As many have heard, the AUTM Program Committee has scheduled 2 debates for the upcoming Annual Meeting. The Committee endeavored to select relevant, controversial and interesting topics – little did the Committee know how on-the-mark it would be!
Both of the debate topics have recently received wide public attention. The SACGHS report came out last year providing suggestions to limiting the patenting of genomic inventions, and the final report is due in short order (surely to spark controversy). More recently the Kauffman Foundation Harvard Business Review snippet and subsequent letter to the Commerce department surfaced suggesting that university inventors should be allowed to select their own licensing agent, irrespective of their academic affiliation.
I couldn’t imagine a better precursor to the AUTM debates.
AUTM responded to both the aforementioned genomics report and letter to Commerce. Did AUTM get it right or wrong? Do we have blinders on, to the extent that we cannot see other perspectives, and appreciate other ideas? Not necessarily, but the AUTM debates are intended bring to light both sides of each issue, so that we can begin to appreciate each others’ perspectives. By developing a deeper understanding of the issues and others’ points of view, we will be better equipped to serve our faculty inventors, to advocate our positions, and to advise our institutions on these matters.
Ann Hammersla and Scott Elmer have done an exemplary job organizing the debates – Ann is in charge of the debate on patenting genomic inventions; Scott, the debate covering inventors’ roles in commercializing their inventions. I rarely get to use the ablative absolute sentence structure, so I am pretty psyched about that last sentence.
Both debates are packed with subject matter experts on the relevant topics, including one of the most well known faculty entrepreneurs in the industry. The only regret I have is that the Kauffman Foundation declined the Committee’s invitation to participate in the debate, electing instead to focus their advocacy efforts on “senior university leadership” (NOT us). I am expecting a very respectful, thorough, probing discussion of the issues relevant to the debate topics, and I believe that Kauffman could have substantially and positively contributed to the discussion. Nevertheless, their viewpoint will be well represented.
In closing, I should mention that there will be audience participation in the debates. Attendees planning to join us for the debate can email me, Ann or Scott questions in advance for the debate committee’s consideration, and there will be note cards on site to use in submitting questions to the moderator, AUTM Immediate Past President Jon Soderstrom. I sure hope you can join us for an informative and compelling debate series.