Research Integrity and the High Stakes for Technology Transfer with Michael R. Samardzija

Most people hear the phrase “research misconduct” and think it’s an issue reserved for academia. But the truth is, it can rock the entire innovation ecosystem. One altered image in a dissertation might sound small, but it can snowball into collapsed companies, hundreds of millions in losses, and a deep erosion of trust in science itself.Joining me to dig into this reality is Michael R. Samardzija, Senior Counsel at Womble Bond Dickinson. Michael’s career is unique because he’s lived on both sides of the technology transfer world. He earned his PhD in Physiology and a Master’s in Exercise Physiology from Loma Linda University, then went on to get his JD from the University of San Diego. Over the past two decades, he’s worn many hats including Vice President of Research Affairs at Loma Linda University Health, where he launched the N3eight business incubator, Director of Intellectual Property at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and leadership roles at firms like Dentons and Bracewell & Giuliani. That blend of academic and legal experience gives him a rare perspective on the challenges TTOs face every day.Michael recently put a name to something many of us have only seen in fragments what he calls “Research Misconduct’s Butterfly Effects”. It’s the idea that what looks like a single, contained problem in a lab can ripple outward, creating consequences for commercialization, partnerships, and the credibility of institutions. Today, he’s here to break down those connections and share what they mean for technology transfer professionals navigating this complex landscape.In This Episode:[01:29] Michael’s dual background in law and academia is outlined, including his leadership roles and IP experience.[02:11] Michael explains “Research Misconduct’s Butterfly Effects” and why it matters for technology transfer professionals.[02:59] Defining research misconduct with fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, proven by preponderance of the evidence.[04:04] Misconduct in publications can invalidate patents, licenses, and commercialization efforts.[05:27] Michael shares how his career shaped his views on risk management for TTOs and the rising tide of retractions.[06:03] Licensees may begin requiring universities to warrant patents that are free of misconduct, a risk institutions must prepare for.[07:12] Tech transfer offices should consider sequestering underlying data to provide transparency for licensees.[07:51] Organized fraud networks, “paper mills,” and systemic pressures to publish are fueling misconduct at scale.[09:13] A student uncovers duplicate publications across different journals, leading to a retraction.[10:18] Publication mills profit by selling authorship or fabricated manuscripts, creating an industry of fraudulent science.[12:21] High-profile cases show faculty losing positions over fabricated or cherry-picked data, with countries like India now imposing strict punishments.[13:49] International collaborations bring value but also increase risk when oversight standards differ globally.[14:15] Case study of Athira Pharma illustrates how research misconduct spiraled into legal, financial, and reputational crises.[15:06] Faculty at Washington State University discover dementia drug candidate Dihexa and form a startup.[17:01] Millions in NIH funding and clinical trials follow, but manipulated images in early publications trigger scrutiny.[18:22] The former graduate student admits to embellishing images, yet fundraising and IPOs continue, raising over $400M.[20:04] A whistleblower files a False Claims Act suit, leading to DOJ involvement and company stock plummeting 40%.[21:16] The case settles for $4 million, with ongoing investigations, shareholder lawsuits, and SEC concerns.[23:02] Washington State University removes the student’s dissertation and launches an inquiry.[24:12] Athira’s valuation collapses from $670M in 2020 to $25M in 2025, showing the profound damage of misconduct.[25:00] Michael stresses the need for better due diligence, expert involvement, and clear standards on acceptable data/image alterations.[27:21] TTOs should resist warranties but offer licensees access to original data for their own investigations.[28:38] Retracted papers may serve as tools in patent prosecution or litigation, a double-edged sword for TTOs.[29:09] Practical steps for TTOs include careful fraud language in agreements and collaboration with research integrity offices.[32:01] Recommendations include close coordination with integrity officers, rapid response plans, and careful handling of inventor payouts.[34:24] Michael advises TTO professionals to self-report suspicions quickly to protect institutional reputation.[36:20] Tech Transfer professionals should innovate with integrity and stay vigilant against misconduct.Resources: Michael R. Samardzija - Womble Bond DickinsonMichael R. Samardzija - LinkedInMichael R. Samardzija - Loma Linda UniversityOffice of Research Integrity (ORI), HHS

What does it take to safeguard innovation while making sure the patent system truly serves inventors and society? That’s the heart of today’s conversation, and few people are better positioned to answer than Dr. Julie Burke.Today, she brings a unique perspective to the world of intellectual property and patent prosecution. Dr. Burke spent more than two decades in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, eventually stepping into the role of Quality Assurance Specialist in Technology Center 1600. Her path there was built on a strong scientific foundation: a degree in molecular biology, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and postdoctoral work at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where she earned a grant from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation to study the CFTR protein.At the USPTO, she examined applications in areas that changed the course of modern medicine such as cancer immunology and recombinant antibody technologies. She also handled more than 900 petitions and received multiple awards for her contributions to patent quality and international guidelines. After leaving the Office, Dr. Burke brought her expertise to Knobbe Martens, later founded IP Quality Pro LLC, and has since become a recognized voice through her expert witness work and widely published articles. She also advises Petition.ai and serves on the board of the Association for American Innovation, where she advocates for policies that encourage inventors to keep creating.Dr. Burke candidly opens up about her career journey, the culture inside the USPTO, and the systemic challenges that affect patent quality. She also points us toward a future where reforms, transparency, and a renewed commitment to excellence can strengthen the system while unlocking more innovation for everyone.In This Episode:[02:52] Dr. Burke shares her academic journey through Biogen, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, and Johns Hopkins, and how she was pointed toward the USPTO.[05:20] She reflects on family ties to public service and her idealistic start at the USPTO.[05:51] Early years as a cancer immunology examiner and later transition to Quality Assurance Specialist in TC1600.[08:26] She describes USPTO culture, personalities of examiners, and the complaints she fielded as a QA specialist.[10:36] Dr. Burke recounts being told that allowing a patent on first action would earn her a derogatory label, and what that revealed about PTO culture.[12:22] Discussion of the “reject, reject, reject” mentality and how examiners were pressured into repeat RCEs.[14:55] Dr. Burke introduces the Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) program and explains how it secretly blocked pioneering cases.[17:42] How SAWS expanded into looking at inventors’ backgrounds, including finances and character.[18:32] Comparisons to IRS “BOLO” lists and the chilling effect of having allowances pulled at the last moment.[28:48] Dr. Burke explains new challenges with petition review work, including restrictions and procedures that create extra burdens. [32:41] What needs to change to address some of these quality issues. [37:12] Hazing culture in the Patent Training Academy and high attrition among new examiners.[41:00] Impact of PTAB changes: trials scaled back, discretionary denials increased, and appeals expedited.[42:11] Loss of examiner tools like ChemDraw and SciFinder forces some to use personal computers, creating security risks.[52:28] Dr. Burke contrasts production bonuses with quality bonuses, and the damage this does to examination integrity.[55:12] Reports show 40% of litigated patents invalidated which goes back to flawed performance incentives.[58:40] Current restraints and cuts are hard on patent examiners and students and inventors. [01:02:15] We discuss examiner morale, loss of union protections, and management culture shifts.[01:05:47] She shares closing reflections on reforms needed for transparency, consistency, and examiner support.[01:09:32] Dr. Burke connects the role of professional “guilds” in maintaining quality, and draws parallels to historical trade guilds.[01:12:54] Optimism about the Association for American Innovation (AAI) and its independent reform agenda.Resources: Dr. Julie Burke - IP WatchdogDr. Julie Burke - LinkedInPetition AI

Biotechnology law has evolved from a niche specialty into one of the most complex and debated areas of intellectual property, and Dr. Jorge Goldstein has been at the center of that journey. A founding partner of Stern, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, Jorge has spent more than four decades helping define the legal boundaries of the life sciences while working alongside scientists, startups, and global institutions at the very front edge of discovery. His career path, shaped by mentors who saw the future in biology and patents, offers a rare window into how law and science grew together during the biotechnology revolution.His new book, Patenting Life: Tales from the Front Lines of Intellectual Property and the New Biology, captures that history through the people, cases, and controversies that shaped modern biotech. From the Chakrabarty decision that opened the door for patenting living inventions, to the Wands case that created the well-known enablement factors, Jorge brings to life the courtroom battles and policy debates that continue to influence how research becomes innovation. He also shares behind-the-scenes stories from his own practice, including the Myriad Genetics dispute over gene patents and the still-unfolding CRISPR battles that pit leading universities and scientists against each other.We also talk about artificial intelligence as the next great test for intellectual property law. With AI already designing new drugs and synthetic proteins, it raises the question of inventorship as more pressing than ever. The law still recognizes only human inventors. Change will have to come from Congress, and future generations of lawyers will be tasked with rewriting the rules for a world where human and machine creativity overlap. This conversation connects a past, present, and future that underscores how much the definition of “invention” shapes the pace of discovery.In This Episode:[01:21] Jorge describes how he came from Argentina to study chemistry at RPI, pursued a PhD at Harvard, and was encouraged by mentor Frank Westheimer to study biology.[02:15] Auditing James Watson’s molecular biology course opened his eyes to the future of genetics during the early days of recombinant DNA research.[03:45] He recalls being unaware of groundbreaking advances like monoclonal antibodies while focused on his thesis work.[04:48] Jorge explains why lab research didn’t suit him, realizing his temperament wasn’t suited for years of trial and error and delayed gratification.[06:32] A Harvard Law student introduced him to patent law, and he quickly saw its potential in the emerging field of biotechnology.[07:20] The Chakrabarty Supreme Court decision allowing patents on living organisms solidified his decision to enter biotech IP law.[08:21] Jorge recounts co-founding Stern Kessler Goldstein & Fox with Robert Stern, combining expertise in biology and electronics for a future-focused law firm.[10:15] Early interactions with young biotech companies like Genentech, Amgen, and Genetics Institute showed the demand for lawyers fluent in science.[11:48] He credits Marvin Guthrie of Massachusetts General Hospital with mentoring him on IP strategy and diplomacy in academic-industry partnerships.[13:31] Jorge explains how Guthrie, a founder of AUTM, gave him access to top scientists and Nobel Prize winners, shaping his approach to tech transfer.[14:51] He introduces his book Patenting Life and explains his motivation to document the history of biotech commercialization through human stories.[17:02] A writers’ circle helped him shed legal and scientific jargon, making the book approachable for a broader audience.[18:22] Jorge revisits the Myriad Genetics case over gene patents, explaining why eligibility battles over isolated DNA became so significant.[21:15] He describes the shock when a district court ruled that isolated genes were not patentable, contrary to decades of biotech practice.[23:48] The Federal Circuit reversed that ruling, with Judge Lourie emphasizing covalent bonds, before the Supreme Court ultimately sided against gene patents.[27:10] Jorge reflects on how the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Myriad reshaped eligibility standards under Section 101.[30:45] He notes how subsequent cases, including Prometheus and Alice, further unsettled patent law in diagnostics and other industries.[32:05] Jorge turns to In re Wands, explaining how it tested enablement of broad antibody claims and became a landmark case.[35:10] He recalls oral arguments before the Federal Circuit, including Judge Pauline Newman pressing the Patent Office on the impossibility of requiring unlimited deposits.[39:32] The resulting decision established the eight “Wands factors,” which remain central to enablement analysis today.[41:42] Jorge highlights how Wands has been cited thousands of times and even survived scrutiny in the recent Amgen v. Sanofi case.[44:15] He shares a personal story about Jack Wands, who the case was named after and dedicating a chapter of his book to him before his passing in 2023.[46:01] The conversation shifts to the CRISPR patent battle between UC Berkeley/Vienna and the Broad Institute, one of the most high-profile disputes in biotech law.[49:25] Jorge explains the interference process under the former first-to-invent system and why it made the CRISPR case especially complex.[52:10] Statements from Jennifer Doudna expressing scientific uncertainty were used against her in the legal proceedings.[54:40] He outlines how these admissions shaped arguments around conception versus reduction to practice.[57:16] Jorge recalls the year-long wait for the Federal Circuit’s ruling, which ultimately found that doubts expressed by inventors should not determine conception.[58:38] The appeals court sent the case back to the Patent Office with instructions to apply the correct legal test, leaving the battle unresolved.[1:00:08] He turns to emerging concerns about artificial intelligence in biotech innovation, from drug repurposing to protein design.[1:01:15] Jorge notes that current law does not recognize AI as an inventor, creating challenges for patenting AI-driven discoveries.[1:02:29] He argues that Congress should update patent law to allow AI to be recognized as a co-inventor, since control of patent rights is ultimately what matters.[1:03:15] Jorge closes by urging the next generation of lawyers to focus on AI’s impact on inventorship and the need for law to adapt to new models of innovation.Resources: Jorge A. GoldsteinJorge A. Goldstein - LinkedInJorge A. Goldstein, Ph.D. - Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & FoxPatenting Life: Tales from the Front Lines of Intellectual Property and the New Biology

Federal funding shakeups and new cost caps are hitting Tech Transfer offices from multiple angles. Jodie Richardson, Director of Customer Success at TechPipeline and Chair of AUTM’s Annual Meeting Planning Committee, has been right in the middle of these conversations. With a background in strategic planning, cross-functional leadership, and compliance, she’s been gathering insights from leaders across the country on how they’re coping along with what might come next.Her recent article, Weathering the Storm: How TTOs are Navigating Overhead Rate Caps and Federal Funding Challenges, dives into the real-world effects of these changes. In this conversation, Jodie talks about the hiring freezes and budget cuts many offices are facing, the drop in invention disclosures, and why those shifts could have lasting consequences for commercialization pipelines, startups, and research infrastructure. She also shares how teams are rethinking patent strategies, keeping industry relationships steady in a volatile climate, and preparing for an unprecedented level of federal compliance scrutiny.The discussion reaches into other stress points too including uncertainty around SBIR/STTR funding, the added hurdles in international collaborations, and the scramble to find alternative funding through alumni networks, foundations, and state programs. Jodie offers ideas for retaining talent, boosting staff morale, and making sure the public understands just how much academic research shapes everyday life. Even with all the challenges, she sees reason for optimism, pointing to the adaptability and problem-solving spirit that has always defined the tech transfer community.In This Episode:[01:12] Jodie explains what prompted her to write the article and how she brought together senior Tech Transfer leaders to talk through the fast-moving changes, challenges, and strategies.[03:22] She describes the anxiety and uncertainty created by daily breaking news affecting research and the innovation ecosystem.[05:19] The new 15% indirect cost cap from NIH, DOE, NSF, and now DOD is creating immediate concern, leading to hiring freezes, budget freezes, and reduced invention disclosures.[06:48] Staffing shortages are adding pressure to existing Tech Transfer staff who are trying to maintain operations and support faculty.[08:21] Researchers are spending more time securing alternative funding, adding to the workload for TTO staff who were already under stress.[09:40] Jodie outlines the potential long-term risks to commercialization pipelines, startup formation, and the wider innovation ecosystem if disclosure declines continue.[10:53] Patent strategies are shifting, with offices becoming more selective about filings, especially international patents, and focusing resources on cases with strong commercialization prospects.[12:17] Green energy, climate tech, biotech, and vaccine technologies are among the areas seeing greater selectivity.[13:04] Industry hesitation is impacting both sponsorships and licensing deals, with some master research agreements put on hold indefinitely.[14:57] Communication is key. Offices are proactively engaging with industry sponsors and licensees to understand concerns and salvage opportunities.[15:45] On August 8, the Trump administration announced a federal review of Harvard’s patents, threatening to exercise Bayh-Dole march-in rights.[17:35] Jodie talks about the unprecedented scale of this review and the short 30-day timeline to respond for thousands of inventions.[19:22] She stresses the importance of thorough documentation, compliance audits, and internal collaboration within the TTO.[22:41] The future of SBIR/STTR programs is uncertain, and startups are concerned about potential changes to qualification requirements and funding levels.[24:33] TTOs are partnering with venture support programs, industry engagement, and sponsored programs offices to help startups navigate possible funding gaps.[25:47] International collaborations face more red tape, with abrupt halts to some projects and tighter screening for partners in countries like China and Russia.[28:34] Ensuring licensees meet U.S. manufacturing requirements is becoming a greater priority in international deals.[29:21] Alumni foundations and state economic development programs are emerging as important sources of alternative funding.[31:28] Some states have increased funding to offset reductions in federal research dollars, though most cannot fully close the gap.[33:05] Jodie warns of the potential erosion of research infrastructure and loss of innovation leaders if talent leaves the U.S.[35:42] Institutions can help retain faculty and researchers by stepping in to support projects when funding is lost and easing the commercialization burden.[37:52] Shifts in research focus toward “safer” areas could reduce groundbreaking, high-risk innovations such as climate tech, vaccine development, and women’s health research.[39:35] Staff morale is being tested by uncertainty; transparent communication and safe spaces for discussion are critical.[42:21] National meetings like AUTM’s annual gathering provide opportunities for shared support, optimism, and advocacy.[43:40] Jodie sees a need for greater public education about how federally funded research works and the technologies it produces.[46:01] Even with the challenges, Jodie remains optimistic about the adaptability and resilience of the tech transfer community.Resources: Jodie Richardson - Tech PipelineJodie Richardson - LinkedInWeathering the Storm: How TTOs are Navigating Overhead Rate Caps and Federal Funding ChallengesSBIR/STTR Programs

America's leadership in global innovation depends on the critical link between federal policy and scientific funding. Cuts to research budgets, restrictions on international visas, and the rollback of diversity programs are converging to create uncertainty that threaten labs, universities, and communities that depend on them. What happens in the next budget cycle will determine whether the U.S. continues to set the pace for global discovery or risks ceding that ground to competitors eager to recruit American-trained talent.I’m thrilled to welcome back Kate Zernike, Pulitzer Prize–winning national correspondent for The New York Times. Kate brings both personal understanding and journalistic rigor to covering science policy. Her grandfather was Nobel Prize–winning physicist Frits Zernike, and she has spent decades reporting on the politics of research and innovation. She is perhaps best known for breaking the 1999 story of MIT’s admission that it had discriminated against women on its faculty. This reporting laid the foundation for her acclaimed 2023 book The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science. Her distinguished career also includes a Pulitzer for explanatory reporting on Al Qaeda in 2002, underscoring her ability to connect complex issues to the human stories behind them. In this episode, we discuss her recent reporting on two pivotal articles: U.S. Scientists Warn That Trump’s Cuts Will Set Off a Brain Drain and The Surprising Scientists Hit by Trump’s DEI Cuts. She explains how uncertainty is pushing young researchers to reconsider careers in science, forcing labs to halt promising projects such as mRNA cancer research, and eroding public trust in the scientific enterprise after COVID. She also reveals a surprising twist where many of the scientists most affected by DEI rollbacks are rural, first-generation, and conservative-leaning students who depended on those programs to access research careers. We also take on the breaking news of the federal government’s unprecedented investigation into Harvard’s patents under the Bayh-Dole Act, a move that raises profound questions about intellectual property, peer review, and the future of university–industry partnerships.In This Episode:[02:10] We’ll discuss Kate’s June 3rd article on Trump’s proposed funding cuts and the potential “brain drain” in U.S. science.[04:45] The American Dream story of Nobel laureate Ardem Patapoutian and concerns from scientists at Harvard and Johns Hopkins.[06:00] Why U.S. science relies heavily on international talent and the risks of disrupting this pipeline.[07:23] Cultural differences and how countries like India prioritize science as a top career path compared to the U.S.[08:23] Evidence of China, France, Germany, and others actively recruiting American-trained scientists.[10:03] Historical perspective and the migration of rocket scientists after WWII and how talent shaped U.S. supremacy in science.[12:22] NIH and NSF budget cuts, with biotechnology and computer science research seen as most vulnerable.[15:30] How federal research funding connects to U.S. competitiveness and public misconceptions of science.[18:45] Making the case for better science communication and opening up opportunities in science. [20:35] We talk about DEI grant cuts and the impact on rural and socioeconomically diverse scientists.[21:35] Stories of researchers like Lucas Dillard, Gabrielle Merchant, Ashley Albright, and Nicole Gross losing critical grants.[23:50] The lingering resentment toward science post-COVID and challenges in rebuilding public trust.[24:48] Simultaneous threats including funding cuts, talent loss, DEI program eliminations, and IP risks are compounding uncertainty.[27:00] The taxpayer debate and making the case for return on investment from university research.[29:20] Key message to policymakers is that sustained funding is essential to avoid halting critical discoveries.[30:01] Cancer research and mRNA projects at risk, including prostate cancer studies being shut down.[31:30] What gives Kate hope includes pushback from within the government, and scientists’ enduring joy, and commitment to discovery.[32:54] Where to find Kate’s articles and book, and a call to policymakers ahead of the 2026 budget cycle!Resources: Kate ZernikeKate Zernike - New York TimesKate Zernike - LinkedInExposing Discrimination in Science: The Story of Nancy Hopkins and MIT with Kate ZernikeU.S. Scientists Warn That Trump’s Cuts Will Set Off a Brain DrainThe Surprising Scientists Hit by Trump’s DEI CutsThe Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in ScienceFrits Zernike

The McGill Innovation Fund was created to fill a big gap in early-stage research funding and help promising ideas make the leap from the lab into the real world. In this episode, Senior Communications Advisor Junji Nishihata shares the story of how the fund came about in 2021, just as McGill University was marking its 200th anniversary, and why it’s different from other campus competitions. Instead of focusing on general entrepreneurship, the MIF is tied directly to research through a formal report of invention. With three funding tiers ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 and a yearly budget of up to $350,000, it offers serious support to faculty, startups, and researchers looking to license their work.But money is only part of the equation. Junji talks about the year-long support program that comes with every award bringing together alumni advisors, targeted mentorship, and practical workshops on everything from market strategy to regulatory pathways. The alumni network plays a huge role here, offering time, connections, and hard-won experience to help teams move forward.We also get an inside look at success stories like cleantech startup Altiro Energy and biotech company DendroTEK, plus a peek at what’s ahead for the fund. From themed competitions in AI and clean tech to a possible high-profile pitch day, the MIF is working to break down the “ivory tower” perception of academic research and show its real-world value.In This Episode:[01:15] The McGill Innovation Fund started when McGill University was looking forward to its 200th anniversary in 2021. They were looking for big moonshot ideas that they could use to excite alumni around the world.[02:05] At first they thought about making an investment fund, then they decided to focus on funding for early stage ideas.[02:50] Eligibility criteria include a report of invention because it's based on research. They declare what the concept is and then the technology transfer team examines it in detail. Is it novel? Is it patentable?[04:06] The objective of the innovation fund is to get stuff out of the lab and into the real world where it can make a difference.[06:07] The MIF is divided into three different prize tiers: the Discover at $25,000, the Develop at $50,000, and the Deploy at $100,000.[06:53] The yearly funding of a significant sum of money shows the university's commitment to innovation.[07:27] The initial funding came from royalties collected from past Innovation successes.[08:21] This shows that the university is serious about inventors and technology.[09:02] They are moving towards donor and corporate support.[10:16] The McGill Alumni Network is tremendous and has a lot of successful people who are willing to give back.[11:11] Junji shares more about the award tiers. [12:28] The McGill AMR Center or Antimicrobial Resistance Center offers a $75,000 top off in addition to the original award.[14:05] How the fund has created transformations. Altiro energy came to them in the development stage and became successful and moved on.[15:29] We learn about the support that is offered as well as funding. The big value comes in the support that follows the award. They develop a road map in conjunction with their alumni experts. They also have a series of Advisory board meetings every two months.[17:45] They also have the McGillConnect platform.[18:22] Tony Falco is a mentor that has started three companies. He's been in the trenches and knows how to help the teams.[19:34] They have about 75 alumni that they reach out to.[20:11] We learn about the success of DendroTEK.[21:26] We talk about what is next for the fund and future ideas. He would like to grow it into something similar to Shark Tank and raise the profile of the alumni.[22:36] He wants to show people the value that is created for society.Resources: Junji Nishihata - McGill UniversityJunji Nishihata - LinkedInJunji Nishihata - InstagramMcGill Innovation FundMcGillConnect Platform

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, or WARF, was created 100 years ago. It was a daring idea to turn scientific discoveries into real-world applications. Today marks the 100th anniversary. Since 1925, WARF has played a pioneering role in encouraging innovation, supporting scientific discovery, and ensuring that research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison benefits society.To commemorate a century of influence, we're joined by four members of the WARF team, each with their own take on the past and future. Holly Adams, Contract Manager; Lesli Mark, Accelerator Manager; Michael Falk, Chief Intellectual Property and Licensing Officer; and Maureen Miner, Director of Human Resources and Cultural Advancement.In this episode, we reflect on WARF's impact over the last century, from shaping national policy through the Bayh-Dole Act to commercializing breakthrough technologies in stem cell research, agriculture, and medical imaging.You'll learn how the team is evolving WARF's purpose through new programs like Startup Advantage, deeper industry involvement, and the intentional incorporation of AI into IP strategy. We also look at how WARF maintains its collaborative, mission-driven culture, and what this means for the next generation of researchers and innovators. It's a discussion about legacy, leadership, and what it takes to keep innovation going today and into the next century.In This Episode:[02:41] We learn what celebrating 100 years of WARF means to our guests personally and professionally. [03:37] WARF is an institution with stability even during ups and downs. It's a pleasure to serve a public research university.[04:07] Invest in research and make a difference. Turning university ideas into real world impact.[05:32] The Bayh-Dole Act was modeled on what WARF instituted and became a model for tech transfer around the country. [06:24] Technological contributions include work with stem cells.[07:51] How stem cell research helped a paralyzed man regain control of his extremities.[09:52] Holly talks about how the needs and complexities of licensing agreements have evolved over the years. They need to streamline the formation of startups coming out of Wisconsin-Madison.[10:29] The Startup Advantage Program is to help offset some of the costs that startups face.[11:16] Communication and a proactive approach is needed to create licensing agreements and needed changes.[12:06] How agreements and compliance have evolved overtime. They have a customized version of Salesforce and an online reporting tool.[13:39] The vital role of contract management with agreement obligations and compliance. Visiting local startups is also a great method.[14:43] Lesli is the Accelerator Manager for WARF.  A lot of their work is in licensing. There needs to be more advancement in these technologies coming off of campus. Methods of selecting technology and moving forward have changed.[16:22] Having subject matter experts helps accelerate the technology.[18:32] Identifying and supporting some of the most promising projects. They look at 400 disclosures a year and flag ones that they think will have market impact and need their help.[21:31] Opportunities and challenges of the next century of WARF include engaging with industry.[22:41] Michael talks about IP and licensing. They have always been inventor focused. Each disclosure is a product of an inventor's life's work.[24:26] Licensing success stories include advancements in medical imaging and radiopharmaceuticals and advances in agriculture.[27:22] AI challenges and opportunities and preparing for the future.[29:54] They are technology and inventor focused. Will a patent help a technology get out into the world?[32:09] Maureen talks about the people and the mission driven culture. A lot of people are engaged and excited about working at WARF. [33:35] They've focused on reaching everyone. All people can be inventors and they want to make sure that they can promote them and reach out.[34:13] They've been strategic about celebrating innovations.[35:02] They have a hybrid structure where they support and meet employees where they are. Along with a robust health and wellness program and benefits. They also encourage paid community involvement.[36:49] Taking the vision of WARF and turning it over to employees.[37:35] Michael is most proud of how researchers appreciate and respect WARF.[38:43] WARF offers employees the opportunity to learn and grow. [39:39] They are also very proud of the startups that they've been able to help.[40:07] Being a valued partner and being a helpful resource supports the culture. Along with connections with colleagues.[41:02] Carrying the WARF legacy forward. Resources: Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation: WARFHolly Adams - WARFHolly Adams - LinkedInLesli Mark - WARFMichael Falk - WARFMaureen Miner - WARFMaureen Miner - LinkedIn

The blue economy is rapidly evolving. There’s a growing demand for innovation that’s both sustainable and scalable. Leading this work is Millicent Pitts, CEO and Executive Director of Ocean Exchange. Over the last ten years, she has helped the organization identify and support cutting-edge solutions that protect ocean health and strengthen coastal systems.Millicent spent three decades in the chemical and materials industry, holding senior roles at BASF, Engelhard, Arco Chemical, and more. She also earned her MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. This background gives her a practical, business-minded approach to sustainability. She also serves as a mentor and judge for cleantech and ocean innovation competitions, including Creative Destruction Lab and NOAA’s Blue Economy Subcommittee.Ocean Exchange is a catalyst for turning research into real-world impact. Through its $100,000 Neptune Awards and collegiate grants, the organization has supported over 170 finalists who have collectively raised more than $3.2 billion in funding. Millicent discusses how these non-dilutive awards and mentorship programs help innovators move from idea to execution. We also discuss why Tech Transfer professionals play an important role in identifying talent and technologies that are suited for the blue economy.As one of just four national partners in NOAA’s Ocean Enterprise Accelerator, Ocean Exchange is expanding its reach through a well-funded initiative focused on ocean data, environmental resilience, and commercialization support. Today, we’ll highlight practical ways TTOs can engage, from encouraging student and faculty applications to joining review teams or helping innovators explore ocean use cases.In This Episode:[02:15] Millicent spent three decades in the chemical and materials industry. She benefited from working for companies that took environmental responsibility seriously.[03:22] Ocean Exchange has been around for 14 years and has a global reach. Their mission has always been to help advance the adoption of innovative solutions for healthy oceans and resilient coastal systems.[04:17] They moved from Savannah, Georgia to South Florida. South Florida is ground zero for many of these ocean and coastal system topics.[05:32] One of the things when she joined the organization was to make it more marketing and business friendly. [06:34] The more modern way of thinking of the blue economy embodies the idea that humans can use and interact with the ocean and not harm it.[07:22] In their 13 years of granting, they've had about 170 finalists who have raised 3.2 billion dollars. Most of it was in seed rounds and venture capital.[10:00] Ocean Exchange had a vision to find innovators and help their work have investment and societal impact.[13:17] Lives will be uplifted wherever these innovations are implemented.[14:04] How the ecosystem supports award applicants and winners beyond funding. A wide array of industry experts review the applications on impact, level of innovation, and ability to execute. This is part of their best network.[21:18] The $100,000 Neptune Awards. They take in philanthropy from families and corporations. After the selection process, they end up with 15 finalists. The award goes to any innovation about oceans and coastal systems.[22:55] Non-diluted funds are distributed meaning they don't take equity.[28:35] How tech transfer offices can leverage the collegiate awards which helps them reach undergraduates. Tech Transfer offices help connect the students.[33:13] We discuss applying to one or more of the NOAA accelerators. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, a part of the Department of Commerce, announced an accelerator program.[35:21] There are seven groups in the continuum that put forth a national model.[36:41] They want to reach more at the university and faculty level that have ocean use case innovations.[40:40] Each group gets a grant of 14 million dollars over 4 years. 40% of that will go through TDC Awards, Technology Development and Commercialization Awards.[41:13] Millicent manages these awards. The Great Lakes are also considered part of the ocean system. Most of the awards are between the range of 10,000 to 200,000 dollars.[42:30] You have to complete one of the accelerator programs also. You need to separately apply for the TDC award and say how you're going to use the money.[43:27] Goals include having at least $400,000 worth of non-dilutive grants.[45:18] She really wants Tech Transfer managers and executives to engage and maybe even be an expert on their review team. [46:14] There are great opportunities in the blue tech space, and they will help you through it.[46:40] Key deadlines: The collegiate grants have a deadline of September. There is still time if you're in the Americas to apply for the $100,000 award. Apply at Oceanexchange.org.Resources: Ocean ExchangeMillicent Pitts - LinkedInCreative Destruction LabNOAA Blue Economy SubcommitteeF6S [email protected](912) 257-0209

Clarity can come from lived experience, and Dr. Kirk Adams brings that clarity into every conversation about inclusion. After losing his vision at age five, he began a journey that would shape his life, and the lives of countless others. What started as a personal challenge became a lifelong mission to him. He wanted to create a world where people with disabilities are seen, valued, and included. This is a wonderful story of persistence, purpose, and real leadership.Dr. Adams has led some of the most influential organizations in the blindness and disability inclusion space. As the prior President and CEO of The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., and the American Foundation for the Blind, he focused on employment equity, community integration, and systemic change. He’s worked with tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to make sure accessibility is part of the design. He’s also contributed to boards and task forces across sectors.Now as Managing Director of Innovative Impact, LLC, Dr. Adams partners with organizations to build cultures of inclusion from the inside out. He believes that accessibility is about connection, opportunity, and the kind of leadership that invites people to bring their full selves to work. His academic background, including a Ph.D. on the employment of blind adults in corporate America, only deepens his understanding of the structural barriers so many still face and what it takes to overcome them.In this episode, Dr. Adams shares lessons from his own journey, insights into the role of accessible innovation, and why hiring people with disabilities is smart business. Whether he’s talking about universal design or how to build trust through self-disclosure, he has a consistent message that inclusion benefits everyone. In This Episode:[04:44] We learn about Dr. Adams' personal journey of having detached retinas as a child and losing his vision.[05:29] His parents actually moved to Oregon, so he could go to the Oregon School for the Blind.[06:02] He was given three things at the school including skills needed for blind people such as traveling while blind and learning Braille. He was also given the gift of high expectations and the strong belief that he could overcome obstacles and solve problems.[07:53] He had strong internal locus control meaning he was able to do things.[08:26] After graduating from college, he had to go through the super arduous task of trying to find a job.[09:52] After working in finance, he pivoted into the nonprofit sector, so he could create environments and opportunities for other people with disabilities.[10:28] Leadership was the best lever he could use to create change. He got a masters and PhD in leadership because he felt this was the way to really implement change.[14:52] Common barriers to workforce inclusion for people with disabilities include transportation and employer attitudes. Many don't understand that the lived experience of disability gives people unique opportunities to develop strengths that are really important in the workplace.[17:13] The role of accessible innovation in creating a more inclusive workplace. We discuss the difference between an impairment and a disability.[19:05] We want to reduce disabling situations as much as we can.[20:37] Many people do not want to disclose their mental health issues. One of the best ways to help accommodate people with disabilities is to provide needed accommodations.[22:47] Measuring disability inclusion in the workplace.[24:34] Studies have shown that if 20% of the workforce has a disability, it becomes a better and more inclusive environment.[25:28] Having inclusion for people with disabilities through all the processes of tech transfer.[28:17] The importance of collecting demographic data for inclusion purposes.[31:10] How things have changed and inclusivity is now a matter of discussion. [32:02] Accelerating inclusion and encouraging the adoption of accessible technologies.[34:35] It's important to preserve implementation and enforcement of things like the American Disabilities Act. [35:31] How data for people with disabilities are underrepresented in large language models. Bias can be built into these models.[37:46] Projects and initiatives that Dr. Adams is currently working on include The Apex Program that helps launch blind people into cyber security careers.[39:50] The ultimate goal is to have the same outcomes for people with disabilities as the general population has.Resources: Dr. Kirk AdamsDr. Kirk Adams - LinkedInDr. Kirk Adams - YouTubeThe APEX Program

This month we are honoring the history, achievements, culture, and ongoing advocacy of people with disabilities. This is our third episode celebrating Disability Pride Month. Today, we're privileged to speak with Dr. Jutta Treviranus, a true pioneer in inclusive design. As the director of the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) at OCAD University in Toronto, Dr. Treviranus has been instrumental in shaping global accessibility laws and influencing the tech standards that major companies use. She has been constantly pushing the limits of what genuinely inclusive digital environments can be. Among her many achievements, she's been honored with the prestigious AI for Good - DEI AI Leader of the Year Award from Women in AI. Her entire approach is built on advocating for those whose experiences don't fit the "average" mold.In this episode, you'll learn about her "human starburst" metaphor and how it's changing design philosophy, why focusing on diversity at the edges of a system actually makes those systems more resilient and adaptable and what it really takes to confront bias in the age of AI. Dr. Treviranus shares powerful stories from the trenches, showing how inclusive design is a powerful driver for innovation that ultimately benefits us all.In This Episode:[02:22] Inclusive Design or the Canadian School of Inclusive Design is focused on an understanding that diversity is our greatest asset and inclusion is our greatest challenge.[03:28] The "human starburst" is a growing data set of what people need to thrive.[04:52] In the middle there's a cluster of 80% of the needs of all the population, the remaining 20% of the needs are distributed from that. The needs in the middle are more similar the further apart ones are different.[06:08] Most products designed are for the 80%.[07:22] The unexplored terrain leaves room for innovation.[08:01] The Canadian school starts at the edge and designs for those where things aren't working. It creates an adaptive environment.[09:17] Why inclusive design is critical in our digital age. We are replicating the same pattern instead of transforming. If we design our systems for people that are struggling, we will create things that work for us.[10:52] The inclusive masters program launched at OCAD University back in 2010. They wanted to ensure it meant the largest range of needs.[13:08] What Jutta feels are her significant contributions to inclusive design.[13:30] She's proud of the students who take this mindset and expand it and the organic growth of a new way of looking at things.[16:17] We learn about IDRC's We Count project. By the time chat GPT came out AI was already affecting major critical decisions in everyone's life.[17:27] If we continue this pattern we'll do quite a bit of harm to ourselves and outliers. Such as AI hiring where there's a pattern for the optimal employee. This can amplify discrimination already present and lead to monocultures.[19:29] It's a statistical reasoning machine with no guidance and nothing filtered out. Jutta is trying to address the needs of people who are vulnerable and most harmed by these systems.[21:31] There's an uptick in collateral damage to people who aren't like the average, including iatrogenic death and illness.[23:01] We Count is trying to invert the algorithm and look for different perspectives.[25:48] We Count has been in existence since 2016.[28:07] The importance of engaging the intended beneficiaries and the people who have the most difficulty with whatever you're designing.[29:40] What tech transfer students should know about innovation and inclusion to ensure innovations are accessible and beneficial to the widest audience.[31:13] Engaging more with the community will help embed inclusive design into the tech transfer process.[33:00] One of the biggest misconceptions is that inclusive design costs more.[37:01] Jutta shares advice for championing inclusion in our work. Look for the edges of the human starburst.Resources: Inclusive Design Research Centre OCAD UniversityJutta Treviranus - OCAD UniversityJutta Treviranus - LinkedInWe Count: IDRC's Inclusive Artificial Intelligence (AI) Initiatives