David Winwood

Interview with John Fraser on August 28, 2019. 
 

• AUTM President 2016
• First AUTM Committee Position: Public Policy 
• First AUTM Leadership Position: Chair, Public Policy
• First AUTM Board Position: Vice President, Advocacy 

When and how did you find your way into tech transfer?
I started in the business in 1996. I had been working for startup companies (two of which were based on technologies licensed from the University of Florida) for thirteen years following my postdoc work and realized that the up and down cycles of funding were not conducive to raising a young family. We were living in Raleigh at the time – I had been the first employee of a startup located there – and UNC Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), where the TTO had opened in 1995, advertised a couple of positions. I applied, and to my delight was hired into the business working for Fran Meyer. That office has now provided three AUTM leaders – Mark Crowell, myself, and Marc Sedam.
 
Tell us about the state of tech transfer at the institution you joined.
The three research universities in the Research Triangle (UNC- CH, Duke, and North Carolina State) had up until about 1994-1995 used the services of a jointly funded organization – Triangle Universities Licensing Consortium (TULCO) for tech transfer. For various reasons, each institution decided to establish its own office, resulting in the job opportunity I was fortunate enough to find. As a relatively new office, there was a good deal of ground to cover – assigning new case managers to all the agreements that had been put in place by TULCO, establishing new protocols, and so on. Because I was new to the business, I had no norm by which to judge.
 
What was your vision of tech transfer back then?
I think I saw it as quite transactional…which wasn’t necessarily a bad view, learning a new profession in a new office meant that I had to figure out new rules for operating.
 
What were some of the issues you faced in the early days?
I stayed at UNC-CH for about 18 months and eventually ended up for what turned out to be the first of two four-year stints at NC State. There were a lot of budget issues in the state at the time – not surprisingly, many memories revolve around budget struggles on campus. As a self-funded office, we were somewhat immune from the challenges, but the faculty and other administrative units were having a tough time. At the national level, I recall that sovereign immunity issues were a big topic in the late 1990s. That was probably the first time I became interested in policy issues related to tech transfer.
 
What were some of your early successes?
The very first license that I managed was between UNC-CH and DuPont. The technology came out of the lab of Joe DeSimone, who at the time was clearly a rising young star, and this was his first licensed technology. Since that time Joe has gone on to incredible successes – winning the Lemelson–MIT Prize, being appointed to the National Academy of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  Most recently he established his fourth (or fifth?) startup company, ‘Carbon’, already valued at around $2.5 billion. It has been an incredible privilege to watch someone make such a huge impact in so many fields.
 
What were some of your early failures?
I probably failed to convey the significance of what could have been a groundbreaking approach to providing training in manufacturing – the equivalent of augmented reality. I liked the technology, but couldn’t connect with or persuade investors or licensees of its potential.
 
What was faculty’s attitude to tech transfer back then?
Very mixed. There were superstar supporters and naysayers. You really needed to know who you were dealing with – and try to persuade them that you were there to help. I’m not sure much has changed!

When did you start to get involved with SUPA / AUTM?
Other than routine membership, probably in the early 2000s, prompted by the sovereign immunity issue that had created a lot of animosity in Congress.
 
What was the organization like back then?
A mixture of the old guard and newcomers. I was still a newcomer.
 
Who were some of the leaders of AUTM then?
Well – Fran Meyer, who hired me into my first TT job, was either on the board or had just left; Terri Willey was President. Through various other projects I got to know Jim Severson and Terry Young fairly early in my career.
 
What were some of the issues the organization was facing?
As a regular member, I can’t say that I was aware of the mega issues facing the organization.
 
What were some of the issues the profession was facing?
I think we were trying to define our role and position in the university ecosystem. Arguably, that is still the case – although most faculty today have grown up with a TTO on campus and involved in their research activities. That was not the case in my early days.
 
Did you decide to get involved with any particular issue?
My interest in policy issues began around a frustration that we (AUTM) didn’t seem to be responding to some of the Congressional attacks related to sovereign immunity. That’s when I started to pay attention to whether, and how, we could make a difference in the future of the profession by involving ourselves in policy matters.
 
Who was on the Board with you?
I ended up serving five consecutive years on the Board. This was a result of the reconfiguration we initiated, moving from portfolio Vice President positions to the current Director-at-Large format. The transition required that a few of us serve a third year in our VP position, so in 2015 I was both President Elect and VP for Advocacy.
 
What were Board meetings like back then?
Occasionally contentious. We were discussing a significant change from the portfolio VP structure, viewed by many as unnecessarily and inappropriately mired in tactical considerations, and to the current strategic board format, where other than the cabinet positions required in the Association charter, board members are directors-at-large. We completed this transaction during my presidency.
 
What were some of the issues the Boards you were on wrestled with?
We wrestled with the challenge of AUTM getting a ‘seat at the table’ with the other higher education associations such as the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR). If I had any impact as VP for Advocacy, it may have been to make sure that AUTM did indeed get a seat at the table – for example not only being asked to co-sign letters to Congress, but occasionally leading the way on such communications.The fact that I was also on the Executive Committee of COGR and Chair of their Contracts & IP Committee at the time was helpful!
 
Attempts at patent reform – unfavorable towards universities - were a major area of effort in my Advocacy and Presidential term. I was fortunate to be invited to testify before the United States Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on the subject of patent reform. That experience was very special, and resulted in a request from the Financial Times to provide a shortened version of my testimony to appear in the paper’s annual special publication on technology. The Financial Times editor who asked me to write the article made me a little nervous when she told me that in the previous year’s edition, the piece had been written by Sir James Dyson….. 
 
What are the biggest changes you’ve seen in the profession since you entered it?
An expansion of activities to a more holistic outlook; we still engage in transactions of course, but the realization that tech transfer means more than just counting patents and royalties has been very welcome.
 
What do you wish might have turned out differently?
I wish that we had been more successful in educating university leadership – VPs, Presidents, Chancellors, Trustees, etc. about our actual role, rather than having them focus on why we weren’t as successful (i.e. generating as much revenue – their sole measure of success, apparently) as …name your top ten / neighboring revenue generating institution that isn’t your institution.
 
Where do you see the profession in the next ten years?
I hope we’ll be considered more as an integral part of the operations of our institutions.
 
What is the biggest challenge on the horizon you see for our profession?
In the U.S., although we play basically zero role in drug pricing, we will continue to be in the crosshairs of activist groups who want to implement price control for any drugs that received even a dollar of federal funding. Drug prices are a problem here, but legislation that will very likely break the path for licenses from universities to corporate partners will not ultimately benefit consumers. AUTM needs to tread very carefully in this area, keeping stakeholders informed of the actual role of our profession will help.

Describe the main challenges, either internal or external, to the Association
Internal

• The change from a portfolio to director-at-large board
• Hiring an Executive Director with a tech transfer practitioner background who would adapt to this change and become the CEO and permanent face of the association in D.C. and elsewhere around the world
• The debate around changing the name of the association was the most difficult and divisive topic I encountered. 

External

• The seemingly eternal struggle of being able to explain march-in petitions
• Defending patent rights and explaining why we aren’t patent trolls. Strange bedfellows became partners in this quest, organizations not typically friendly towards universities played a huge role in defending the U.S. patent system.

What were the outcomes?

• Success – I believe that the new structure is working as planned.
• The appropriate decision was made. New, fresher branding was developed without sacrificing the legacy of the name; if anything, changing from the Association of University Technology Managers to simply ‘AUTM’ validated the name as being recognized and understood in its own right.

What advice would you give future Boards if the Issue arose again?
Believe in the brand - don’t change the name!