty on the other party's 

behalf. 

2.4 This Agreement, including without limitation the Option shall not be assigned. 

2.5 This Agreement is made and construed in accordance \vith the laws of the State of Indiana without 

regard to choice of law issues. Each party consents to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe 

County. Indiana for any suit against the other party relating to this Agreement, and agrees to file any such suit in 

that court. 

2.6 This Agreement does not confer any license, right or other permission on Optionee to any research, 

development. rights, data, results, materiaL information, intellectual propclty not expressly and specifically 

stated in this Agreement. There are no contracts, understandings, conditions, \varrantics or representations, oral 
32 

REMARKS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TfCHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ANDTE.CHNOLOGY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, 24 July 2013 

or written, express or implied, with reference to the subject matter of this Agreement that arc not merged in this 

Agreement 

2.7 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of \vhieh shall be an original, 

and an of which shall together constitute one agreement. This Agreement may be signed and delivered, or a 

signature may be transmitted or communicated, by means of facsimile or other electronic transmission (such as 

a Portable Document Format (PDF) copy of an original signature). 

The parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives, under seal. 

(OPTIONEE) PURDUE RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

l3y: ___________ _ l3y: ____________ _ 

Name: _____________ _ Name: _____________________________ __ 

Title: _____________ _ Title: ______________ _ 

Date: ________________ _ 

Purdue Ikscarch Foundation 

Email; 9tciprdprCorg 

10 
33 

SCHEDULE A 

o No 

The U,S. Government retains certain rights in the Invention, and the Option is subject in all respects to U.S. 

law applicable to intellectual property funded in whole or in part by the U.S. Government. 
34 

REMARKS BEFORE THE COMMITIEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE U.S, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

22 JULY 2013 
35 

Short narrative biography for Elizabeth Hart-Wells, Purdue University: 

Elizabeth Hart-Wells, Assistant Vice-President and Director of the Office of Technology 

Commercialization, Hart-Wells is responsible for managing the commercialization of Purdue's intellectual 

property assets which includes responsibility of evaluating innovations, developing commercialization 

strategies, memorializing commercialization agreements; promoting discovery with delivery; forming 

startup companies; and overseeing compliance with federal technology regulations. She previously 

managed the University of Maryland, Baltimore's Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property Group 

where she oversaw the university's intellectual asset portfolio. She supervised all technology transfer 

activities, including asset evaluation, patent prosecution, business development, and negotiations with 

licensees. She also managed the intellectual property for the Middle Atlantic Regional Center of 

Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases, a multi-party consortium of research 

institutes supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

Hart-Wells served as a Congressional Fellow for the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science where she served on the professional legislative staff for the ranking member of the Energy and 

Commerce Health Subcommittee. She served as a patent agent for Fulbright & Jaworski LLP. She was a 

research associate for the National Academy of Sciences where she executed policy analysis of 

postdoctoral programs in academia, government and industry to aid the National Academies' Committee 

on Science Engineering and Public Policy. Hart-Wells earned a doctorate in chemistry from Rice 

University where she was a Turner Outstanding Graduate Student in organic chemistry, a Harry B. 

Weiser Research Scholar and a Robert A. Welch Foundation Fellow. She earned a bachelor's degree in 

chemistry from Indiana University where she was a member of the Phi Eta Sigma Honor Society, the 

Alpha Lambda Alpha Honor Society and the Alpha Chi Sigma Chemistry Fraternity. She is a member of 

the American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the U.S. 

Patent Bar. 
36 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Dr. Lium for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ERIK LIUM, 

ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR, 

OFFICE OF INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY & ALLIANCES, 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO 

Dr. LIUM. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of this Subcommittee, the University of California, San Francisco is widely recognized as a leader in the health sciences and as 

the birthplace of biotechnology. I am here today to testify on my 

own behalf and would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the important issue of commercializing 

federally funded research. I am a molecular biologist by training 

and as a prior co-founder of a venture-backed software company, an 

entrepreneur. 

At UCSF I lead a team responsible for streamlining the creation 

of public-private research partnerships, licensing technologies for 

commercialization, and education of budding life science entrepreneurs. 

Federal funding, the lifeblood of basic research, is essential for 

the development of groundbreaking discoveries. The challenge is 

commercializing these discoveries for public benefit, especially in 

capital-intensive fields such as the life sciences. 

My testimony today on expanding the use of STTR funds to support innovative approaches to increase the commercialization of 

federally funded research is focused on three points specifically related to life science discoveries. 

First, venture capital, one of the historical mainstays for advancing life science discoveries through proof-of-concept has fallen 

sharply as investors have shifted capital to lower-risk opportunities. Early-stage life science ventures are struggling to fund proofof-concept, which is a critical value inflection point required to attract investment today. 

Some estimates suggest that the number of venture firms investing in life sciences has fallen as much as 2/3 in the last five years. 

In essence, a shortage of early-stage pre-proof-of-concept funding is 

impeding the commercialization of federally funded research. 

My second point. It is reasonable and appropriate for the Federal 

Government to play a role in funding proof-of-concept research at 

universities, research institutes, and national labs given the requirement today for proof-of-concept to attract investment. The gap 

between development of an intriguing, yet unproven discovery and 

the investment to commercialize that discovery is characterized as 

the Valley of Death. The virtual disappearance of pre-proof-of-concept venture financing and the lack of sufficient programs to fund 

proof-of-concept research make crossing the Valley virtually impossible for countless technologies. 

Take, for example, a team of investigators from UCSF, the Cleveland Clinic, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Michigan, 

who invented an implantable artificial kidney device with the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of individuals suffering 

from kidney failure and to reduce the estimated $41 billion spent 
37 

annually in the U.S. on this disease. Despite receiving numerous 

awards based on promising results, having substantial interest 

from potential corporate partners, and being selected by the FDA 

as one of three projects for a pilot program to fast track the development of breakthrough medical devices, investors have been reluctant to provide funding without proof-of-concept in large animals. 

Simply stated, a new model to attract private investments to 

once again fuel the commercialization of early-stage discoveries is 

required. The Federal Government could play a role in this model. 

It could help bridge the gap. 

Finally, I would like to enthusiastically express support for the 

draft legislation to expand the use of STTR funds to support innovative approaches that increase the commercialization of federally 

funded research. Grant programs created under the Act could address the crucial need for proof-of-concept funding as well as the 

need for experiential training in commercialization. 

For example, I would welcome expansion of the NSF Innovation 

Corps Program to additional agencies and the inclusion of phased 

proof-of-concept funding programs administered by universities, research institutes, and national labs to validate and advance a 

broader array of federally funded discoveries. 

I support including requirements for the collection and analysis 

of programmatic data to identify best practices. Though steps 

should be taken to ensure that such requirements are not an impediment to participation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lium follows:] 
38 

WRITTEN TESTIMO~Y OF 

Dr. Erik Lium 

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Innovation, Technology & Alliances 

University of California, San Francisco 

BEFORE THE 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

HEARING ON 

"Improving Technology Transfer at Universities. Research Institutes and National Laboratories" 

July 24, 2013 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Erik 

LiUln and I currently serve as the Assistant Viee Chancellor for Innovation, Technology & 

Alliances at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). I am here to testify on my own 

behalf. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the very important 

issue of translating federally funded hasic research into commercial applications for public 

benefit. 

In my current role, I am responsible for the UCSF Office of Innovation, Technology & Alliances 

("ITA") which serves to streamline the creation of public-privatc research partnerships, the 

transfer of lJCSF technologies to the commercial marketplace and the education of budding 

entrepreneurs. I am a molecular biologist by training, and as a prior co-founder of a venture 

capital backed enterprise software company, an entrepreneur. 

UCSF is widely regarded as one of the world's leading universities in the biological and health 

sciences, and as the birthplace of the biotechnology industry. UCSF's mission is to advance 

health worldwide through innovative health sciences education, discovery and patient care. Our 

graduate Schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Dentistry are ranked among the very best 

schools nationwide, our Medical Center among the nation's premier hospitals for the 12th 

consecutive year, and our research enterprise received over $1 billion in research funding in 

2012 of which $521 million was from the National Institutes ofl-lealth (NIH). UCSF's faculty 
39 

includes five Nobel Laureates, ten recipients of the Albert Lasker Award, four recipients of the 

Shaw Prize in Life Sciences and Medicine, four recipients of the National Medal of Science, 44 

members oUhe National Academy of Sciences and 89 members of the Institute of Medicine. 

My comments today will be focused 011 three issues: 

• First, early-stage life science companies are struggling. They are in desperate need of 

funding to reach technological proof-of-concept ("PoC'), a critical value inflection point 

required in today's marketplace to attract private investment funding. 

• Second, it is reasonable and appropriate for the Federal Government to playa role in 

funding PoC research given the prerequisite in today's marketplace to substantially derisk early-stage discoveries in order to attract investment; and, 

• Third, the proposed legislation to expand the use of STTR funds to support innovative 

approaches to technology transfer will increase commercialization of federally funded 

basic research. Notably, it will enable agencies to fund programs to de-risk early-stage 

discoveries at universities, research institutes and national labs without the requirement 

for a commercial patiner. We support including requirements for the collection and 

analysis of data on the performance of programs to identify best practices, though steps 

should be taken to ensure that such requirements are not an impediment to participation. 

[ will address these issues through my responses to the three questions the Committee has 

specifically posed for my testimony. 

The first question I was asked to address today is, "What innovative practices does tlte 

University of California at San Francisco employ to develop federally funded researclt projects 

tltat have commercial opportunities?" 

Federal funding is the lifeblood of basic research and enables our scientists to pursue potentially 

groundbreaking innovative research. The challenge is translating the fruits of this basie research 

into commercial applications for public benefit, a goal that is strongly supPOIied by UCSF 

leadership. UCSF has established an innovation ecosystem to address this challenge, and I will 

describe a few notewolihy elements of this ecosystem in my testimony. 
40 

The UCSF Clinical & Translational Science Institute (CTSI) provides infrastructure, services 

and training to support clinical and translational research, and seeks to facilitate the rapid 

translation of research to improvements in patient and community health. Established in 2006, 

the CTSI was among the first of the now 60-member Clinical & Translational Science Awards 

consortium funded by the NIH. To advance early-stage discovcries, it established the Early 

Translational Research Program to connect researchers with industry executives, business 

leaders and funding resources. This innovative program provides pilot grants and tailored 

mentoring to advance early-stage discoveries. 

The UCSF Office of Innovatioll, Techllology & Alliances ("ITA ") was created in 2011 to 

streamline the development of collaborative public-private research partnerships and facilitate 

the commercialization of ucsr discoveries. The ITA integrates busincss development, industry 

contracting. alliance management. technology transfer and entrepreneurship training, optimizing 

the support of UCSF researchers and discoveries, and catalyzing the connections, relationships 

and educational resources required to advance discoveries. UCSF has over 1,600 active 

inventions and 679 active palents. Thirteen ucsr drug candidates and mcdical devices are in 

clinical development and 97 commercial products were derived from basic research performed at 

UCSF. 

UCSF has hundreds of active research partnerships with industry that often serve to advance 

basic federally funded research. A few noteworthy examples include the UCSF-Pfizer Center for 

Therapeutic Innovation, which is developing novel small and large molecule drugs, a partnership 

with Sanofi U.S. to support and extend highly innovative breakthrough biomedical research and 

the UCSF-Onyx Pharmaceuticals Oncology Innovation Alliance which seeks to develop novel 

treatments for cancer. 

The Entrepreneurship Center at UCSF, a division of the Office of Innovation, Technology & 

Alliances, offers pragmatic courses on esscntial aspects of commercialization, educational 

programs featuring top-tier members of the entreprencurial ecosystem, a network of investors, 

entrepreneurs and service providers and experienced industry mentors to coach fledgling 

entrepreneurs in the creation of new ventures. The Center, headed by an experienced industry 

veteran, Stephanie MatHIS, serves as an essential bridge between lJCSF researchers and 

clinicians and the Silicon ValleylI3ay Area entrepreneurial ecosystem. Our flagship 
41 

entrepreneurship course, now in its 13th year, employs tcam-based expericntiallearning to 

educate new entrepreneurs on the essential requirements for a commercially viable life science 

venture culminating in a presentation of their business plans to Silicon Valley venture capitalists. 

This course can be transformative, opening the eyes of scientists and inventors to new career 

paths. I would like to share two noteworthy stories form this course. 

The first is about a doctoral candidate biocngineer at UCSF performing groundbreaking research 

on brain mapping, an essential procedure performed at the beginning of brain surgeries to map 

the functional areas of a patient's brain thereby enabling a surgeon to plan their path to a 

successful surgery while minimizing impact on healthy functional tissue. Patients are conscious 

during the mapping process, which traditionally relies on the surgeon manually stimulating areas 

of the patient's brain while requesting feedback on the effect. Brain mapping using this 

technique is a long and arduous process, often requiring several hours to be completed. In 

collaboration with a UCSF neuroscientist, this doctoral candidate has developed a mapping 

approach using novel software and FDA approved devices that substantially shorten the time 

required for the procedure, reduce pain, and that appear to be safer and more accurate. 

From a nascent idea on the first day of class to a mature business concept at the final 

competition, this researcher attracted a team, explored all aspects of creating a venture, 

developed a commercialization plan, presented to investor judges and won $15,000 in funding. 

She is now following the path of an entrepreneur with hopes of commercial izing a basic research 

discovery, and is preparing an application for a SBIR grant. 

The second story is about a clinical urology resident who conceptualized a novel approach to 

address geriatric urinary incontinence. The management of incontinence represents a substantial 

economic burden to the U.S. health care system with annual costs estimated at $20 billion. In 

addition, urinary incontinence in older adults is humiliating, disabling, and causes stress and 

depression. Research on urinary incontinence demonstrates that an effective management 

strategy is frequent clearance. The physician designed a device to detcct the volume of urine in 

an individual's bladder in real-time, and notify the individual and nursing staff when the volume 

is approaching a level that may cause spontaneous clearance. The urologist's venture, which 

seeks to commercialize an easy-to-wear sensor integrated with an intuitive mobile application, is 

initially seeking to serve patients within nursing homes. 
42 

An exciting addition to the UCSF Entrepreneurship Center is the NSF's Innovation Corps (1-

Corps) program, an experiential educational program designed to increase the commercialization 

of NSF funded research. UCSF, UC Berkeley and Stanford University have partnered to create 

the Bay Area Node of the NSF I-Corps, and have received an NSF grant to support this highly 

innovative program. UCSF is leading the development of life sciences/healthcare-specific 

curriculum within the I-Corps framework in preparation for launching a life scienccs/healthcarespecific course in late 2013. 

In its first two years of existence, the I-Corps has facilitated the creation of numerous startups 

that are working to commercialize discoveries made through federally funded research. Based on 

analyses to date, ventures that have participated in this program receive SBIR funding at a rate 3-

times higher than those that have not. 

The final element of the UCSF innovation ecosystem highlighted in this testimony is the 

California Institute for Qualitatil'e Biosciences (QB3), a three-UC campus organization that 

includes UCSF. QB3 maintains crucial incubator space for biotech startups, provides support for 

incorporating new companies, training on SBIRISTTR grant writing and has a small seed-stage 

fund to help entrepreneurs emerging from the University of California. 

The second questiollI was asked to address today is, "Please provide your thoughts 011 

whether you think it woulti be beneficial to dediCl/te II portioll of Small Business Technology 

Tral1sfer (STTR) programjimdil1g to proof-of-concept lind other techl1ology transfer 

programs at universities, research institutiolls alll/nlltiollallaboratories." 

It is more than beneficial; it is essential. lJCSF innovations. which predominantly fall within the 

drug, medical device, diagnostic and research tool markets, require substantial flll1ding in the 

form of risk capital for commercialization - funding that has rapidly disappeared as venture 

capitalists have become increasingly risk averse since 2008. 

Early-stage life science ventures desperately need funding to reach technological proof-ofconcept ("PoC"), a prerequisite to attract private investment. The funding environment has 

changed dramatically in recent years. Small innovative drug companies were once able to secure 

tens of millions of dollars offunding through venture capitalists or public markets to advance 

early-stage discoveries to human clinical trials, at which point the enterprise became an attractive 
43 

partner or target for acquisition. In recent years, venture financing for life sciencc companies has 

dropped sharply as private capital has shifted to lower risk markets that deliver faster returns. 

Today, few investors are willing to risk investing in early-stage life science ventures. Why 

invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a business that often will not provide returns for a 

decade, if ever, when the funds can be invested in a smartphone application or social media 

company that may attain that value in three to five years? 

Initial financings of U.S. - based biotechs are down an alarming 30% from their peak in 2007. 

Most funding is directed to existing companies with products in late-stage development, not to 

st31iups. According to Fenwick & West, only $2.5 billion, or 12.5% offunds raised by venture 

capital tinns in 2012, is likely to be deployed in the life sciences, which stands in stark contrast 

with the $7.8 billion that was invested in 2008. The dearth of risk capital is discouraging even 

seasoned entrepreneurs from attempting to develop innovative medicines. In our classes at 

UCSF, we see a significant reduction in proposed therapeutic ventures and an increase in 

ventures, such as digital health, requiring limited time, limited funding and that offer 

substantially less regulatory risk. 

The implication for the U.S. is sobering: there will bc few truly innovative medicines and our 

leadership in innovation is at risk. Medical devices and diagnostics are similarly challenged: 

little funding is available. Thanks to a difficult U.S. regulatory environment, reimbursement 

issues and lack of risk capital, many medical technology ventures are moving onshore. Consider 

this story from an experienced device entrepreneur. When looking for investors to fund trials for 

an implantable heali device, his search took him far from Silicon Valley and Boston to Asia, 

couliing investors in Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Malaysia. "Companies like ours with 

very promising technology that in years past would have been funded very richly, are struggling 

to find money to even stay in business." As he explained, his last company raised $50MM in 

2007 for a cardiac device and "it never would have even crossed my mind to look to Asia." Since 

then, funding from U.S. venture capital firms for medical devices has dropped 35% to 

approximately $2.4 billion last year, according to the National Venture Capital Association. 

We need a new model to attract private investment capital into biotechnology, medical devices 

and diagnostics to once again fuel the commercialization of federally funded basic research and 

to preserve the u.s.'s dominance in these fields. 
44 

The gap between the development of intriguing but unproven innovations, and the investment to 

commercialize those innovations, is characterized as "the Valley of Death." The U.S. lags 

behind other nations in not having a national funding program to cross this "Valley," placing us 

at a disadvantage. 

Recognizing the need to reduce technological, regulatory and market risks for early-stage life 

science and healthcare ventures, UCSF is leading the development of a life sciences/healthcarespecific curriculum within the framework of the NSF Innovation Corps program, a program 

supported by this Committee. This program aims to empower entrepreneurial teams to 

effectively identify the most promising ventures by thoroughly examining key elements of each, 

and adapting or terminating the venture accordingly, thereby reducing the overall failure rate, 

improving the utilization of capital and ultimately increasing investment in these markets. 

UCSF is initially offering this life sciences/healthcare-specific curriculum in October 2013 for up 

to 32 teams, and thereafter hopes to expand this program. 

The third questioll I was asked to address today is, "Please provide commellts and 

recommelldatiolls Oil the discussion draft of the "llll1ovative Approaches to Technology 

Transfer Act of2013". 

We enthusiastically support the proposed legislation that establishes STTR grant programs to 

support innovative approaches to technology transfer that increase the commercialization of 

discoveries made through federally funded basic research. In my role as Assistant Vice 

Chancellor, I routinely interact with bright and enthusiastic scientists and clinicians with earlystage discoveries with commercial potential who are struggling to secure essential PoC funding. 

For example, a successful senior investigator at UCSF has invented an implantable artificial 

kidney device in collaboration with scientists at the Cleveland Clinic, Vanderbilt University and 

the University of Michigan. This device has the potential to improve the health and well being of 

individuals suffering from kidney failure, freeing them from numerous miserable dialysis 

sessions per week, and reducing the estimated $41.5 billion spent on end-stage renal disease per 

year in the US. Despite receiving numerous awards, substantial interest from potential corporate 

partners and being selected by the FDA as one of just three projects for a pilot program that will 
45 

fast track the development of breakthrough medical devices, our entrepreneur has been unable to 

raise funds to support commercial development. 

Grant programs created under the Act could address this crucial need for PoC funding. We 

support the development of programs that fund the creation of university-based PoC programs 

and the development of crucial institutional infrastructure to support entrepreneurs. Such 

programs should not include a requirement for company participation, thereby removing the 

existing incentive to prematurely create startup companies for the sole purpose of qualifying for 

SBIRfSTTR grants, and allowing funds to be used exclusively for reaching technical PoCo New 

requirements, such as matching industry funds, should also not be included in order to avoid 

potentially costly delays, as companies often require PoC as a prerequisite for investment. 

We would welcome expansion of the NSF Innovation Corps program to additional agencies and 

the addition of phased PoC funding. This expansion would establish a means to validate and 

advance the development of a broader alTay of discoveries while providing entrepreneurs crucial 

training and PoC funding. 

We enthusiastically support the proposed legislation, including the requirements for the 

collection and analysis of data on the performance of funded programs to identify those that may 

warrant expansion; however, we strongly caution against including excessively burdensome and 

costly administrative requirements that may inadvcliently reduce the effectiveness of the 

program by reducing participation. 

I hope that my testimony has provided background, context and recommendations that can help 

this Committee in its laudable goal of improving technology transfer and the innovation ecosystem in the United States. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lipinksi and Members of this Subcommittee for the 

0PPoliunity to discuss this important issue and I look forward to answering any questions you 

may have. 
46 

WITNESS BIOGRAPHY 

ERIK LWM, PH.D. 

Dr. Erik Lium serves as the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Innovation, Technology & Alliances at 

the University of California, San f'rancisco (UCSF). He has held prior positions at UCSF of 

Assistant Vice Chancellor of Research. Director of the Industry Contracts Division and Interim 

Director of the Contracts & Grants Division of the Office of Sponsored Research, and Director 

of Business Development for the Diabetes Center & Immune Tolerance Network. Dr. Lium was 

President of LabVelocity Inc., an information services company focused on accelerating life 

science R&D processes prior to its acquisition in 2004. He served as a postdoctoral research 

scientist in the laboratory of Nobel Laureate J. Michael Bishop, MD at UCSF, earned a Ph.D. 

from the Integrated Program in Cellular, Molecular and Biophysical Studies at Columbia 

University in the laboratory of Dr. Saul J. Silverstein. Dr. Lium holds a B.S. in Biology from 

Gonzaga University. 
47 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Because of the delayed start Chairman Smith will not be able to 

attend but he asks now that, with unanimous consent to submit his 

statement for the record. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement appears in Appendix I] 

Chairman BUCSHON. I would like to thank the witnesses for their 

testimony and remind Members of the Committee that questioning 

is limited to five minutes. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for five minutes for the 

first round of questioning. 

Dr. Hart-Wells, thanks for coming from Purdue. We appreciate 

that. 

Dr. HART-WELLS. My pleasure. 

Chairman BUCSHON. In your testimony you state that federally 

funded Purdue technologies that were supplemented by proof-ofconcept awards had about a 40 percent increase in licensing rate 

compared with other federally funded programs not supplemented 

by proof-of-concept awards. 

Can you explain what the reasons are for that, and how might 

the proposed grant program we are considering improve that? 

Dr. HART-WELLS. Certainly. Thank you for the question. 

Yes. That data is 35 to 40 years of data that, granted this Trask 

Venture Fund has evolved over time. Very recently in the last 

three to four years the program is run very similar to an early preproof-of-concept and proof-of-concept type with business executives 

and local business community representatives, as well as university leadership or an advisory council. The funding is targeted 

through their advisement towards answering questions that de-risk 

a technology for transfer to a private sector partner. 

So the goal of the fund has been focused on experiments that fill 

the gap. That was part of the fund when it was established in ’73, 

many moons ago, before even the Bayh-Dole legislation that created technology transfer offices in universities. And I believe based 

on our experience and having done the analytics of the program 

over the years that the targeted deployment with a goal to transfer 

research results for commercial products and services made the 

focus of the decision making in such a way that it produced the 

kinds of outputs that it did, which is the university to transfer out 

the technology. Get it into the hands of a partner like Dr. Wamhoff, 

HemoShear, whether you are creating a new company or you are 

partnering through licensing. But to get it out of the university so 

that it has an opportunity to be developed further into products 

and services that can benefit those folks that paid for it. 

And that is the number that we can use and put our finger on 

in a reliable way to say that we were able to get going in that right 

direction. So I believe it is the targeted, the metrics and what you 

are measuring will determine how these programs perform, and I 

believe that was part of this program from the beginning and 

helped inform its outcomes. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. Dr. Wamhoff, I have to ask you, 

what do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the STTR Program? 

Dr. WAMHOFF. I think one of the strengths is that it gives investigators critical seed money to do proof-of-concept studies, check off 
48 

a go, no-go box for a technology you are trying to commercialize. 

I think one of the challenges is putting a mechanism in place to 

let them know what is the go, no-go box on that technology. Scientists—no one loves their science more than the scientist that is 

developing it, and there is a lot of emotional attachment to it, and 

there comes a point for every technology when it is going to move 

out of academia, does it really have legs, and getting exposure to 

non-scientists, people from the industry, advisors that can help you 

make that decision to fail fast and move on is really important and 

a critical gap that needs to be filled. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. That is all I have. 

I will yield now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski, for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank everyone for 

their testimony. 

As I noted in my opening statement the draft legislation doesn’t 

specify the types of activity that should be supported, so I wanted 

to get a little bit more into that. Certainly we heard from I think 

all of you about proof-of-concept, the importance there, and as I 

said, something I support for NIH. It is just NIH because that was 

the opportunity we had. I certainly think that is critical. Entrepreneurial education is something I also am very supportive of. Dr. 

Lium mentioned I–Corps, which I have mentioned countless times 

in this Committee, my support for I–Corps, I think that is an entrepreneurial education program that has worked very well and 

should be expanded to other agencies. 

What other areas, are there other areas, you know, maybe this 

is what we should be limiting this bill to, but are there other areas 

that you think may fit into this bill to help us accelerate commercialization of federally funded research? 

Start with Dr. Lium. If there is nothing else, you don’t have to 

make up something else just to answer the question. I just want 

to see if there were other things that you wanted to add. 

Dr. LIUM. My impression is that the bill provides significant 

flexibility on what programs can be developed by agencies. We have 

already touched on a number of issues that are relevant from experiential entrepreneurial education, mentorship, and resources within the university to provide a strong infrastructure for technology 

transfer. I think all of those issues are very important. 

Again, based on the draft legislation it appears to me that those 

types of programs could be developed. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Hart-Wells. 

Dr. HART-WELLS. Yes. I would like to add the critical component 

in coincident with technology development is cultivation of business 

experiential learning, kind of on-the-job. There is student 

entrepreneurialship programs I think at all of the—a lot of universities including Purdue, but perhaps these are opportunities that 

the faculty researcher or staff or students who are participating in 

the development of the technology would also perhaps benefit from 

business support services. 

I would agree that my reading of the draft allows that degree of 

freedom. I refer to a creative license, the way that I read the draft 

so that it can be customized to the appropriate geographic regions 

and what those needs are. 
49 

But I would add that one of the support mechanisms that could 

accelerate the translation and transfer of federally funded research 

results is business support services or mentoring and counseling, 

along those lines, just generally of how to write a business plan. 

These are things that are not taught to you in graduate school as 

you well know when you get an advanced degree. 

Thank you. 

Dr. WAMHOFF. I remember when I wrote my first business plan 

actually. I had no idea what I was doing, and I was six years into 

tenure. But I agree with you, Dr. Hart-Wells, that bringing the private sector into this in any way possible I think is a great idea. 

At the end of the day they are the consumer of this technology before it goes into the general public. They are the ones licensing it 

out of the university, they are the ones that are further developing 

it, putting more capital into it to make it available to the taxpayer, 

and I don’t think there is enough of that. I know at Purdue you 

have recently changed your boards around where you have a lot of 

influence, advisors from the private sector. It is not just an academic setting, and having that leeway to do that I think would be 

really important. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I want to quickly ask Dr. Lium, you 

talked about UCSF’s entrepreneurial education activities. You are 

certainly strong in the focus on life sciences. 

Are there any steps that you are taking to adapt entrepreneurial 

education courses like I–Corps to life sciences? Are there any other 

special hurdles that you face in tech transfer from the life sciences 

that other disciplines do not face? 

Dr. LIUM. Sure. I think I will start with the hurdles of transferring life science technologies into the commercial sector first. Life 

science technologies have a particularly long timeframe for development. They are very high risk in general. There are technical risks, 

regulatory risks—will the product be approved by the FDA?—reimbursement risks. So the—and then the comments that I have made 

regarding proof-of-concept funding. So there are significant risks 

related to the investment in the life sciences that are not present 

in all other fields. 

In regards to the Innovation Corps, the UCSF is fortunate to 

participate in the program. The University of California Berkeley, 

UCSF, and Stanford are—formed the Bay Area Innovation Corps 

Node. UCSF in particular is developing life-science-specific curriculum for the Innovation Corps Program in the fields of drugs, 

devices, diagnostics, and digital health. And I would be happy to 

answer any questions about that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Collins for 

five minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both 

you and Chairman Smith for assisting me and us in putting this 

forth. My background, yes, I am a mechanical engineer from North 

Carolina State. Even though I know you have a background from 

Duke, we won’t talk about Duke. But I also have a biotechnology 

company with two level three plus space labs involved in virus production and the like and also a phase 2B multiple sclerosis secondary progressive MS drug trial ongoing right now in Australia 
50 

and New Zealand. So I live the life sciences world a lot, at least 

before I came here. 

But I agree with you on the Valley of Death and you know, the 

scientists who do really love their science, but when you talk to 

them and say, all right, now how are we going to get it to market, 

what is the market, how are we going to price it, and, again, what 

is the fail safe point, they usually give you the deer in the headlights look. 

But one question I know we are going to get is we are going to 

take money that is already in the STTR Program, and so we want 

to designate a small piece of it for this new Valley of Death, proofof-concept. 

Would you speak to what you would say the return on investment to the taxpayers and taking this small piece and addressing 

the Valley of Death versus not doing that and having that money 

instead go to the traditional programs, in other words, speak to the 

importance of creating this and what I would hope would be a very 

high return on investment or your opinion on that for the taxpayers. 

Start with Dr. Wamhoff. 

Dr. WAMHOFF. Sure. I don’t know the metrics on the success of 

the STTR mechanism, but I can tell you that any time you can decrease the gap in the Valley of Death, it is a good return on any 

investment, whether it is advice or seed funding on a go, no-go decision, you can end a $2 million venture with $100,000 of seed 

funding very quickly and say, you know what? This is great 

science, but it is not going to translate out. Take it back into the 

lab and do what you need to do, publish in your academic career. 

So I am fully for it. I think that it is a real event that happens 

to a lot of academic investigators. They just get lost. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. Dr. Hart-Wells. 

Dr. HART-WELLS. Yes. Thank you. I think the—it is—metrics in 

this space are always tough. This is difficult. There is a lot of good 

momentum in discussing and deliberating what are appropriate 

metrics. I would note in my written testimony at Purdue we also 

have a pre-seed evergreen fund for new ventures. Most of the applicants to these programs, as well as the proof-of-concept, are in the 

life sciences. There is some data following funds in the universities, 

and the biggest consumer of these funds are in the life sciences, 

and that is not surprising given the high risk associated with those 

technologies. 

My belief is—and live this every day is that if universities can 

incubate a little longer some of these technologies and de-risk 

them, there are opportunities that are—that will be delivered to 

the private sector, in particular small businesses, which is our preference. They are statistically proven to generate more jobs. We are 

responsible to helping those technologies along as much as we can, 

and a lot of universities are doing that at their own expense, and 

it is only the Federal Government that can step in and have broad 

impact across the board. And I see that embraced in the spirit of 

this legislation. 

So I actually see synergy and improvements in the starting point 

from which a small business would pick a technology, perhaps 
51 

what Dr. Wamhoff articulated wouldn’t have to be the norm anymore. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. We are running a little out of time, so 

not to skip Dr. Lium, but I would like to ask each of you, right now 

there is a $150,000 limit on the phase 1 STTR funding. We haven’t 

addressed a particular number here, and I wonder if you could 

offer a quick opinion on what you might think would be an appropriate dollar limit for this Valley of Death funding. 

Dr. WAMHOFF. Oh, for the Valley of Death funding? So you are 

talking about pre-STTR money essentially. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. You have got the 150,000 phase 1, the million 

dollar phase—— 

Dr. WAMHOFF. I can tell you that with the Coulter Foundation 

at the University of Virginia you could do a lot with 25,000, 

$50,000. I believe you have a specific number. 

Dr. HART-WELLS. Our data suggests an average of $48,000. 

Mr. COLLINS. So $50,000 would be a good number for both of you. 

Dr. Lium? 

Dr. LIUM. We have a small program at the University of California San Francisco that averages between 50 and $75,000. One 

comment that I would also make is that I believe that the award 

size should reflect the technology and the market and the next 

milestone that—or inflection point of value that one wants to 

achieve. 

Mr. COLLINS. Good. Thank you all for your testimony. I yield 

back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Esty for 

five minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, and I want to thank Mr. Collins for asking 

several of my questions, but to follow up on that and really to sort 

of point out the question you asked about diversion of funds from 

existing programs, I believe, Dr. Lium, you mentioned how the current structure, because presumably because it does not fund the 

Valley of Death, ends up then with premature formation of 

startups, which then fail. 

So could you discuss a little bit whether you think this focus on 

permitting grants to be used in relative, we are talking small 

amounts of grants, $50,000, $75,000, can you explain if you think 

that really would help better deployment and leverage of those resources? 

Dr. LIUM. The simple answer to the question is yes. I believe that 

conducting proof-of-concept research within the university where 

the discovery was made can be done much, much less expensively 

than in the context of a company. Creating a company and the cost 

of a company and the complications of a company and the distraction that the company represents for a faculty member relative to 

being able to raise a small amount of proof-of-concept funding, do 

the research within the university, using the same individuals that 

likely made the invention is actually—would be a very, a significant advantage. And ultimately in the long run would be a better 

utilization of capital. 

Ms. ESTY. I represent northwest Connecticut, so we have Farmington U–Conn Medical Center with the Jackson Labs coming in 
52 

and synergies with Yale as well and attempting to do this licensing 

better. 

Can any of you discuss, this is a great concern in my state, 

things that we might be able to do as we look at this issue about 

aiding universities that are already very focused on this? What can 

we do to aid that process on the tech transfer? We have got big centers, both of them working a lot of life sciences. Are there other 

things we haven’t flagged in this bill or related issues that we 

should put on their radar? 

Dr. LIUM. I think many of the comments that have been made 

today related to having external boards and mentorship are very 

important in the context of licensing as well. We recently were negotiating a license with a small company and reached out to neutral parties in the field—neutral venture capitalists—to determine 

what the cost or what the value of the technology was to provide 

us some comfort in the level of—in the financial terms that we 

were negotiating. We were actually, by doing that kind of homework able to complete the financial negotiations within one hour. 

So I think that engaging the commercial community to help in 

the technology transfer process is essential. 

Ms. ESTY. And a final quick question. There has been some discussion, certainly looked at—at Commerce looking at regional clustering for say excellence in manufacturing. Is this something we 

could also be looking, at say in the life sciences? Again, that is an 

area where they are looking at public-private partnerships to address in part these entrepreneurial outside advice to help make 

that transition. We have been attempting to do this with the investing at the state level in Connecticut, but obviously the resources get quite limited, and there is criticism that we are picking 

winners and losers. 

So can you help us, you know, how do we avoid that picking winners and losers problem but nevertheless provide the resources for 

these startups? The outside advice. Do you have thoughts on how 

we could structure that, what the Federal Government’s role 

should be or whether that is just advisory to suggest that they do 

this? 

Dr. LIUM. I think advice has to be tailored very specifically to the 

technology that one is examining at any particular time. We have 

a program within the Clinical Translational Science Institute at 

the University of California San Francisco that utilizes mentors 

with very specific expertise to advise faculty with early-stage technologies. 

So, again, I am very supportive of these structures. That program is structured in such a way where there is a call for proposals 

twice a year from faculty. They are evaluated by boards of mentors, 

individuals are selected and mentored for a period of months, and 

then there is a report out at the culmination, and a number of the 

projects then receive a small amount of funding. I think there is 

an opportunity to use those types of external boards to help make 

these types of decisions. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. You are welcome. I now recognize Dr. Bera 

for five minutes. 
53 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am not a mechanical 

engineer, but a physician, and I will give a shout out to the University of California system where I did my training and was on faculty. 

I think this is fascinating, and, again, I am glad that we are addressing the issue of technology transfer. When you talk about this 

Valley of Death, you know, going through the three stages from 

basic research to proof-of-concept to commercialization, I know 

when we are in the lab, you know, in the academic center we just 

like to think of ideas, and we like to, you know, and the academic 

center is very well situated for this exchange of ideas where— 

which is what we are trained to do, but we are not thinking about 

how to take product to market. 

And it has always occurred to me that if we could take the entrepreneur and actually partner them very early on, so while we are 

formulating our ideas and so forth, they are also thinking about 

and providing input into how to bring that product to market. 

So, again, creating a context that allows that to happen at an 

early-stage as opposed to a later stage certainly is something that 

we should be working on, and I would be interested in hearing your 

thoughts on how we best go about, you know, getting that at that 

earlier stage. 

The other question is—I was down at the University of California 

San Diego this past weekend meeting with Chancellor Khosla and 

some of his faculty, and I knew this hearing was coming up, so I 

actually posed to them the question of what could we do to better 

help technology transfer obviously at one of our major research institutions, and the answer they gave me surprised me. What he 

said was look at tax-exempt bonds, and I tested this with my home 

institution at U.C. Davis, and they talked about how the Federal 

Tax Reform Act really limits their ability to provide research space. 

They said, you know, industry is knocking on their door. They want 

to partner, they want to come in and, you know, work side by side 

in these lab spaces, but our tax code currently limits their ability, 

you know, because these are tax-exempt bonds, to allow the entrepreneur to come in, and I would ask you guys to comment on that 

and, you know, provide perspective. 

Dr. Hart-Wells. 

Dr. HART-WELLS. I will take that first. While I am not a tax attorney or a mechanical engineer for that matter, we run into this, 

and we have this conversation, actually more vigorous conversations more recently, what you are referring to is what is referred 

to as private use and bonded facilities. And there is a prohibition 

on basically for-profit activities in those spaces. 

So that is actually an input in the analysis that is often not considered inside the university in the dialogue on the outside but is 

a critical go, no-go of whether a university can even undertake a 

partnership, whether it wishes to or not. It would be a very, I think 

appropriate in the context of all of the conversations about realizing the value of federally funded research through products and 

services where appropriate, to consider and take up the question of 

private use and its impact, positive and negative, on this whole ecosystem. 
54 

Mr. BERA. So it would be possible actually in this body to perhaps amend the Tax Reform Act to allow at an earlier stage those 

entrepreneurs to come into the lab, work side by side. 

Dr. Lium. Yes. 

Dr. LIUM. Yes. I think that would be true. We do have relationships with corporations that allow for their personnel to come onto 

campus and work closely with our investigators but on a limited 

basis. One example of a close relationship that the University of 

California San Francisco has is the Center for Therapeutic Innovation with Pfizer. In this particular case they have established a laboratory across the street from the campus. 

We do believe very strongly that collaborative research between 

industry and academics is essential to translating academic inventions into the commercial sector. 

I can also take, if you would like, I can also comment on your 

first question related to in essence, if I understood you correctly, 

early intervention. I think a very good model for this, again, is the 

National Science Foundation Innovation Corps Program. This is a 

program that takes teams, small teams at the very earliest stages 

that apply to participate. It is highly experiential. The teams go 

through a process of meeting with a very large number of customers and stakeholders from whatever particular market is appropriate for the technology that they have over a relatively short period of time to establish beyond proof-of-concept around the technology itself, but actually they understand what the market is, 

what the product should be, what they would be able to charge for 

it. So really getting a much, much deeper understanding. That is 

a short, intensive program. The goal is to help individuals or to 

help teams fail early and then also to identify those that have a 

successful concept and take those forward. 

Mr. BERA. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Kilmer for 

five minutes. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for your 

testimony. You have shared with us, I think, some interesting 

ideas around a number of themes; financing, mentorship, partnerships. We talked about some challenges including prohibitions on 

for-profit activities, and that is something we have grappled with 

in my state, the State of Washington, where we had to update our 

ethics laws as we dealt with commercialization of research. 

Can you touch on, you know, as you look both in the areas where 

you work and other states, have you seen any other best practices 

that as we noodle on these issues we ought to be thinking about, 

we ought to be looking at? And that we ought to think about scaling up at the Federal level. 

Dr. HART-WELLS. I will comment that I believe there are a number of practices undertaken across the country now as you start to 

see folks inside the university change over into individuals with industrial experience or experience in technology transfer. For example, Dr. Wamhoff, the Coulter, I will say the Wallace H. Coulter 

Foundation in my opinion is a best practice that is scalable and is 

embedded in a number of universities throughout the country, a 

small number. It is not dissimilar to how we implement our proofof-concept awards. But the business advisement component that 
55 

has been mentioned as critical is a requirement, I believe. Business 

advisors who compensated for their time and knowhow and expertise, and then done so in a way that conflicts of interests and tax 

bonds, all these types of very critical considerations are done, with 

the goal in mind, which is not dissimilar to your proposed legislation. 

I would offer up that program as a best practice. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you. 

Dr. WAMHOFF. Yeah. I would like to echo what Libby said. The 

Coulter Foundation, that mechanism is extremely effective. What 

they were able to do with a $1 million seed grant at the University 

of Virginia in partialing out $25,000, $50,000, $75,000 seed grants 

and the number of companies that launched off of that simply because of the fact there was an oversight board of university faculty 

but more importantly outside members in the community as well 

as other industries helping academics make very critical go, no-go 

decisions. It is either going to work when you do this study, or it 

is not going to work, and at the end of the day you are going to 

know whether to turn left, right, or keep going forward or abandon 

it, and that is a mechanism that is now, I think, being implemented not just in the original nine universities, but they have 

now branched it out probably closer to 20 universities. 

So it is in place, and it is a great structure. 

Dr. LIUM. I think that we have touched on a number of themes 

today that are repeated in many programs across the Nation from 

proof-of-concept funding, fail early, experiential learning for entrepreneurship, bringing mentors, actually true commercial 

mentorship to the table. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is 

incubator space. I think it is important to have space that this type 

of work can be done in, particularly when it is time to create a 

company, have space that a small company can take a very small 

amount of space and move forward. Really it is about creating the 

ecosystem, and so if we can create an ecosystem that supports entrepreneurship and commercialization within the academic environment without actually fundamentally changing the academic 

mission of an institution, I think we would be very successful. 

The educational issues that we face are significant. I think we 

have all mentioned or referred to them in terms of individuals understanding truly what does it take to take a basic discovery into 

the commercial marketplace. It is a very complex process. The 

mentorship alone can be very time consuming, but, again, these are 

the kind of things and ultimately what the goal is to create that 

entrepreneurial supportive environment that cultivates this. 

Mr. KILMER. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

At this point I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable and very fascinating testimony and the Members for their 

questions. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. 

The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(57) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
58 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for yielding me time. And I thank our newest 

member of the Science Committee, Chris Collins, for bringing his small business experience and leadership position on the Small Business Committee to bear in developing the discussion draft of ‘‘The Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer 

Act of 2013.’’ 

The research and development conducted at our nation’s universities, research institutes and national laboratories have served as the basis for many technology 

breakthroughs that have driven American innovation and our economic growth. 

It is our job as policymakers to help create a healthy, pro-business environment 

that brings new inventions to the market. 

Today’s hearing will provide a focused discussion on how to improve technology 

transfer at our nation’s research universities and laboratories in order to promote 

American competitiveness. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Æ