University technology transfer

Why universities?

Universities have a critical role to play in increasing access to essential medicines around the world. Many life-saving drugs are developed in campus laboratories, and universities wield substantial leverage when they license their drugs to pharmaceutical companies. Universities are therefore uniquely positioned to influence the way lifesaving medical technologies are developed and deployed. Universities own patent rights in key pharmaceuticals to treat HIV/AIDS, cancer, hepatitis B, and countless other diseases. In fact, a U.S. Senate report in 2000 found that 15 of the 21 drugs with the greatest therapeutic impact were developed using federally funded research, most of which occurs at universities. So far, however, drugs developed at universities have remained largely out of reach for millions of the destitute sick in the developing world.

At the same time, universities are a promising locus for change. Universities hold an avowed commitment to creating and disseminating knowledge for the public good, and they have pledged to see the technologies they develop deployed to benefit the world. Campus decision makers are insulated from lobbies that may dominate political arenas; they are expected to be responsive to students and faculty; and they operate in an environment where reasoned debate, not power, is expected to be the currency.

Our proposals

The core of our proposals is simple: When a university licenses a promising new drug candidate to a pharmaceutical company, it should require that the company allow the drug to be made available in poor countries at the lowest possible cost. This would have virtually no financial impact on the company or university, but could ultimately save millions of lives.

Our latest recommendations for university technology transfer are outlined in the Global Access Licensing Framework (GALF).

From the university technology transfer community

In 2007, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and several leading research universities produced Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology: one of these points (#9) acknowledged the importance of special strategies to fill unmet needs, especially health care technologies in the developing world. This document has since been endorsed by many public research institutions.

In 2009, AUTM and universities elaborated on this issue in their Statement of Principles and Strategies for the Equitable Dissemination of Medical Technologies (SPS), which has also been endorsed by many top universities, as well as other public research institutions such as NIH and CDC. AUTM now also publishes a Global Health Toolkit which provides technology transfer offices with directly relevant resources such as sample licensing language which has been implemented to date.

UAEM applauds these developments, although much more still remains to be done. Read our response to the SPS.

Read more

• In 2003, UAEM developed the Equitable Access License (EAL). This is no longer our primary platform, as each technology may require a unique licensing approach, but it nevertheless illustrates many important ideas for promoting access. Read the student's guide and the detailed primer.
• Chaifetz et al., Closing the Access Gap for Health Innovations: Open Licensing, Globalization and Health (Feb. 2007). [pdf]
• Kapczynski et al., Addressing Global Health Inequities: An Open Licensing Approach, Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2005). [pdf]
• Kishore SP, Dhadialla PS. A student-led campaign to help tackle neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Med. 2007 Jul 24;4(7):e241.
• Amy Kapczynski et al., Global Health & University Patents, Science (Sept. 2003). [pdf]
• Dave Chokshi, Improving Access to Medicines in Poor Countries: The Role of Universities, PLoS Medicine (June 2006).
• Ellen t’ Hoen, The Responsibility of Research Universities, The Yale Journal of Health, Policy, Law, and Ethics (Sept. 2003). [pdf]