Latest news with #KatalinKarikó
The Hill
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Forget trade wars — the future isn't about physical goods, but data, ideas and services
Despite a U.S.-driven trade war with China, voters turning to populism across the globe and the risk of a recession, reports of globalization's demise are — at least for now — overblown. Washington's trade hawks would do well to read the signs. True, that may seem like pie in the sky. Messages from Washington are all about reshoring and decoupling of trade. As President Trump's reciprocal tariffs aims to reindustrialize the American economy, his vision is one of the manufacture of cars and smartphones moving away from Asia to assembly lines of obedient workers in America. But the chief engine of the U.S. economy is no longer found in physical factories. Instead, it lies in intangible investments, such as research and development, software, organizational structures and intellectual capital. These immaterial assets eclipse physical capital such as machinery and equipment, now accounting for over 60 percent of corporate capital investment and, by some estimates, 90 percent of the S&P 500's market value. This has led to new patterns of globalization, defined by invisible items — data, ideas, modern services and cross-border teams. As trade in physical goods began to sputter in the beginning of the 21st century, these invisible flows have soared over the past decade. They are largely immune to tariffs, decoupling and attacks of populist politicians. Even with chips nearshored, global U.S. companies like Qualcomm still earn a quarter of their profits by licensing ideas globally. Although the U.S. may start soon a full-blown trade war with the European Union, data flows between the two trade giants are set to soar in the next decade, according to the European Commission. And as U.S. multinationals exit China, they remain reliant on cross-border teams within these companies. Meanwhile, modern services trade has continued to grow by 10 percent well into 2024 without interruption. Contrary to common belief, intangible flows span both manufacturing and services. Take Coca-Cola. The multinational rarely produces any of its famous beverages anymore. Instead, it licenses its recipe to non-affiliated contract producers called bottlers, from whom it receives property income. Google runs on worldwide data flows to power its services globally. McKinsey predicts that by 2040, modern sectors such as cloud computing, shared autonomous vehicles, AI, space and biotechnology will account for 16 percent of global GDP, nearly double the share of today's leading sectors like industrial electronics and semiconductors, which currently make up 9 percent. These emerging sectors fuse manufacturing and services. These sectors are also rife with global intangible flows. Consider BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine. The underlying mRNA technology was licensed from the biochemist Katalin Karikó. Cloud‑based trial data zipped across borders and Pfizer's partnership turbo‑charged the research and development and scale‑up. The same blueprint was later licensed to Moderna for its vaccine. Intangible flows like these are powering modern U.S. multinational production networks and their supply chains. Just as a quarter to half of the trade in U.S. goods in the 20th century occurred within multinationals, so too will U.S. intangible flows mostly take place within global firms this century. These new flows clash with Trump's trade narrative. For starters, the American economy is well positioned to benefit, as it holds strong comparative advantages in these emerging industries. Second, they don't fit with populist views on the evils of trade deficits. Data, for instance, transcends borders as a global commodity, contributing neither to a country's trade deficit nor surplus. U.S. cross-border research and development and global teams remain largely unnoticed as an international flow. But their output has surged by respectively 95 and 30 percent since 2009, boosting income at home. Meanwhile, the U.S. has held the world's largest trade surplus in modern services for years, backing both high- and low-skilled jobs at home. The overall U.S. trade deficit in goods is not the problem, but rather the byproduct of America's greatest modern globalization success. These new globalization flows are difficult to grasp, hard to monetize and challenging to rein in behind countries' borders. They do not rely on ships, airplanes and trucks, but instead on the internet, human minds and collaboration. The paradox is that they have continued to grow despite the ongoing global turmoil, and they could put the U.S. in the driver's seat this century. The outlook for globalization is more positive than the populist doomsayers in Washington are claiming. However, new intangible flows rely on attracting the world's top talent, without undermining universities; on maintaining a predictable environment for global business, without disregarding court rulings; and on avoiding questionable policy initiatives, without blindsiding allies. If the U.S. truly wants to capitalize on its strengths, policymakers should change their global engagement strategy and embrace the next wave of globalization before it's too late.
New York Times
19-03-2025
- Science
- New York Times
DOGE Needs a Different Playbook for Science
In the early 1990s, Katalin Karikó was obsessed with an idea most of her fellow scientists dismissed: Could messenger RNA, or mRNA, a genetic molecule that helps cells synthesize proteins, be harnessed to create new kinds of treatments? She believed that if used correctly, mRNA could instruct cells to produce their own medicines, transforming how we fight diseases. But grant after grant was rejected. Reviewers at the National Institutes of Health were skeptical of her work. Her career stalled. She was demoted. Yet she kept going through sheer grit and some timely lifelines from colleagues. Her research changed the course of the Covid-19 pandemic — and she won a Nobel Prize — but only after being delayed by a decade because our system was so risk-averse. Scientists have been complaining for years that the way we fund science is flawed. Researchers are too often waiting up to 20 months for grant funding, an eternity in fast-moving fields like genetic engineering. Project leaders report that nearly 50 percent of their time is spent doing paperwork and other administrative tasks. The average age at which scientists receive their first traditional N.I.H. grant is 43. Earlier this month, thousands of scientists marched on Washington to defend science from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, as staff reductions at the N.I.H. and National Science Foundation and steep cuts to biomedical funding roiled the scientific establishment. But it's difficult to fully defend the status quo, which made it hard for a scientist like Karikó to pursue her visionary work. At the same time, I fear this administration's current approach will make things worse. The N.I.H.'s new policy to cap what it pays universities to cover 'indirect costs' on grants (for things like utility bills, research facilities and administrative staff) to 15 percent will amount to a $4 billion cut in biomedical funding per year if it holds up in court. It could force universities to lay off researchers and shutter labs. Some universities have already frozen hiring, and important long-term studies have been cut short. Right now, DOGE is treating efficiency as a simple cost-cutting exercise. But science isn't a procurement process; it's an investment portfolio. If a venture capital firm measured efficiency purely by how little money it spent, rather than by the returns it generated, it wouldn't last long. We invest in scientific research because we want returns — in knowledge, in lifesaving drugs, in technological capability. Generating those returns sometimes requires spending money on things that don't fit neatly into a single grant proposal. Times Opinion is looking for personal stories to inform future projects. An editor will contact you for permission before publishing any information. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Technical.ly
10-02-2025
- Business
- Technical.ly
Penn Center for Innovation celebrates 10 years
Perched on the ninth floor of 3600 Civic Center Blvd., just a stone's throw from the Perelman School of Medicine and Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, sits an office that has shaped some of the most transformative scientific breakthroughs of the past decade: the Penn Center for Innovation. As the university's hub for technology transfer, the Penn Center for Innovation (PCI) helps faculty and researchers transform their discoveries into real-world applications that benefit society, by forging and fostering partnerships with commercial entities. These collaborations between the private sector and Penn-led researchers have accelerated the implementation of significant biomedical innovations, including CAR T cell therapy — a pioneering cancer treatment spearheaded by Penn Medicine's Carl June — and mRNA vaccines — the Nobel Prize-winning technology developed by Penn Medicine's Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman that successfully enabled COVID-19 vaccines. Now entering its second decade, PCI's impact continues to grow. The center has catapulted Penn to the top of national rankings in annual licensing income, supported the formation of more than 300 startups, facilitated over 7,000 commercialization agreements and secured more than $1 billion in commercially sponsored research funding. 'I think the success of PCI can be attributed to many things,' said Associate Vice Provost for Research and PCI Managing Director Ben Dibling. 'This includes Penn's strategic vision that included a focus on impact and innovation, and, I think, a unique appreciation of the importance and value of engagement with the commercial sector.' Dibling noted this reflects a broader shift in how academic institutions approach technology transfer. A sentiment echoed by his predecessor at PCI, John Swartley, the center's former managing director who is now Penn's first chief innovation officer. 'I think what really set PCI apart was its emphasis on building long-term, transformative partnerships with the private sector,' Swartley said, pointing to examples like Penn's alliance with Novartis, which led to the development of the first FDA-approved CAR T therapy, and ongoing collaborations with BioNTech to advance new therapies based on mRNA technologies. 'Penn has long been a home to scientific breakthroughs that change lives,' said Penn Interim President J. Larry Jameson. 'Penn's innovative faculty create breakthroughs — ideas and tools that address some of the great challenges of our time, from climate change to COVID-19 vaccines to cancer treatments. PCI has been instrumental in facilitating this innovative work, enabling our faculty to collaborate with academic and commercial partners to have a broader impact on society. Our inventive founder Ben Franklin would be proud, and I too proudly celebrate their 10 years of accomplishments.' The emergence of technology transfer The path to modern technology transfer offices at universities wasn't always clear — or even possible, recalled Swartley, the former PCI managing director. In fact, for much of the 20th century, university research rarely left the confines of government or academia. 'In the decades following World War II, a surge in federally funded research, from organizations like the National Institutes of Health, really transformed American universities into powerhouses of research and innovation,' Swartley said, 'Yet, much of this newly created intellectual capital remained untapped.' Under the rules of the time, any invention created with federal dollars automatically belonged to the government, and without an efficient mechanism to license or commercialize these innovations, 'groundbreaking ideas often languished unused,' creating a bottleneck that stifled innovation and kept new ideas from benefiting the public. 'It was a single-node system, and it wasn't particularly efficient,' Swartley said. By the late 1970s, piles of unlicensed government-owned inventions, patents and related intellectual property were gathering dust on federal shelves, frustrating policymakers and scientists alike. Recognizing the need for change, Senators Birch Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, and Robert Dole, a Republican from Kansas, spearheaded the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, a bipartisan legislative shift that gave universities the ability — and responsibility — to patent and commercialize federally funded research. 'The act was simple in principle, but has become a singularly important factor in unleashing the creative output of universities,' Swartley said. Over the past 25 years, the Bayh-Dole Act has generated $1.9 trillion in economic impact and supported the creation of 6.5 million jobs across the United States, according to a report from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization and Association of University Technology Managers. At Penn, Swartley noted, the catalytic action driven by the Bayh-Dole Act birthed in the 1980s the Center for Technology Transfer (CTT), which later became PCI. Like many other research universities at the time, the CCT's early efforts were focused on managing the newly granted ability to file patents and license technologies. 'From the '80s through to about the mid-90s, CTT functioned more as an administrative and transactional office facilitating patent protection and licensing,' Swartley said, 'rather than a more diversified driver for partnered commercial innovation.' From bench to business Around this time, Swartley was making strides on his switch from academia to business. As a researcher at Emory University he was focused on molecular biology, genetics, and infectious diseases. Initially he enjoyed his work in the lab but began to feel constrained by the type of focus required for academic success. After meeting with Emory's technology transfer office to file a patent for a tool his lab developed, Swartley grew increasingly interested in the work they were doing. 'I found it really inspiring how they were helping scientists, like me, to further develop their inventions for societal benefit,' he recalled. 'I really loved bench research, but I became increasingly enamored with what happens to discoveries once they leave the lab.' Recognizing the potential in technology transfer as a 'wonderful way to stay in science, but also accelerate discovery and development in a meaningful way,' he pursued an MBA at night, describing the experience as 'language lessons' in business speak. After finishing the program and gaining initial exposure to tech transfer at Emory, he moved on to work at Yale's Office of Cooperative Research. At Penn, he said, a major sea change came in the early-to-mid 2000s when former President Amy Gutmann began implementing a more deliberate, strategic framework based on tapping into the true potential of transformative research. It was through this initiative that Swartley's predecessor and mentor at CTT, Michael Cleare, was brought into the fold. 'Cleare brought an entrepreneurial mindset to our office, recognizing that universities needed to do more than simply file patents — they needed to create an ecosystem that nurtures entrepreneurial faculty, brings in venture capital, and builds meaningful industry partnerships,' Swartley said. It was Cleare, and the clear vision of Penn's leadership, that convinced him to join Penn. 'I told Mike, 'Yeah, I could come over for a couple of years, help spin out a few ventures, then become CEO of one of the spinouts.' But 17 years later, I'm still here,' he chuckled. Innovating the approach to innovation Soon after Swartley joined in 2007, he saw that Penn, a pioneer in gene therapy and immunotherapy, was poised to be a leader in tech transfer by adopting a more proactive, partnership-driven approach. This shift in strategy prompted an effort to reorganize CTT and bring in new talent. A few years into Swartley's tenure as managing director, he recruited Dibling, a fellow scientist-turned-innovator. Dibling joined Penn's tech transfer ecosystem in 2016. Like Swartley, he had a background in molecular biology, having completed his PhD in clinical medicine at the University of Leeds, followed by postdoctoral research in cancer biology at the University of Chicago. He too found himself drawn to the broader impact that tech transfer could offer. 'John and I both come from life science research backgrounds, which has given us valuable insights, and really guided our approach to tech transfer in this space,' Dibling said. 'But we also love all forms of innovation, including technologies such as robotics, software, devices, electronics, and novel materials that are outside of our scientific training. We understand the importance of evaluating each opportunity and putting it in the best position to leave the lab and make a real-world impact, so we're thrilled to work with researchers in all areas who have inventions or discoveries that might address an unmet need.' For instance, Dibling noted, pharmaceutical and biotech products can take years or even decades to pass through clinical trials and gain FDA approval, while other innovations — such as software and technologies from the physical sciences and engineering — can be commercialized more quickly. Dibling pointed to the School of Engineering and Applied Science 's work in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), highlighting Exyn Technologies, a robotics company co-founded by Engineering Dean Vijay Kumar with the support of PCI, and based on technology developed in Penn's General Robotics, Automation, Sensing & Perception (GRASP) Lab. 'Exyn moved relatively quickly from formation and licensing of Penn's technology to having products on the market,' Dibling said. 'Although this still took years and a huge effort on the part of Exyn, the timeframe and the capital required to achieve this are significantly less than what would typically be observed with a biotechnology or pharmaceutical asset.' PCI sees a broad range of technologies arising from Penn's substantial research enterprise, which requires the office to take a flexible approach when determining the optimal pathway for further development and commercialization. In some cases, the best approach to support translation of a technology may be to identify and foster a relationship with an established company that already has the requisite experience and resources, while in others it may be more effective for PCI to work with faculty and investors to support the establishment of a new venture. In the area of physical sciences and engineering, Dibling explained, established companies will frequently view university technology as being too early or ultimately disruptive to their business. Forming a new company can sometimes be the only viable approach to advancing the opportunity towards a new product. PCI takes an adaptable, proactive approach to venture creation and actively markets promising technologies to relevant companies and investors. Dibling cited PCI's targeted outreach strategies, which include showcasing technologies on their website and at conferences, reaching out directly to potential partners and investors and helping faculty form companies when a strong commercial opportunity exists. Current and future growth opportunities For both Swartley and Dibling, PCI's ongoing success is rooted in its ability to evolve alongside emerging fields. They point to the rising significance of AI, data and sustainability as key drivers for future ventures, underscoring the need for Penn to remain nimble in its approach to innovation. An example of PCI's investment in AI comes from Presidential Associate Professor César de la Fuente, a researcher from Penn Medicine with a secondary appointment in Penn Engineering, whose lab has been deeply embedded in PCI's ecosystem since his arrival. De la Fuente, who specializes in applying artificial intelligence to antibiotic discovery, has worked closely with PCI to patent numerous innovations from his lab. 'I think I've filed dozens of patents through PCI,' de la Fuente said. 'The team was very receptive from the minute I got to Penn, integrating me into the tech transfer ecosystem because my research is very translational.' De la Fuente's lab recently developed APEX, a state-of-the-art AI model that can predict whether a given amino acid sequence will have antibiotic properties. Using experimental data collected over time in the de la Fuente Lab, the model skips the usual step of identifying molecular structures and instead goes directly from sequence to function, making the discovery process faster and more efficient. This has the potential to dramatically accelerate antibiotic discovery, from years to just a few hours. De la Fuente credits PCI with helping his lab navigate the patenting and commercialization process to ensure that these innovations can reach the market and have a real-world impact. And, while still in early stages, de la Fuente's lab is in the process of commercializing several technologies through PCI, including the formation of a potential company around their AI-driven discoveries. 'There's ongoing work to commercialize some of the [intellectual property] we've developed,' he noted. 'PCI has been instrumental in making sure we stay on track with invention disclosures and timelines, and that we have someone assigned to our lab who understands what we're working on.' Another faculty member benefiting from PCI's hands-on approach is Michael Mitchell, associate professor of bioengineering in Penn Engineering and the Lipid Nanoparticle Delivery Group leader at the Penn Institute for RNA Innovation. When Mitchell arrived at Penn in 2018, he found himself quickly pulled into PCI's ecosystem when Janssen Pharmaceuticals reached out to his lab about a potential partnership to develop next-generation lipid nanoparticle technologies for genomic medicines. The challenge? Mitchell had never been involved in negotiating a sponsored research agreement before. 'PCI was incredibly helpful navigating through this process,' Mitchell said. 'And it has ultimately led to several sponsored research agreements and partnerships with various biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.' Mitchell's prior experience with tech transfer offices, at institutions like Cornell and MIT, had mostly focused on invention disclosures. But he says PCI stood out for its broader approach to supporting faculty. 'With PCI, they have been helpful in many more areas,' he said, 'they not only facilitate invention disclosures and filing patents, but they are also incredibly helpful in strategizing how to license our technologies, partner with companies, or form new companies based on our research.' Mitchell's lab has worked closely with former licensing officer Tracy Chen and executive director of licensing Terry Bray at PCI to build a comprehensive IP portfolio around lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. He says the relationship has become a cornerstone of his lab's operations, with regular meetings to review new patents, licensing agreements, sponsored research, and company formation. Mitchell founded a new biotechnology company, Liberate Bio, in 2022 to translate his lipid nanoparticle technologies into new genomic medicines. 'They are an incredible resource that has added an entirely new dimension to the lab,' Mitchell said. 'We just finalized a large, sponsored research agreement with a biopharmaceutical company to develop next-gen lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. And we're in the process of starting new companies focused on women's health and cancer nanomedicine.' PCI dedicates time each year to honor Penn inventors and organizations whose patents have led to real-world commercialization achievements. At the most recent Celebration of Innovation, which recognized Penn-led efforts towards sustainability and tackling climate change, Penn Engineering's Jen Wilcox was awarded Startup of the Year for her groundbreaking carbon capture technology, offering a practical solution to one of the world's most pressing challenges. Also recognized was the Penn Center for Health Devices and Technology, known as Penn Health-Tech, a cross-disciplinary community that facilitates the development of novel medical devices and healthcare technologies while connecting and training innovators across the university. 'We're not just about licensing patents anymore,' said Swartley. 'We're about building partnerships and giving innovators — new and more seasoned — the tools they need that will really help them grow and succeed.'
