David Winwood, associate vice president for knowledge transfer and commercialization, explains the technology transfer process at the Center for Materials Research.     Photo: Geneva Ringel

Engineering Q&A with
David Winwood

By Geneva Serrer Ringel

At News in Engineering, we seek out high-tech research in the College of Engineering, in order to share the results both inside and outside of Ohio State. Someone else that keeps an eye on high-tech research is David Winwood, Ohio State’s new Associate Vice President for Knowledge Transfer and Commercialization in the Office of Research.

Winwood, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry, was the Associate Vice Chancellor and Director of Technology Transfer at North Carolina State University prior to joining Ohio State. There he was responsible for technology commercialization operations.

In his position at Ohio State, Winwood oversees the offices for Technology Partnerships and Technology Licensing, two organizations working to transform knowledge and innovation into new technologies and new companies. The Office for Technology Partnerships serves as a catalytic and coordinating force aligning technology companies with university assets. The Office for Technology Licensing works to identify, protect and commercialize intellectual property developed by university faculty, staff and students.

Given the large amount of high-tech research in the College of Engineering, News in Engineering sat down with Dr. Winwood in order to learn about his plans.

NIE: Prior to joining Ohio State, you served as the Associate Vice Chancellor and Director of Technology Transfer at North Carolina State University where you were responsible for technology commercialization operations. What attracted you to Ohio State?

DW: Ohio State is a world class institution with tremendous potential for success in the area of technology transfer. From my first visit with the search committee -- composed largely of faculty members -- I sensed the appetite to build a successful program. In addition, it seems that there is recognition the highest levels of the university and state government of the role that universities can play in helping to build Ohio’s new economy.

NIE: The Office for Technology Partnerships (OTP) is described as a coordinating force aligning technology companies with university assets. What do you feel is key to accomplishing this task?

DW: We have to be at the table with industry, not only telling them what our research enterprise has already produced in the hope that it will be of interest, but also asking where industry sees opportunities for future growth. This is particularly true of some of the cutting edge technologies under development at Ohio State that may play a role in replacing or enhancing competitive advantage for our traditional industries.

We also have to be at the table with our own researchers, learning where their research programs are leading. Because OTP is part of the Office of Research, we have campus-wide responsibilities, and this allows us to keep a finger on the pulse of pioneering research in many disciplines. As a result, we may see a connection between research groups on campus that is not apparent to either group. This is a large campus, and it isn’t always easy for people to connect when they are busy working intently in their own environment. The combined expertise or resource may be much more valuable to an outside partner than either one individually.

NIE: There are some people that argue the importance placed on intellectual property and technology transfer at higher education institutions is eroding core academic value. How would you respond to this?

DW: I think that this matter has been addressed rather extensively by several august bodies. The first is an informational piece by the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) titled “Technology Transfer in U.S. Research Universities: Dispelling Common Myths” (http://www.cogr.edu/myths.htm). The article makes the point that “all universities must adhere to the academic tradition of publication." Quite simply, academic research continues to be built on the premise that publication of fundamental findings is incredibly important. As far as I am aware, publication, and not patenting, remains a major factor in tenure and promotion decisions. The two activities -- technology transfer (by which we most frequently mean patenting) and publication -- can and do co-exist. The NSF has also published findings indicating that even in patent applications, most of the work referenced has been published in the non-patent literature. So no, I would have to disagree with the idea that IP and technology transfer are eroding academic values.

NIE: How would you rate the start-up climate in central Ohio?

DW: Start up activity is somewhat depressed nationwide at the moment. A lot of the venture funds have cash in hand but are holding on to those resources to support their existing portfolio companies. Consequently, there isn’t a lot of cash available for new investments. Central Ohio has not been a hot bed of start up activity focused around the university, for several reasons. First, the money, or a least the right kind of money, just wasn’t here. Second, it was previously quite difficult for the university to enter into agreements with companies established by faculty inventors. With the passage of Senate Bill 286 in June of 2000, the university now has clear guidelines to work with. The legislation resulted from collaborative work between the university community and the Ohio Ethics Commission. The legislation balances public interest and accountability but provides the university and its inventors with the opportunity to participate in entrepreneurial activities as a means of transferring research results out into the market place for the public good.

NIE: How will you establish a relationship with the College of Engineering?

DW: I met with several college faculty members during my interview process, and with Dean Williams early in my visits to Columbus in the summer of 2002. I think it’s reasonable to say that he and I saw eye to eye on some of the key issues we need to address, such as developing a technology advisory board to help assess and evaluate the numerous opportunities coming out of the college. Planning for this group is already under way. We also need to work together to find resources to help us pay for the cost of protecting inventions by filing patent applications for those inventions that are judged to have significant commercial potential. It’s an expensive proposition, but something that we must do early in the process to fully leverage the results of the research effort while at the same time encouraging full publication. As I said earlier, publishing and patenting can co-exist, but we have to find a way to pay for the patenting part of the equation. Engineering remains the source of more invention disclosures than any other college at OSU; as a result the opportunities for interaction are significant, and include ‘traditional’ licenses to established firms as well as entrepreneurial activities with start up companies. So it is really important that my office understands what is happening so that we can better serve the needs of the college in making the results of its work available to as wide a community as possible.