Science And Technology Collaborations

One clause cost a Stanford founder billions. In 2013, Reggie Brown’s Stanford roommates froze him out of Snapchat, the app built on his original idea for disappearing photos. He eventually forced a $157.5 million settlement, but missed out on billions as Snapchat’s valuation skyrocketed. What was the clause that decided it all? The IP clause. Here's a 2-tier strategy for protecting IP in deals where your innovation is on the line: #Tier 1: Define what you’re giving away (and what you’re not) Most IP clauses read like shopping lists where everything gets thrown in the cart. Example: "Client shall exclusively own all right, title and interest in and to all Deliverables, including all Intellectual Property Rights therein." Risk: That single sentence can include your pre-existing IP, your proprietary methodologies, your trade secrets, and even ideas you develop after the contract ends. The Snapchat parallel: Brown claimed original ownership of the core Snapchat concept, worth millions at the company's $70 million valuation. The dispute arose because there were no clear agreements about who owned what when the idea first emerged. Better approach - The IP Inventory: Before you sign anything, create four buckets: ▪️Background IP: What you owned before this relationship started ▪️Foreground IP: What you'll create specifically for this project ▪️Derivative IP: Improvements to your existing IP using their input ▪️Joint IP: True collaborative creations requiring both parties Protective language you could use: "Company retains all rights to Background IP. Client receives exclusive license to Foreground IP developed solely for this project. Derivative IP improvements revert to Company with Client receiving perpetual license for their use case." #Tier 2: Negotiate value, not just rights The smartest IP clauses acknowledge that valuable innovations deserve ongoing compensation, not just upfront payments. Traditional model: You assign IP for a flat fee. They commercialize it for billions. You get nothing more. Value-sharing model: IP assignment includes revenue participation, milestone payments, or success fees tied to commercialization. A good framework to use: ▪️For low-value implementations: Flat assignment with reversion rights ▪️For medium-value innovations: Assignment with 2-5% revenue sharing capped at 3x development costs ▪️For breakthrough innovations: Joint venture structure or equity participation Industry-specific considerations: ▪️Software: Focus on derivative work definitions and license-back provisions ▪️Hardware: Emphasize manufacturing and improvement rights ▪️Services: Protect methodology IP while allowing client-specific customization ▪️Content: Separate creation rights from distribution rights Don’t let “standard” IP clauses sign away your future. Contracts don’t just govern today’s deliverables, they decide who owns tomorrow’s upside. #IntellectualProperty #ContractManagement #InnovationProtection

When science is under attack and budgets are shrinking, “publish and pray” isn’t a strategy—it’s a risk to public health. Our new Nature Portfolio piece—“Maximizing researcher–policymaker engagement in global public health”—sets out a practical playbook so every pound/dollar of research translates into policy impact. As researchers who have held high level roles in the #UN (including #WHO) and in government-facing roles, we wrote this for researchers who need to move evidence beyond journals and into decisions—now. What the paper offers (ready to use): 👉 A 6-question framework (Why, What, With whom, When, Where, How) to plan engagement from day zero—not after publication. 👉 Mechanisms you can deploy immediately: concise policy briefs; rapid “science-on-demand” syntheses; deliberative dialogues and roundtables; embedded advisors/knowledge brokers; advocacy coalitions that combine diverse skills and networks; and digital evidence hubs. 👉 Timing & politics: how to spot policy windows, manage trade-offs, and show contribution (not just attribution). 👉 Roles for funders & universities: ring-fence time/budget for engagement; reward policy outcomes alongside citations. Do this in the next 90 days: 1.    Map your decision-makers & calendars (who decides, when). 2.    Turn your latest findings into a 2-page brief + 10-minute deck. 3.    Convene a small roundtable with policy leads and one civil-society partner. 4.    Join or form an advocacy coalition for your topic: identify 1–2 civil-society groups, a policy entrepreneur, and a comms ally; agree a shared objective (e.g., wording in a guideline), split roles (research, convening, media, legislative outreach), and set a 12-week action plan. Shaping policy is hard work, and far from a science, but if publicly funded research stops at publication, it underserves the public. Let’s fix that—together. Read the paper: Maximizing researcher–policymaker engagement in global public health https://lnkd.in/eruJ_d-R J. Jaime Miranda David Berlan Camila Corvalan Taufique Joarder Arpita Raja Raja Yoong Khean Khoo Sunoor Verma Brig Gen Prof Dr Mohd Arshil Moideen (Rtd) Anne Marie Thow Helena Legido-Quigley David Peiris Rogers Kanee PhD, MPH, CSCA Ertila Druga MD MBA PhD Adeeba Kamarulzaman

💡 New Zealand recently defunded humanities and social science research. Canada is doubling down on it to drive innovation. Who’s right? New Zealand’s government recently cut funding for social sciences and humanities (SSH) research, arguing that science and technology - not SSH - are the key to solving our productivity and growth challenges. Minister Judith Collins stated that only "core sciences" like physics, chemistry, and engineering will deliver real economic impact. Meanwhile, Canada is making the opposite bet. President of Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Ted Hewitt, argues that SSH is essential for turning science and technology into innovation and productivity gains. In this article, he lays out why: ✅ Innovation is more than invention. Science and technology create new products, but SSH research ensures they are adopted, commercialized, and integrated into society. Without SSH insights, many breakthroughs never reach their full potential. ✅ Industry needs SSH expertise. Canadian researchers are collaborating with businesses—from airlines balancing sustainability and profitability to fintech companies designing more inclusive products. SSH research is actively shaping business success. ✅ Workforce creativity fuels economic growth. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs report lists creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving as top skills for the future—precisely the skills fostered by SSH education. ✅ Better policy means better productivity. SSH research provides data-driven insights that help businesses and governments design smarter regulations, improve economic strategies, and remove barriers to growth. If New Zealand wants to lift its productivity and drive innovation, cutting SSH funding might be the worst decision it could make. Canada recognizes that science alone doesn’t drive economic success. It's the integration of SSH that makes innovation work. With Shane Reti set to take up the new universities portfolio plus Science, Innovation, and Technology, it's time for a rethink. #SocialSciences #Humanities #Marsden #Universities #Research #Productivity #NewZealand

As a young engineer, I was focused on getting #patents for the new products I was developing. Until one day. I was told my latest invention would not be patented, rather kept as a trade secret.   Wait, what?!   You mean just keep quiet about it and hope nobody finds out? Like the secrets we used to share with our best friends in school?   Since then, I have signed many employer agreements promising not to reveal business processes, customer lists, technical know-how and so on. All #tradesecrets. But I would wonder, what happens if these secrets get out?   I found the answer in the #WIPO Guide to Trade Secrets and Innovation (https://lnkd.in/e4DCMZhD), published by my World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO colleagues András Jókúti, LL.M., Tomoko Miyamoto and their team. It takes you through:   ✔ HOW trade secrets have evolved, since the Babylonian king Hammurabi's time to present day, ✔ its relevance in driving innovation, ✔ WHAT exactly is a trade secret, (something secret, has a commercial value, and reasonable steps have been taken to protect it) ✔ HOW it can be protected, and ✔ WHAT shape does it take in today's #GenAI dominated world.   And the answer to my question?   🔹 Trade secrets are protected by the applicable national laws of the country: common law, contract law, or employment law. 🔹 Confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure agreements that most employees sign provide protection of trades secrets also. 🔹 Unlike patents that provide exclusive rights at the cost of making information public, trade secrets are not exclusive and someone could very well come up with the idea protected independently or reverse engineer a product 🔹 But, if the trade secret is disclosed in a "manner contrary to honest commercial practices," legal action can be taken, or settled amicably through mediation.   Trade secrets can be a powerful way to protect #IP, just look at the recipe for Coca Cola. Kept secret for decades, it is still making money for the company!

Missions-led science - accelerating impact for New Zealand’s bioeconomy Our biggest challenges - economic growth, biosecurity, climate resilience, and biodiversity loss - are complex and far broader than any one scientific discipline. They are systems-level challenges, and solving them requires new ways of thinking and working together. The Bioeconomy Science Institute is aligning ourselves around the big opportunities where we can make the most impact. That’s why we are adopting a Missions-Led Science Framework - a way to focus our science, organise our expertise, and collaborate with industry, government, and Māori partners to solve the challenges that matter most for New Zealand and beyond The bioeconomy is moving fast globally, and so are the pressures and opportunities shaping it. Estimates put the global bioeconomy at US$4–5 trillion today, with projections indicating it could exceed US$8 trillion by 2030. At the same time, New Zealand’s bioeconomy is already fundamental to our prosperity and regional wellbeing - spanning food, fibre, biomaterials, manufacturing, biotech and environmental sectors - and is central to how we create value from our renewable resources while protecting ecosystems. The Bioeconomy Science Institute provides national scale and depth to accelerate bioeconomy innovation, resilience, and environmental outcomes. Being mission-led is how we turn that scale into faster, clearer, measurable impact. Missions-led approaches are being used around the world because they help tackle complex problems. This matters because the challenges we face are interdependent and require new forms of collaboration - focused, partner-connected, and outcome-driven. Our six Mission Impact Areas: ✅Bio-Based Exports - Grow the value of bio-based exports from and for Aotearoa New Zealand ✅Climate Resilient Bioeconomy - Enhance the resilience, adaptability and value of our natural and productive environments as our climate changes ✅Biosecurity and Bioprotection - Safeguard Aotearoa New Zealand from pest and disease impacts in our natural and built environments ✅Transformational Technologies - Create and utilise new technologies to enhance economic, environmental and societal outcomes ✅Thriving Ecosystems and Biodiscovery - Protect our unique whenua, flora and fauna while advancing biodiscovery and supporting Māori growth aspirations ✅Bio-Based Industries - Deliver increased value from new and novel biological products and processes The future bioeconomy won’t be built by any single organisation - it will be built through aligned effort across the system, with shared goals and shared delivery. A missions-led approach helps us do that with focus, accountability, and collective momentum. #Bioeconomy #Science #Innovation #Climate #Biosecurity #Biodiversity #Biotechnology #NewZealand #Sustainable https://lnkd.in/dWfGK5X7

Of interest to the #Science4Policy community: What steps need to be undertaken, what resources are available to researchers to ensure that the valuable insights of scientific research projects make it to the desks of policymakers? The #Science4Policy team in the European Research Executive Agency (REA) has assembled a quick guide / starter kit to help researchers navigate the complexities found at the science-policy interface. You can find it here: https://lnkd.in/dUr9KPRg Feel free to share widely and leave comments to find further resources that could support any such efforts. Great work by the colleagues Niamh Delaney, Lucía Martín Marco, Konstantinos Gkoumas, and Gergely Tardos. With valuable input by: Dan Balan Encarni Barrionuevo Sánchez Juliane Kammer Martina Kazakova Eleni Zika, PhD Valentina Pierantozzi Estelle Barrillon Lene Topp Chloe Elizabeth Hill and many others. Of interest to: International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA) Scientific Advice Mechanism Alessandro Allegra Barbara Kampis ronan uhel David Mair Mario Scharfbillig Mara Almeida Filipa Vala David Budtz Pedersen PhD Olivia P. Koen Jonkers Karen Fabbri Fara Lledó San Mauro Alexandra Olajos-Szabó Andreas Jenet Minna Wilkki Paul Webb Begoña Arano Tanja Kuchenmuller

From my executive search desk this week - Episode 4. Something I keep seeing come up in food businesses lately, and it’s worth paying attention to. More and more, when we’re working on senior roles in food companies, nutrition and food science keep entering the conversation in a very real way. Not as a side function or as a nice story for innovation decks. But as people who are genuinely influencing what gets built, what gets funded, and what gets killed early. This feels new for food but it makes complete sense. As consumers move away from traditional snacking and more toward health, wellness, and functionality, companies are being forced to ask harder questions. Not just: Will this sell? But: Is this actually good for people? Can we stand behind it scientifically? And what happens if we can’t? That shift changes who has a voice in the room. I’m seeing nutrition and food science leaders shaping innovation pipelines, product claims, and long-term strategy in ways that would have been rare even five years ago. If you’ve worked in pharma, this won’t surprise you. Research-led decision-making has always been part of that world. In food, it’s becoming unavoidable. And this is where I think both companies and leaders can get it wrong if they’re not careful. For companies, innovation can’t sit purely with commercial or marketing teams anymore. If scientific thinking only comes in at the end, you’re already late. For leaders on the commercial side, this is not about becoming a scientist or going back to school. It’s about being able to work credibly with people who think very differently than you do. The strongest commercial leaders I see right now are the ones who: 1. Understand enough nutrition and science to ask intelligent questions 2. Know when to push and when to listen 3. Can translate complex research into real business decisions That ability to bridge science and business is becoming a real advantage. From what I’m seeing, the future of food innovation is being shaped at that intersection. And the leaders who get comfortable there early will have far more influence over what comes next. If you’re hiring, think about how early science has a seat at the table. If you’re building your own career, it might be worth expanding your exposure beyond the purely commercial lens. That shift is already happening. #executivesearch

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿: 𝗔𝘀𝗵𝘄𝗶𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗸𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗡 𝗩𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 Last week on Nothing Ventured, I spoke to Ash Ravikumar, a professional in science entrepreneurship with immense experience in commercialising advanced technologies. He served for 5 years as an Entrepreneurship Development Officer at CERN, where he designed and launched CERN Venture Connect, a platform aimed at bridging science with industry through standardising licensing agreements and facilitating spinouts. Ash has held key roles in organisations such as UniQuest, the University of Melbourne, and Honeywell, focusing on technology transfer, business development, and commercialisation. Ash’s passion lies in material science, IP strategy, and fostering innovation at the intersection of science and entrepreneurship and he is building Atom Factory to accelerate tech transfer globally. We talked about: ↳ The Importance of Making Science Accessible: Ash discussed how science has become too academic and elitist, often leaving the general public disconnected from its wonders. He talked about the need to bridge this gap by making scientific knowledge more accessible and enjoyable for everyone, not just academics. This is crucial for inspiring the next generation of scientists and innovators. Let's shift the narrative from memorising equations to fostering curiosity and understanding science better! ↳ Rethinking Tech Transfer Models: During his time at CERN, Ash developed the Venture Connect program, which revolutionised the approach to tech transfer. Instead of focusing on capturing equity, he prioritised speed and efficiency in getting technologies into the hands of startups. By standardising licensing agreements and minimising barriers, Ash showed that the goal should be to facilitate innovation rather than control it. This approach could serve as a model for universities and research institutions worldwide, encouraging them to focus on the impact of their inventions rather than just financial returns. ↳ Building a Distributed Manufacturing Ecosystem: Ash's vision for Atom Factory is nothing short of groundbreaking. By leveraging existing university resources and equipment, he aims to create a decentralised marketplace for manufacturing that allows researchers to scale their innovations from milligrams to kilograms without the heavy capital expenditure typically required. This model not only supports academic research but also accelerates the commercialization of new materials, making it easier for startups to prove their concepts and attract investment. Subscribe and rate wherever you get your podcasts! YouTube: https://lnkd.in/dhyJD6rF Spotify: https://lnkd.in/dNKkeyCB Apple: https://lnkd.in/dxhV5yXP

PHARMA ALREADY DECIDED. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT YET. Most biotech-pharma partnerships don't fail because of weak science. They fail because pharma made a quiet internal decision in the first interaction and never communicated it to anyone. No official rejection email. No formal pass. Just silence while three to six months disappear. I watched this pattern repeat across therapeutic areas and geographies over four decades inside pharma and biotech, including during my years in Business Development / Strategic Alliances at Pfizer, J&J and Merck KGaA. One specific mistake stands out as the most preventable thing I saw founders do. A biotech founder or CEO would send the same deck to twenty people inside the same organization, covering executive leadership, R&D, and business development, sometimes including the pharma’s CEO. The intent was enthusiasm and broad coverage. The result was the opposite. At Pfizer, I was part of the team managing all external biotech interactions. All twenty of those decks landed on my desk, every time. When the company CEO had received one, there was now internal pressure for a rapid response, often from someone without full context. What followed was rarely the thoughtful evaluation the science deserved. The founders who succeeded took a different approach. They identified one person who could become an internal advocate, built that relationship before pushing for a formal process, and let that advocate create the internal pull. Credibility inside pharma is assigned through relationships and context, not through scientific merit alone. It happens before formal diligence begins, and most founders never find out they were screened out, which is exactly why this conversation doesn't happen nearly enough. This is the first in a series of posts over the coming weeks on the structural challenges facing biotech partnerships and financing. These observations come from four decades on both sides of the table and from the advisory work I now do with biotech founders and investors through BioPharm Strategy Advisors. If you have seen this pattern from either side, I would genuinely like to hear your perspective in the comments. And if you are navigating a pharma partnership right now and want a candid conversation, my DMs are open. #biotech #pharma #businessdevelopment #biotechfounders #lifesciences #partnerships

A designer called me crying. Her client ghosted her. $14,500 unpaid. She had spent two months designing a full rebrand: logo, packaging, web visuals. After she delivered everything, the client stopped replying. Two weeks passed. Then three. Until one morning...she saw her designs live on the client's website. The same logo. The same layouts. Her work. Launched. Monetized. When she followed up for payment, the client replied: "We have not accepted the work yet." I asked to see her contract. It had three fatal flaws: 1️⃣ Payment upon "acceptance." No deadline defined for acceptance. 2️⃣ Hidden clause prohibiting implied/automatic acceptance. 3️⃣ IP transfer "upon delivery." So the moment she sent the files, the ownership passed even before the payment. So the client was dragging out on payment by relying on those provisions. The fix could have been so easy: "Final payment is due within 10 days of delivery unless the Client provides written notice of specific issues within that period. Intellectual property transfers only upon full payment." 🎨 Creatives: Always be careful with payment upon acceptance wording. 🖌️ Protect your art before you deliver it. #freelance #designer #designcontract #creative #entrepreneur #smallbusiness #business #contract #intellectualproperty #businesslaw #startup