Increasingly,
institutions of higher learning are including faculty member patents
and commercialization activities in their calculus for offering tenure
and promotion. However, a report published in Volume 13 Number 3 of Technology and Innovation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Inventors
finds that 75% of institutions surveyed do not include patent and
commercialization considerations in their tenure and promotion criteria.
“Texas
A&M University created quite a stir in May 2006 when it added
commercialization considerations as a sixth factor to be taken into
account when faculty members are evaluated for tenure,” said report
co-author Dr. Paul R. Sanberg, senior associate vice president for
research and innovation at the University of South Florida and president
of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI). “Surprisingly, their lead
has not been followed by other major institutions.”
According to Sanberg and co-authors Ginger A. Johnson (Technology and Innovation)
and Dr. Ashley J. Stevens, former senior research associate at the
Boston University School of Management and past president of the
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), there are a number
of good arguments for adding faculty member patents and
commercialization activities to the tenure and promotion criteria.
“Adding
patents and commercialization to the existing tenure and promotion
criteria will inspire tenure-track professors to engage in innovative
activities earlier in their careers,” said Stevens. “Also, encouraging
the creative, productive and innovative ideas of young professors will
increase their universities’ research dollars.”
The
authors point out that in 2009 universities earned about $1.8 billion
in royalties from academic inventions, an increase over $1.6 billion in
2008 and $1.3 billion in 2007.
According
to Sanberg and Stevens, their survey revealed a number of striking
similarities between universities that do take patenting and
commercialization activities into account when offering tenure and
promotion and those that do not. The universities that do take patenting
and commercialization into account are public institutions, they
consider US patents a priority, they have adopted the policy in the last
six years, and they publish their tenure and promotion guidelines.
The
authors note that even the staunchest supporters of including faculty
patenting and commercializing activities into tenure and promotion
decisions agree that these activities should not replace scholarly
pursuits, such as teaching, student mentoring and publishing research.
“By
investing in the creative innovations of young faculty today,
educational institutions may lessen pressure to translate their research
endeavors into useful, applicable and timely solutions to today’s
global problems,” concluded Stevens. “The next step in increasing
academic patent and commercialization activities will be to allocate the
proper resources to university technology transfer offices in order to
more efficiently transfer scientific knowledge from academics to
entrepreneurs.”
Technology and Innovation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Inventors, Volume 13, Number 3
