On the latest episode of ANA Investigates, Dr. Clifton Gooch, Professor and Chair of Neurology at the Morsani College of Medicine at the University of South Florida explores the complex world of patents and intellectual property in academic neurology in an interview with Dr. Terri Hunter, the senior licensing manager of technology transfer at the University of South Florida Office of Research and Innovation.
We spoke with Dr. Gooch to gain additional insight into this month's episode.
Why did you decide to tackle the topic of intellectual property?
Intellectual property in academic medicine is different than intellectual property in other areas like in Silicon Valley for example. In academic medicine at a university, we are dealing with an environment that has traditionally been open in terms of intellectual inquiry, without any secrecy really, with the idea that you publish and share your findings as soon as possible to advance the global cause of science and you do that in national and international platforms such as meetings and journals. This is a long-held tradition in the scientific community. In contrast, patents actually are the opposite. Patents put up guardrails and iron fences around your discoveries and can be restrictive in terms of how much you share and when you share it because in dealing with patents you’re really looking at marketing something and creating a business around a discovery, which is a very different thing than promoting the cause of scientific advancement without regards to a business model.
Intellectual property is something that has changed and evolved – as the podcast details – over the last 20 years. The digital world has advanced its evolution quite a bit and it continues to change at a very rapid pace. I think many academic faculty members who are actively engaged in research don’t really understand all the implications of patenting their discoveries and potentially trying to monetize them and the impact that might have on their ability to share those discoveries in the scientific community. The podcast does give information and has some discussion from our topic expert Terri Hunter who is with the licensing and patent office here at USF about exactly how faculty should proceed in this minefield of intellectual property. Also, faculty often don’t know which way to turn when patenting because they may not understand fully the relationship with the university when it comes to patenting discoveries they have made as part of their faculty position. And we also talk about that and give some guidance on that point.
Who do you think will benefit most from listening to this episode?
I think this episode cuts a wide swath and not just in neurology. But in academic neurology, I think people who are actively engaged in clinical or bench research with the goal of creating particularly drug therapies, should listen to this. It’s going to help them understand when and how to patent their discoveries, how they might partner with their university, how they might partner with industry. However, there are many other groups that could benefit from the podcast outside of neurology including startup and pharmaceutical executives and employees who are trying to understand how to interface with faculty in the university as they partner with them to bring new drugs to market. And I think entrepreneurs who are looking for places to invest money in the areas of drug development also might learn some important lessons from our podcast.
What was the most surprising thing you learned as a result of this interview?
I already knew something about all of this from my work as chair of Neurology here at USF. I did learn something that was interesting. I learned that there is an obligation on the part of researchers according to Congress’ instructions to the NIH to try and take NIH-funded discoveries and make sure that they are translated into the market ultimately, if they prove to work, to stimulate the development of small businesses and new enterprises in the United States. While obviously I am aware that NIH research is very important for the causes of the advancement of science, I did not know that when a discovery has the potential to be marketable, there is an inherent expectation on the part of the government that we do take these discoveries to market so that they can be sold, help patients and stimulate the marketplace.
What can listeners hope to learn from listening to this episode?
In general, I think this episode will help our listeners to be in a position to understand when to get a patent, when not to get a patent, when it is to their advantage and when it could get them in real trouble and I think that’s critical for anyone who is involved in translating their research into something that could potentially be marketable to patients.
Is there anything else you’d like to share about this episode?
Not only do I think this is a very timely and important topic, but I also feel that our expert interviewee, Dr. Terri Hunter, did an outstanding job of detailing these critical issues.