Policy conversations can feel distant until they land squarely on the desks of technology transfer professionals. Coming to you from the AUTM Annual Meeting in Seattle, we’re taking a closer look at what’s unfolding in Washington, D.C., and why it matters for research commercialization, patents, startups, and university innovation.
My guest is someone many of you already know, Mike Waring. Mike has spent more than four decades immersed in Washington policy, beginning in broadcast journalism, then on Capitol Hill, and later as a lobbyist for a major trade association.
For twenty years, he led the University of Michigan’s Washington office, working at the intersection of research, technology transfer, and intellectual property policy. He is a former AUTM Assistant Vice President for Advocacy, past chair of AUTM’s Public Policy Advisory Committee, and now AUTM’s Advocacy and Alliances Coordinator, helping guide engagement with Congress and federal agencies on the issues shaping our community.
We explore the current mood toward universities and innovation, the bipartisan appetite for research and competitiveness, and the realities behind proposed policy shifts. We discuss the floated “innovation dividend” concept targeting university royalty income, developments at the USPTO, including Section 101 and PTAB practices, the status of PARA and PREVAIL legislation, and the ripple effects of SBIR/STTR authorization delays on university startups.
Mike also shares practical guidance for tech transfer offices on working effectively with campus government relations teams, leveraging regional impact stories, and keeping policymakers connected to the real-world outcomes of university innovation.
In This Episode:
[1:38] Mike Waring describes the Washington mood, noting that tech transfer is often folded into broader debates about universities rather than treated as a standalone issue.
[2:06] Even amid generalized skepticism toward higher education, members of Congress tend to maintain strong loyalty to institutions in their own states.
[2:47] “All politics is local” becomes the strategic anchor, emphasizing regional and district-level framing when communicating innovation impact.
[3:21] Innovation remains a bipartisan priority, with policymakers broadly aligned around jobs, new technologies, and competitiveness.
[3:52] Congress moves toward near-full funding for NSF and NIH despite earlier proposals for deep cuts, reinforcing support for the research pipeline.
[4:44] Sustained research investment is framed as essential for U.S. competitiveness with China and other global innovators.
[5:25] The floated “innovation dividend” proposal raises concern, particularly the idea of capturing roughly half of university royalty income.
[6:03] Pushback from the Bayh-Dole Coalition and other stakeholders highlights misunderstandings about how the government already benefits from research.
[6:37] The absence of formal policy language is viewed as a cautiously hopeful sign that the royalty proposal may lose momentum.
[7:35] Smaller tech transfer offices are identified as especially vulnerable to royalty revenue disruptions.
[8:34] Data, transparency, and institution-specific context are positioned as critical tools in campus leadership discussions.
[9:07] A constructive meeting with USPTO leadership signals renewed engagement with the higher-education community.
[10:20] Section 101 and PTAB practices emerge as focal points for patent system improvements.
[10:33] USPTO outreach shifts from regional buildings to more direct university-based engagement across the country.
[12:39] PARA and PREVAIL legislation are reintroduced, targeting subject matter eligibility and PTAB reform.
[13:08] Patent eligibility challenges are linked to difficulties in protecting diagnostics and therapeutics.
[14:34] Committee dynamics and limited legislative runway underscore the difficulty of advancing complex patent reforms.
[15:37] Even moving bills through the Senate is framed as laying groundwork for future Congresses.
[16:44] SBIR/STTR authorization lapses disrupt new awards, creating uncertainty for startups and early-stage technologies.
[17:09] Senate disagreements focus on limits for repeat grant recipients and geographic equity concerns.
[18:04] Prolonged delays raise fears that agencies could redirect funds away from SBIR programs.
[18:53] Tech transfer offices are encouraged to share real startup impact stories with senators to increase urgency.
[19:55] Final appropriations outcomes exceed expectations, easing earlier fears of drastic science funding cuts.
[20:26] NSF’s relatively small cut is described as a meaningful victory in a constrained budget environment.
[21:10] The rejection of a 15% indirect cost cap is welcomed as a significant win for research institutions.
[22:08] Tech transfer professionals are reminded they are not lobbyists but key partners to campus government relat...
Информация по комментариям в разработке