James Severson 
Interview with John Fraser in 2019
When and how did you find your way into tech transfer?
I started in technology transfer in 1990 at the University of Minnesota. I was contacted by a recruiter to apply for the position.
What had you been doing prior to making the leap?
Prior to joining the University of Minnesota I was in a business development position at Amersham Corporation in Arlington Heights, Illinois. I managed a portfolio of projects for products and services for the pharmaceutical industry, many of which involved early stage technologies.
Why did you make the leap?
Part of my role at Amersham involved projects with universities and through those relationships I had interacted with technology transfer offices at several research universities. As I became familiar with these offices, I was intrigued by the options for technology transfer in the commercialization of new ideas.
Tell us about the state of tech transfer at the institution you joined.
At the time that I joined the office at Minnesota, we were staffed with four professionals, and we were responsible for both technology transfer and industry sponsored agreements. The other professionals in the office were attorneys, and the senior leadership in research administration was interested in adding business development experience to the group. Because of our small number, we each had broad coverage of the research base.
What were some of the issues you faced in the early days?
Our main focus was building the disclosure base and increasing the number of revenue generating inventions. We were challenged to get faculty to disclose their inventions, and the budget for patenting was always an issue. Lastly, at that time there was a tension between the growing awareness of commercialization as an outcome of research and a strong sentiment among a segment of the faculty to prohibit any industry involvement to avoid conflicts.
When did you start to get involved with SUPA / AUTM?
Tom Hinkus at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) was the Central Region VP in the early 90s and he invited me to be part of the planning committee for the Central Region Meeting. This introduced me to AUTM and to a number of colleagues who were active in the organization. The role on the Central Region Planning Committee and my involvement in Central Region activities led to me becoming the VP of the Central Region.
What are the biggest changes you’ve seen in the profession since you entered it?
There have been many changes. Tech transfer has become more complex. The growth of AUTM necessitated a change to the management of the association, its governance structure and the Annual Meeting. There has been a change from invention management to innovation management, with an increasing emphasis on innovation; an increased emphasis on tech transfer’s role in economic development, with an emphasis on company startups; an increase in the value and management of nonpatented assets; and an increase in professionalism as new processes and procedures makes it run more like a business.
What do you wish might have turned out differently?
The annual survey and the focus on revenue has been a challenge that AUTM has never been able to reconcile. Almost from its inception, AUTM leadership has struggled to change the narrative and to change the focus of thinking about tech transfer away from the money. We have explored alternative metrics, we have implemented a strong messaging program with the Better World Project, and I believe that AUTM leadership has been consistent with its messaging about the benefits of tech transfer beyond the money, but the issue persists.
During the time that I was active in the organization, AUTM struggled to define its role in advocacy. It was frustrating to me that as an organization we had grown in size and reputation that gained us a seat at the table, but once we were invited, we stuggled to find a message and to take the active role that we were invited to.