Tech Transfer Talk

Our annual policy pilgrimage took place this month with Jane O'Dwyer from Cooperative Research Australia and my colleague Faisal Younus joining me to discuss the 2026 National Innovation Policy Forum and Built Here Parliamentary Showcase held in Canberra this month. After opening with remarks from David Thodey and Catherine Livingstone, we reflect on previous forum themes and explore why the 'Built Here' theme was timely for 2026. Reinforcing to politicians the importance of innovation as an underlying driver for improved productivity and economic outcomes was seen as critical in maintaining momentum for investment in the innovation system. Faisal reflected on the showcase and noted that 'built here' needed to include opportunities for regional and rural Australia to move beyond raw material sources to more value-added industries. Jane noted that the showcase reinforced that we can build industries and companies and the full potential of the innovation system was on display. We spent a little time reprising the nexus between innovation and economic outcomes, the role of central agencies, and the need for policy and political leadership to recognise the connection. Jane expressed the hope that the National Resilience and Science Council, led by the Prime Minister, will drive action. Faisal reflected on the need to challenge the definitions of success in the innovation system, and how innovation meets paying customers and generates export revenue. In part, this is also around the role of government as a customer and how procurement policy changes (raised by David Foreman from Technology One a few years back) still need adjusting to at least level the procurement playing field! We cannot continue to invest public funds into technology development and then be surprised when they go offshore for customers. Jane reinforced that this theme has emerged at all previous forums and at all the tables on the day, noting this is also discussed in the halls of parliament around who is buying the resulting products from the domestic innovation system. We touched on Magellan Power and Gap Drone as contrasting examples of where government creates markets. Roy Green sought to articulate why innovation matters, and we discussed a concept he introduced of comparative versus competitive advantage. Jane noted we can 'walk and chew gum' using quantum as an example. Faisal introduced the question of choices and where we might choose to lead or actively choose to stop funding. Related to the concept of choice, Aaron Violi, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy, Science, Technology and Innovation, and for Cyber Security, touched on the global competition for capital and talent. We then had a discussion inspired by Anton Middelburg around systems, and systems within systems! The government's ambitions were summarised by Tim Ayres, Minister for Industry and Innovation, and Minister for Science. We returned to innovation and, specifically, technology adoption and where are the strategies to drive adoption. Faisal contended that we are too fascinated with the next technology and not committed enough to getting today's technologies into the hands of paying customers. We reflected on Australia's absorptive capacity and Jane introduced the analogy of international footballers developing and building their skills abroad and then bringing them together as part of national teams. We closed thinking asking what the real test of sovereign capability is and perhaps looking to this issue as a theme for the 2027 Forum. Jane shared more of her next journey to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Our final reflection was taken from Sophia Hamblin Wang, Shannon Willoughby and Roy Green, raising the question of how to make the innovation system as part of the voter calculus at the next election. I wrapped up with an observation from Jean Claude Juncker on the conundrum facing modern politicians and political parties.

Clare Tubolets joins me this month of the podcast, discussing innovation in the world of concrete and construction. I have gotten to know Clare through the Cooperative Research Centre National Innovation Policy Forum and was keen to explore some of the opportunities and challenges in building and construction. We start, as we generally do, with Clare sharing some of her journey to her current role as CEO of the Smart Crete CRC. She shared some of her early innovation experiences arising from the Sense T project, from her time in Tasmania. Through her journey from that project, and the Food Agility CRC, Clare found a passion for innovation and impact. Clare shared the challenges that reducing carbon emissions presents to the cement and concrete industries. In Australia, 29 million cubic metres of concrete is used, which is 2/3rds of all building materials we use – second only to water. Australia has unique construction challenges that need attention, driving the need for innovation through a complex supply chain. Clare shares her 4 Barriers Framework, where technical, market, regulatory and policy, and skills and capabilities, present as challenges in bringing technology and innovations to market. We touch on how sustainability can be a purpose for change, but ultimately adoption tends to fall back to time, cost and performance metrics. We spend some time exploring how the regulatory environment presents some additional challenges to adoption. While naturally regulators are conservative in this regard, given the possible consequences of failure, there are some interesting challenges around local needs and global precedents. We speculated on a single change and the cost of no change over the 15 years it took to get regulatory approval for a change already adopted in other jurisdictions. We then talked about 3D concrete and the opportunities that this presents to local industry, and a pathway to addressing a number of social, environmental and labour challenges through a near 'off the shelf' technology. We again find regulatory challenges, in this case, being how does policy and regulation keep up with the speed of innovation and change – a problem not unique to the construction industry! On reflection, we recognise that at their core, these are not inherently technological or market, but challenges arising from current cultural norms and risk appetites of the people involved. In looking to change behaviour and norms, Clare shared some of her organisation's efforts to build skills and capabilities in industry, with the aspiration of making sustainable products the default choice of the system. While there are great stories on sustainable infrastructure, concrete is used in a lot of mundane, unsexy applications that are price sensitive, not necessarily sustainability orientated.   We close reflecting on emerging opportunities for Australian construction, current examples of where innovation is taking place such as Quay Quarter Tower and North-East Link, and the opportunities emerging in asset management with sensor systems. I particularly liked the framework that Clare shared, and hope this offers some new foundations for thinking about innovation adoption. (Yes, pun intended!)

I had the great privilege to have Steve Weiss join me on the podcast this month. Steve Weiss, CEO and co-founder of Grey Heron, and a member of Jim Lane's notorious 'Due Diligence Wolfpack', shares key lessons in building commercial traction, securing investors and more. Building on themes that we have explored previously with Paul Bryan, Roger Wyse, Andy Shafer and Jim Lane, Steve also shares insights into how to get deals done. Steve brings an extraordinary range of experience into our discussions, having started out from MIT into the world of software and IT and then migrating to the world of biobased economy, materials and clean technology, we explore a number of aspects of getting deals done. We open the discussion in earnest reflecting on how interesting and/or superior technology can be interesting, but a clear and precise value proposition is a critical consideration in bringing companies and products to market. We explore a little bioproduct history, reflecting on the comparative success of companies bringing succinic acid and 1,4 butanediol to market. Steve reflected on the successes of Genomatica (who were recently acquired by Again) and the relative merits of both products and the commercial implications. The notion of platforms and the challenges of undertaking product and market development were discussed, and the associated requirements of building new supply chains and value propositions and Steve touched on Paul Bryan's 'one miracle rule'. We then explore the importance of economics, and specifically production economics and the effect of different strategies on financing and partnering requirements. We reflect on how Contract Manufacturing Organisations (CMOs) can be partners that build value and potentially lower capital raising requirements and contrast that with what is needed to internalise manufacturing. Steve introduced a profound question – 'What do you need to be when you grow up?'! Steve suggested that this is articulating credible and defensible pathways to scale. He then reflected on the notion of technology platforms with multiple uses and the need to focus on what creates value in identified markets to create the foundations of the business. Getting focus and delivery creates not only free cashflow but offers optionality having 'earned the right' to pursue other opportunities. This had me reflecting on wisdom from Ganesh Kishore around having a vertical that you own in contrast to a broader licensing play. Steve then offered a different angle on licensing, product distribution and market understanding: 'There's no substitute to hearing from the customer.' We spent a little time reflecting on Letters of Intent (LOIs) and how they create customer intimacy and value for organisations raising capital. Steve offered insightful approaches to the range of LOI outcomes and how they can catalyse uncovering of interest in new products. LOIs can be a great litmus test for genuine interest in a new offering. Steve offered another perspective on how to build customer intimacy, by holding out an offer to 'love them best' by bringing them 'inside the tent'. We closed on reflecting on 'valleys of death' and 'pivoting' – two phrases that we found respectively induced allergic reactions! These phrases may be becoming excuses and perhaps point to the need to deal with the (perhaps brutal) realities of raising funds and/or bringing new products to market and the resilience needed to do so. Amongst those 'hard lessons', Steve reflected on where there are, in my words, 'silent submarines' that are surfacing and perhaps again showing that commercial success is not necessarily correlated with 'market noise'.

This month it was a great pleasure to reconnect with Peter Tregear, both school and college colleague, to explore the world of innovation and in turn technology transfer in music. This was a thoroughly engaging discussion for me, with my less than amateur music knowledge and skills being rekindled, and perhaps reimagined, as Peter took us from Sumer to synthesised music. It also took me back to some of our more profound discussions on theological and indigenous concepts of tech transfer with John Bloomer and Chris Matthews respectively. Peter describes his journey into music as getting sucked into a whirlpool, having focused on science with some practical music studies at high school, he enrolled in an undergraduate science course at the University of Melbourne. However, he leapt across to the school of music and the rest, as they say, is history! Peter reflected on the impact of co-curricular activities at Melbourne High School and Ormond College and the innate curiosity that this drives to take on different experiences. I shared with Peter my fascination with Howard Goodall's Big Bangs and wanted to get his perspective on which of these – notation, pianoforte, opera, equal temperament, sound recording – was of greatest importance. Peter was firmly in the notation camp, and shared with us the story of notation, as a means to preserve, manipulate and standardise music through the ages – most surprisingly seeing notation as an early triumph of bureaucracy in the Catholic Church! Peter then went on a tour de force on western music, reflecting on how notation has driven many of the things we take for granted as an audience, and some of us as players and performers. Drawing on how writing things down enabled music to be connected through time between composers, performers and audiences, and contrasting western pitch centricity to other cultural systems. I was quite struck to discover the notion of microtonality, and how G# and Ab are not in fact the same note (except on a piano keyboard!) We then took the chance to reflect on the rise of digital music formats and how music has been at the forefront of digital commerce. We took a quick tour from Edison's phonograph through radio, LPs, the rise and fall of HiFi culture to CDs and solid state recordings. Peter felt that the composer is being replaced by the role of a producer, able to sample and lean into the use of Large Language Models (LLMs), prompting the broader question as to whether notation is perhaps coming to the end of its reign as the great music enabler. We closed around the increasing use of AI and its impact on music, both in production and its cultural connection to human centred activities and consumption. In seeking authenticity, is there a need to know a human composed or produced what you hear? And the need for a tangible connection to the intangible, by way of CD or LP, akin to holding a book in a library or from one's own shelf.

I had the opportunity to unpack the NorVic Foods ecosystem with Lisa Birrell (who was CEO) and Greg Harper (who drove the genesis of the initiative). With the ongoing conversations in Australia around innovation ecosystems (which we have had with John Howard), the need for better industry engagement (which we have had most recently with Jane Fitzpatrick) and the challenges of building regional ag innovation systems (discussed sometime back with Elena Kelavra), this presented as a coming together of these threads. We set the scene as to the idea behind NorVic Foods (which is an abbreviation of Northern Victoria Foods) given its geographic centre was Shepparton in Victoria. At its heart, it was a different approach to building an ecosystem, putting established industry at the centre of the initiative to draw innovation in. This sits in contrast to ecosystems seeking to build new ventures driving to push innovation out. Given the partnership between (State) government, University of Melbourne and regional industries, we spent some time discussing the governance model and associated metrics with securing the funding. A Project Control Board was established as part of ensuring alignment between projects, capabilities and available resources. This underpinned the early efforts of Lisa (who was appointed CEO) to start building connections between the university (from which students would be placed) and industry (where their internships would take place). Greg and Lisa were able to share some examples of success, which were not only interesting in their own right but got me thinking about how to define and describe success. They shared that the work delivered by student had, in some cases, made its way into business case proposals to executive and board level in the private sector. It struck me this is a really great outcome, as the circumstances in which investment might be made are well outside the remit or even influence of those undertaking the technical program. While we do focus on economic outcomes, some recognition should be found for students and, perhaps, researchers whose work underpins investible propositions that don't get invested in for a range of reasons? Particularly interesting were the insights gained from the four- year journey of NorVic Foods from each of Greg and Lisa. A key insight was around the 'Nascent Value Chain Club' that Greg described – bringing some economic theory into how an ecosystem can create value beyond the sum of its parts. With the program funding closing after four years, Lisa felt they had really only "just got started" with driving connections and impact through the region.

In our first joint podcast, I joined Victoria Meyer and The Chemical Show to explore technology transfer and innovation in the chemical industry. The chemical industry is where I got my start, with Dow Chemical and subsequently Akzo Nobel (now Nouryon), and I have maintained my deep interest in and passion for the sector over the years. The opportunity to continue this through the biobased economy, industrial and agricultural biotech, made for a really contrasting foundation to Victoria's journey in petrochemicals at Shell, Amoco, Lyondell Basell and Clariant. I got asked a really fundamental question being 'what is tech transfer' and from there, we started to explore productisation, the challenges of valuation and risk, and the need to demonstrate products and the ability to scale. Perhaps somewhat harshly, I pointed to a general ignorance of the complexity of tech transfer as being one of the limiting factors in bringing innovation to market. In reflecting further in our discussion, we explored the different skills needed in varying business phases and strategies. Victoria raised biosurfactants as a really interesting example of how innovation works with larger organisations and their partnerships with smaller, arguably nimbler, organisations. I noted the importance of both outsourcing of risk and the criticality of an internal champion. We also talked about the risk of internal disruption on operations as part of why larger organisations might struggle to develop and adopt innovations. Victoria noted that efficiency and effectiveness are being redesigned and that smaller scale, distributed assets may be more of the future as part of an increasing focus on resilience – which will require more innovation through supply chains. The search for greater supply chain and production resilience will call for changed approaches to innovation and culture which will, in turn, have an organisational fitness cost. Cost, not just in economic terms, but in behavioural and cultural dimensions. Victoria paused to reflect on how many things have to come together and we started to unpack that multidimensional problem by focusing on measuring value. We started on the dynamics of public and private ownership and finance and the leadership and executive incentives around performance. Ultimately, it's about meeting customer needs and being relentlessly focused on these. In doing so, it may require a more porous or open innovation model compared to the days of doing it all in house. Victoria noted the 'not invented here syndrome' may run counter to that dynamic and then went on to note that merges and acquisitions are a path being pursued to access innovation and gave a great contemporary example of internal (human) dynamics which highlighted for me that humans to tech transfer and M&A, not organisations. Victoria asked the question of the role of the board and the executive team in technology transfer and innovation. I suggested it's around articulation of risk appetite and tolerance. We compared agriculture and chemicals and found chronological similarities. Victoria suggested that the onus is more on the executive team rather than the board. With smaller boards, they have greater influence, but it's more the executive team where there are independent boards. Victoria noted that filtering and biases may be impacting what the board hears and the C-suite interpretation from the board. Ultimately, it's about risk tolerance and management to deliver profitable organisations. However, innovation can also be seen as a means to lower risk, in contrast to a direct improvement in profitability. Victoria introduced the question of measuring the value arising from innovation, contrasting investments in digital vs (operational) capital. I suggested that this is an eternal challenge in tech transfer and some soothsaying involved in an attempt to measure progress and set expectations. I highlighted the need to have clear assumptions and conditions for success in measuring progress. Digital is particularly interesting, and particularly AI, and looking back to internal investment in longer term R&D wondered whether the loss of internal risk appetite makes innovation investments harder to justify and/or measure. Victoria reflected on her experience with Shell's re-entry into the polyethylene business. An observation drawn from her experience is that the more established one becomes, the riskier a misstep becomes. She also shared some of her experiences in building her current digitally enabled business. Victoria noted that there are no control group experiments with her digital innovation. We compared the need for control in some areas but not necessarily all and rely on human interpretation of results and using ai for augmentation of decisions. We talked around regulation and its impacts following Victoria's discussion with Chris Jahn and how  innovation and customer orientation can assist in dealing with differences between jurisdictions. Victoria highlighted that many leaders recognise the need for prudent regulation to ensure there are good operators in the industry. The challenge is that things aren't adapting fast enough. Sustainable and safer products exist but these need to be approved and regulated. I asked about enforcement and consequence, as a lack of enforcement leads to cultural and behavioural change, reflecting on the Responsible Care program, and the risk of that weakening. Victoria suggested that, beyond punitive damages, the social, or brand damage incurred by poor or bad faith actors in the system had some deterrent effect. Victoria noted a shift from 'big S' sustainability to 'small s' sustainability in her ACI 2025 wrap and believes that this is driven by an industry pragmatism and  shift from early 2020s to now. She drew on her personal experience with solar panel acquisition and the arising economic or commercial burden. We touched on a few examples which echo the challenge of the 'perfect getting in the way of the good'. We closed with Victoria highlighting that the chemical industry does take a form of waste from petroleum and converts the carbon into an array of products, with BASF Ludwigshafen being the example offered and me reflecting on the agro-industrial complexes associated with the corn, sugar and pulp & paper industries.

I had the chance to catch up with Dennis Voznesenski, who hosts a regular Commonwealth Bank Agri Podcast. Dennis is an Agricultural Economist and author of War and Wheat: navigating markets during global conflict and is a frequent commentator on Australian agricultural markets and dynamics. With a general sense in Australia that we struggle for demand side innovation, I felt a conversation with Dennis who is focussed on industry would make for an interesting set of perspectives. Dennis shared insights on the current challenges facing Australian farmers, particularly regarding rising costs of fuel and fertiliser due to global events. It was interesting that he framed the innovation opportunity around cost of production as he described Australian farmers as price takers and as such, this is what they could control. We spent some time exploring the role of agtech with Dennis sharing some operational examples. More specifically, I was interested in blockchain or the broader concept of traceability. Dennis noted that the need for traceability could result in two parallel supply chains forming. In the absence of a premium to cover these additional costs, I wondered how value could then emerge. We touched on the notion of 'mass balances' and Closed Loop Identity Preserved (CLIP) approaches to traceability and value creation. Dennis highlighted that systems are being set up, for example around emissions, and some markets are calling for this but there is no immediate ROI. As an afterthought, as I reflect on our conversation, there could be additional costs borne by producers and the broader supply chain! We circled back to the price taker concept and shared a few personal examples of higher value ag products, such as Nufarm omega-3 canola and Arista high-amylose wheat and wondered if they were simply too small to be seen in the bigger picture? It was interesting how these examples of genetics lead us back to production costs and the importance of innovation and commercialisation of input traits to deliver scalable benefits. Given the contemporary challenges in Australian fuel security, we closed our conversation around the opportunities for agricultural feedstocks and their local conversion to low carbon liquid fuels. Dennis reflected on his book and noted that fuel, fertiliser and ships were critical factors to production and trading security. We briefly explored a few scenarios for biobased low carbon liquid fuels before Dennis concluded, noting the endless opportunities for innovation that addresses production costs.

I had the chance to follow up with Jane Fitzpatrick on her powerful closing remarks at a panel session at the National Innovation Policy Forum last year. Jane is CEO of the Australian National Fabrication Facility, and her organisation sits at the intersection of science, innovation, translation and market pull. Given the challenges we've been highlighting on the podcast around the industry pull, and the recent Strategic Examination of R&D (SERD) report, Ambitious Australia, it seemed a great time to build on her comments last year. We opened a little unusually, in that we started where we left off from Podcast 55 (2025 National Innovation Policy Forum Review: Coordination and Translation) with Jane O'Dwyer, revisiting Jane's compelling observations around skills and experiences for tech transfer, and how these contrast with the training and, at times, interests of researchers. It was interesting to hear how ANFF had sought to build on the engagement with its client base and ecosystem, seeking to provide tech transfer support. The delivery of tech transfer support through ANFF-C was discussed and the 'C' stood for more than commercialisation, which I saw as really insightful and an important broadening of what happens in tech transfer beyond the focus on commercialisation. I reflected on the moving of a cohort of researchers from 'unconscious incompetence' to 'conscious incompetence' around tech transfer. Jane then drew a contrast between Research Infrastructure (of which ANFF is considered as part of the  National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), and Technology Infrastructure, which she noted is an emerging concept in Europe as a step up in scale, where contract manufacturing and larger production runs are needed, but the business case for a full scale (owned and operated) manufacturing facility may not yet stack up. We explore how that might play out in Australia and the need to focus on areas of strategic importance – like the six pillars that the Ambitious Australia report has offered. We spent some time exploring the opportunity that quantum presents for Australia, as an example of strategic focus. Jane drew in a few ecosystem and sovereign examples of where strong strategic commitment has established long-term competitive advantage. In exploring the quantum opportunity, Jane shared the breadth of applications that exist now and emerging, comparing it to the journey 'nanotech' has been on where, now, it is mainly about applications and problem solving rather than fundamental science. We spent some time discussing the demand side challenges for innovation and tech transfer. Reflecting on the culture of SMEs in Australia, we explored how SMEs constantly innovate to solve challenges but just don't necessarily call it innovation! Jane further contends that we have not done the demand side of innovation well, as problems don't necessarily get brought to researchers or startups to find solutions—these cohorts don't always, perhaps even rarely, position themselves as problem solvers, so how do they get found and connected? This brought to mind Katherine Woodthorpe's insights from Episode 17 where she asked, 'Where is the front door?' We closed our discussions around building networks and connections to help anticipate and address industry challenges. The networks in the NCRIS community are continuing to strengthen, and I reflected back on a question of Andy Shafer's (who joined us on Episode 36), 'How can we help you be successful?'

I had the great pleasure of catching up with Jarett Abramson, who was 'between gigs' since his departure from Provivi and his imminent (and arguably eminent) commencement at BASF in Europe. The journey started for Jarett with writing patents on cranberry juice extract and we explored how that path to market unfolded. In his private practice, he found himself working across a number of industry sectors, but fate kept bringing him back to the ag industry. When moving from the private firm to private sector (being initially Dow Pharma then Dow Agrosciences, the latter now part of Corteva Agriscience), he reflected on the change in culture. Even at this early stage of his journey, technology transfer and 'learning through the role' became apparent. We touched on the idea of a 'traditional path' in technology transfer, quickly noting that there isn't really a definition and different experiences are key. Jarett then moved from Indianapolis to Mexico City in changing roles from private sector to NGO at CIMMYT. While the same underpinning objective is 'bringing products to the marketplace', Jarett noted that there are very few 'silver bullets' in agriculture. He shared some of his experiences in contrasting the private and public sector tech transfer environments and objectives. Jarett then shared his continuing journey in public sector ag & food tech transfer in his move to COO at Agriculture Victoria Services. In reflecting on the change, it reinforced how important relationships are through the world of tech transfer and the need to 'understand the business in order to move forward'. We spent some time discussing risk from the perspective of an attorney within a business. While exploring his preferred risk framework, Jarett noted that the hardest thing is remembering what the risks are and in turn, the importance of active risk registers, concluding that in order to be successful you have to take risk. Jarett re-entered the private sector in moving back to Los Angeles with Provivi and became a 'jack of all trades' through his new venture journey. We spent a little time specifically discussing patents and patent strategy in a new venture setting. Specifically, we contrasted big corporates with new ventures. Another area of tech transfer we spent some time exploring was product translation, understanding cost of goods sold (COGS) and the scale up journey. In agriculture the importance of local demonstrations was highlighted as results don't always translate between regions. We closed with Jarett reflecting on a few life lessons and setting the scene for his impending move to Europe.

In our annual podcast leading into Science Meets Parliament, we had the opportunity to discuss innovation, tech transfer and research translation with Jasmine Chambers, Science & Technology Australia President and Professor Stephen Rodda, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Industry & Innovation) at UNSW. With STA building on their bench to boardroom initiatives with their new 'Science Meets the Economy' Program, Jas and Stephen shared their experiences and reflections with the Australian innovation system, and their respective journeys through research and translation. It was interesting to have Jas note that her early forays into translation were catalysed by frustration! In contrast Stephen shared his observations and experiences from his time in Boston and London. A question we spent some time discussing was where is industry to capitalise on the domestic innovation ecosystem – a theme that we have touched on through the podcast regularly over past months. Stephen reflected on lessons from the invention and subsequent acceleration of solar technology and how Australia can ensure that it captures more of the industry and research opportunities and associated value with emerging technologies. We had a great conversation around the role of private sector culture, the role, or lack of role, for science and engineering in board and strategy decision making. This was contrasted with other countries, in particular Germany, where greater value is placed on these perspectives. It is the opportunity to build the presence of technology perspectives into strategy and decision-making that sits and the heart of improvements in productivity and economic complexity. These themes have been discussed with Greg Harper, Jane O'Dwyer and Catherine Livingstone amongst others. Jas identified language and communication as an important linker in building trust and value between different business communities – e.g. STEM, finance, marketing and perceptions how that lack of trust means risk and opportunity discussions become limited. Ultimately these connections are built through relationships and proximity.