Understanding what industry is looking for to better promote your research and form new partnerships
Positioned at the interface between academic research and commercial R&D, Inpart's online partnering platform, Connect, facilitates thousands of interactions between industry specialists and research institutes each year.
In this article, we have reviewed the feedback sent by our industry network through 2023 in response to technologies hosted on Inpart Connect. We envision the trends we identified can guide university TTOs and academics towards more effective promotion of their research.
To identify similarities and differences in the responses from different industries, the feedback received was first categorised into eight response types[1]. These are listed below alongside an illustrative example: [2]
- Too early stage
“This project is a bit too early for us as we would like to see more chemistry evolution done on the molecules identified.”
Anti-inflammatory drug platform, Head of Emerging Science and Innovation, Multinational Pharmaceutical Company - Benefit over existing technology unclear
“The format of this test is a bit complex and doesn't match that of our current PCR tests”
Livestock PCR test technology, Director of Business Development at an Animal Health Multinational - Commercial route unclear
“We have discarded algae as a feasible option for bulk-chemicals production. Far too expensive and no potential to become cheaper”
Biosynthesis of fine chemicals, Senior Scientist – Sustainable Chemistry at a Multinational Chemical Producer - Description/application/opportunity unclear
“I cannot provide feedback because the description is too vague: it correctly describes the state-of-the-art in the field but their specific contribution is unclear”
Camera technology, Director of Research at a Small Aviation Company - Scientific feedback
“As far as I understand this polymeric micelle technology has PEG molecules on the outside. It has been shown that non-viral systems that have PEG generate antibodies against PEG itself”
Polymer gene delivery technology, Head of Business Development at a RNA Therapeutics Biopharma Company - Already under development in-house
“At the moment this is not an opportunity we would be interested in progressing as we have a good range of Covid antibodies available already on our catalogue”
Monoclonal antibody technology, Senior Business Development Manager at a Producer of Protein Research Tools - Other
“These projects require a lot of interaction and visits, and we have generally looked to the UK or Europe, and I suspect the developer in this instance may favour a more local US partner”
Advanced motor technology, Business Development Engineer at a European Precision Manufacturing Company
Of the feedback received, a consistent 7-10% of responses across all industry sectors indicated a lack of clarity in the description of the underlying technology, the technology's commercial application, or the partnership opportunity being promoted. While this shows that the majority of technology or asset summaries published on Inpart are well written, it also serves as a reminder to carefully review submissions for clarity before publishing, and to make clear the type of partnership that you are seeking by using the 'Opportunity' and 'Seeking' sections in the Inpart submission template.
Another common trend was a significant response rate for 'commercial route unclear'. Often, Inpart's industry network is looking for university technologies that can be readily commercialised, therefore it is equally important to demonstrate the market appeal of an asset as it is to describe its technological advancements. Feedback indicating that technologies are out of a company's current scope for research and development is also received through the Connect platform. However, these responses have been excluded from this analysis to focus on feedback that TTOs and academic teams can take action to address.
Sector-specific trends will now be outlined below.
Medical technology
For the medical technology sector, the most common response was 'too early stage', reflecting the costs involved in translating research from the lab to the clinic. While this response is challenging to address, it equated to only 30% of the feedback received. To provide further insight we will break this feedback type down further in the next section of this article.
As a means of encouraging industry involvement in early-stage medical research, TTOs and academic teams should consider adding 'seeking clinical development partners' to the 'Opportunity' section of their Inpart technology summaries. We also recommend including, where possible, regular stage of development updates as this will demonstrate that the research is ongoing, and will allow us to resend technology summaries to previously interested parties.
Other responses from our medical technology network highlighted the importance of making clear the benefits of inventions over existing technologies.
To provide greater insight, we have further subcategorised the 'too early stage' responses from the medtech sector based on the stage of development required to trigger future interest. The 6 subcategories are:
- Clinical, unspecified
- Phase 2
- Phase 1
- Safety/regulatory
- Preclinical
- Not specified
This figure emphasises the current trend within the medical technology sector towards investment in technologies that have undergone regulatory/safety assessment and/or some form of clinical study. Whilst, undertaking such studies as an academic research institution is challenging, being aware of this industry preference can inform how users describe their technology and write the 'Opportunity' section of their uploads e.g., include 'Seeking funding/partners for a clinical trial'.
In addition to this, 23% of these responses stated that only further preclinical assessment was required to convert their interest into an introduction request. This feedback included requests for animal trials or more detailed in vitro investigations. In these cases, we encourage the feedback to be passed from the TTO to the inventors to help guide the future direction of the research projects.
Biotechnology
The feedback from companies working in the biotech sector closely resembles the split for medical technologies. However, it is noteworthy that this sector produced the highest response rate of 'under development in-house'. This demonstrates the competitive nature of the biotech industry and the importance of conducting thorough market research before patent filing.
Chemicals
The most frequent response from the chemicals industry sector was 'benefit over existing technology unclear', which featured in 39% of responses. Also of note, was that this sector recorded the lowest response rate for 'too early stage' and the highest rate of 'scientific feedback'.
Combining these observations, we can conclude that many chemical technology opportunities are being promoted at too late a stage, and with too little in terms of commercialisation strategy and prior industry engagement. For this reason, we would encourage TTOs and academic teams to add early-stage chemistry research into their Inpart portfolio and to actively seek industry feedback through our platform or from elsewhere. These responses can then be passed on to the relevant researchers and used to direct the further development of such projects to better fit industry needs.
Engineering and construction
This sector produced the most uniform split across the different categories of feedback. However, 23% of the engineering and construction sector feedback stated that the benefits of the invention described over existing technologies were unclear. This highlights the importance of describing the advantages of assets in relation to the current industry standards/state-of-the-art.
Conclusion
With this article, we have aimed to use Inpart's close working relationship with more than 250 research institutions and 6,000 R&D companies around the world to provide a clearer picture of what the industry is looking for in Connect technology summaries. We hope the insights presented can be used by TTOs and academic teams to better evaluate and promote their research portfolios, and take impactful steps towards new industry partnerships.
[2] Some responses have been edited to improve clarity