Patents and Pasteur: Why new metrics may point to imaging science as a model for innovation (2014)

The scientific community as a whole generates and uses a large number of metrics, imperfect as they may be, aimed at measuring output. These include publication counts and the number of citations these papers accrue, the number of awards won (e.g., society-specific honors such as ISMRM Gold Medals), and many others. Metrics that indicate the economic output of scientific work, however, have proved difficult to characterize, presenting a challenge for the policymakers of nations that fund research. Recently, in the United States, a working group from the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Scientific Management Review Board examined this question, but no general consensus emerged on sound economic output metrics 1. Within the United States, the lack of reliable metrics has been a frustration for policymakers in the Obama Administration and in Congress, both of whom have requested that leaders at agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the NIH develop research and development (R&D) budgets targeting programs that are expected to generate greater economic return on taxpayer investment. A number of agencies have been successful at identifying programs that have an especially strong economic component, such as signature programs within the NSF and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, which often involve public–private partnerships that include complementary private sector R&D. However, evaluating the economic impact of research funding by the NIH, particularly the short-term impact, has been more challenging. Given this desire from lawmakers for better econometric evidence, a recent paper published in Nature Biotechnology by Kalutkiewicz and Ehman 2 provides some new and timely metrics for consideration. That study revealed that there were meaningful differences pertaining to both the rate and impact of patenting across NIH-funded work during the period 2003–2012. Because patents have been found to be positively correlated with higher levels of regional employment, start-up companies, and greater economic impact 3, their application in evaluating the NIH's various areas of science could be helpful for lawmakers seeking to maximize the return on investment from federal R&D programs. The data presented by Kalutkiewicz and Ehman (Fig. 1) show that the top performer in terms of patent production was the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), which was found to produce 16 patents for every $100 million of research funded. This was significantly higher than the NIH average of only 2.4 patents per every $100 million, and nearly three times the rate (5.6 patents per $100 million) of the second most productive Institute, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. NIBIB funds grants in many areas covered by Magnetic Resonance in Medicine including, but not limited to, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and electron spin resonance. Scatter plot showing top performers for NIH patent production. Reprinted with permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd (Kalutkiewicz MJ, Ehman RL. Nat Biotechnol 2014;32:536–537). Just as the number of citations to a scientific journal article is a measure of its scientific quality and impact, the number of citations to a patent (by subsequent patents) is also a well-accepted measure of its economic quality and impact 2. By this measure, NIBIB grantees sacrificed no quality when generating their higher number patents. On the contrary, patents from NIBIB-funded grants had the second highest rate (out of the 21 Institutes reported) of forward citations from subsequent patents filed at the US Patent and Trademark Office. Each NIBIB patent helped to spur 14 additional forward patents, which is nearly twice the NIH average rate. Taken together, the quality and quantity of the NIBIB's new intellectual property was by far the highest across the NIH over the decade studied. As policymakers from many nations seek evidence to guide targeted investments in R&D programs that will generate greater economic impact, they may find the results reported by Kalutkiewicz and Ehman pertaining to imaging and bioengineering science at the NIH particularly enlightening. They also may wish to study what has made these medical imaging and related communities so successful. We think that such studies could lead to a shift in funding allocations across the NIH, as well as its counterparts in other nations, to better invest in the most economically productive areas of science, including imaging. Such studies could also apply to high-profile initiatives that are intended to be highly innovative, such as the NIH's Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies, commonly known as the BRAIN Initiative. The BRAIN Initiative's goal to develop innovative new neurotechnologies will undoubtedly generate novel ideas, new intellectual property, and patents. Of the dozen or so Institutes currently participating in the BRAIN Initiative, however, only the NIBIB generated patents both in high number and with high levels of forward citations. At a time of highly constrained federal funding, the results reported by Kalutkiewicz and Ehman could motivate closer consultation with the imaging and bioengineering communities to determine what has made them so successful at developing valuable new technologies. The leaders for the BRAIN Initiative may also view neuroimaging and neuroengineering technologies as being ripe for delivering early translational and commercial successes, and thus may want to demonstrate this to policymakers in support of this long-term project. One reason for the NIBIB's success as a technology innovator might be its dedication to Pasteur's Quadrant 4, which refers to scientific research that seeks fundamental understanding while also benefitting society. According to an article in Harvard Business Review 5, it is this hybrid of basic and applied research that has resulted in the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) maintaining “the longest-standing, most consistent track record of radical innovation in history.” Many organizations, including the NIH, have encouraged the development of new pilot programs that partner with or mimic the DARPA model, hoping to spur greater levels of innovation from within their programs. However, when considering the notably high rate and quality of new patenting from the NIBIB, policymakers might be surprised to find that the imaging and bioengineering communities may in fact have a rate of radical innovation that is comparable to that of other agencies in the United States that hold reputations for excellence in this area (e.g., the NSF and DARPA). By identifying the key communities at the NIH that have demonstrated a strong history of “use-inspired innovation,” the NIH and its international counterparts could provide improved economic benefit to their own nations and also leverage the talent and expertise in these innovative research communities across other disciplines. Looking through the empirical lens of patent quality and quantity, research agencies may indeed want to encourage the examination and the adoption of the NIBIB model throughout their own enterprises. Michael J. Kalutkiewicz Academy of Radiology Research, Washington, DC, USA Richard L. Ehman and Matt A. Bernstein Department of Radiology Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minnesota, USA