Translating healthcare innovation from academia to industry

Innovation lies at the heart of academia, and universities generate high-quality, intellectual property on a large scale. However, commercial translation of this intellectual property has traditionally been poor, particularly in the critical healthcare sector. It is critical that this situation is addressed to ensure that innovation from research institutes can fulfil its potential and progress to have a genuine impact on the outside world. In this article, we consider the nature of healthcare innovation in academia and ways in which commercial translation of intellectual property can be successfully realised. This is first analysed from an academic perspective, with a particular focus on how academic motivations and work practices can shape successful translation. We then switch perspective to examine the same process from an industry perspective, looking at the characteristics and expectations involved in the innovation life cycle. To place these analyses in context, we present a case study examining a project being undertaken to commercialise a novel surgical instrument, the intra-abdominal platform, from identification of clinical need, through the development life cycle, to commercialisation of the system. We reflect on the successes and challenges encountered during the intra-abdominal platform project, the broader lessons learned and in conclusion use these to emphasise how academia can adopt practices to better translate intellectual property in the future.

[1]  M. Sajid,et al.  Retraction techniques in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a literature‐based review , 2013, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[2]  G. Ramsay,et al.  Laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomized trial comparing postoperative pain and pulmonary function. , 1994, Surgery.

[3]  Evviva Weinraub Lajoie,et al.  Innovation Decisions: Using the Gartner Hype Cycle , 2014, Library Leadership & Management.

[4]  C. Devitt,et al.  Duration, complications, stress, and pain of open ovariohysterectomy versus a simple method of laparoscopic-assisted ovariohysterectomy in dogs. , 2005, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[5]  S. Wooding,et al.  The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research , 2011, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[6]  H. Etzkowitz The evolution of the entrepreneurial university , 2004 .

[7]  Dorothy A. Leonard,et al.  Commercial Technology: Imaginative Understanding of User Needs , 1996 .

[8]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Ontological Innovation and the Role of Theory in Design Experiments , 2004 .

[9]  A. Harrell,et al.  Minimally invasive abdominal surgery: lux et veritas past, present, and future. , 2005, American journal of surgery.

[10]  R. Veldkamp,et al.  Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer : short-term outcomes of a randomised trial , 2022 .

[11]  J. Fleshman,et al.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Thomas F. Hilton,et al.  What's Next for Translation Research? , 2006, Evaluation & the health professions.

[13]  Shreefal S. Mehta,et al.  The emerging role of academia in commercializing innovation , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[14]  Shahid Yusuf,et al.  From Creativity to Innovation , 2007 .

[15]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[16]  H. Kehlet,et al.  Impact of laparoscopic surgery on stress responses, immunofunction, and risk of infectious complications. , 1998, New horizons.

[17]  Daniel E. O'Leary,et al.  Gartner's hype cycle and information system research issues , 2008, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[18]  G. Scambia,et al.  Postoperative pain after conventional laparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS) for benign adnexal disease: a randomized trial. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  K. Emmons,et al.  How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. , 2007, Annual review of public health.

[20]  Scott Shane,et al.  Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? , 2003 .

[21]  J. West,et al.  Open innovation : researching a new paradigm , 2008 .

[22]  ウェイマン,マーク,et al.  Tissue retractor and methods of use , 2012 .

[23]  K. Emmanuel,et al.  Loop retraction of the gallbladder in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy* , 2011, European Surgery.

[24]  A. Świadek,et al.  Innovation Process Models With Emphasis on Open Innovation Model , 2010 .

[25]  H. Shimada,et al.  Lifting of the Colon for Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy for Colon and Rectal Cancer , 2004, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[26]  L. Durand,et al.  Retraction and triangulation with neodymium magnetic forceps for single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

[27]  Mike Wright,et al.  Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries , 2008 .

[28]  Elizabeth Garnsey,et al.  Do Academic Spin-Outs Differ and Does it Matter? , 2004 .

[29]  K. Novoselov,et al.  The mechanics of graphene nanocomposites: A review , 2012 .