Submissions and consultations

17.83 Submissions and consultations generally acknowledged that research organisations are becoming more adept at protecting and commercialising research. However, despite this continuing improvement, it appears from comments received that there is still considerable variation in skill and experience with commercialisation across organisations. While some researchers and technology transfer offices have developed considerable expertise, others are less able.^[91]

17.84 It was also noted that in some cases technology transfer offices lack the funding needed for effective commercialisation of intellectual property.^[92] GlaxoSmithKline suggested that governments could support commercialisation by ‘distinct and separate funding for technology transfer offices in academic institutions’ and suggested there was a need for training programs for technology transfer offices.^[93]

17.85 In DP 68, the ALRC made three proposals directed at improving technology transfer practices, all of which received strong support in submissions.^[94] DP 68 proposed that to improve technology transfer practices, Biotechnology Australia, in consultation with state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders, should:

• continue to develop and implement programs to assist technology transfer offices in universities and publicly funded research institutions in commercialising inventions involving genetic materials and technologies; and

• develop strategies to ensure widespread participation of technology transfer offices in these programs.^[95]

17.86 The Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) noted that Biotechnology Australia has introduced a number of successful commercialisation initiatives. However, it suggested that such programs need to be sanctioned by broader governmental processes and, therefore, it may be better to emphasise the need for ‘government’ action rather than activities by a specific organisation.^[96]

17.87 DP 68 proposed that the ARC and NHMRC should review their principles and guidelines on intellectual property and research to emphasise the importance of clear ownership of intellectual property resulting from collaborative or jointly funded research.^[97]

17.88 WEHI noted that joint ownership, particularly in the public and academic research sectors is a major obstacle to commercialisation (particularly with offshore partners). It suggested that joint ownership should be avoided whenever possible.^[98]

17.89 The NHMRC commented that, as part of the review of the National Principles, it could consider the desirability of providing more detailed guidance on intellectual property resulting from collaborative or jointly funded research.^[99] It suggested that it could consider whether this guidance should be included in revised guidelines or high-level principles, or alternatively, whether organisations should be left to develop their own policies on this issue.^[100]

17.90 DP 68 also proposed that universities and other publicly funded research organisations should ensure that their policies and practices address the problems of ownership of intellectual property resulting from collaborative or jointly funded research.^[101] This proposal received strong support in submissions.^[102] The NHMRC commented that this issue could be addressed as part of the review of the National Principles.^[103] The Queensland Government noted that some organisations are currently taking steps to address problems of ownership of intellectual property resulting from collaborative research.^[104]