Terry Young 

Interview with John Fraser in June 2019
 

• AUTM President, 2001
• First began volunteering with AUTM: In the early 1990s
• First AUTM leadership and Board position: Vice President for External Relations in 1998 

When and how did you find your way into tech transfer?

After I obtained my MBA, I became National Marketing Manager for a startup company in College Station in 1983. After more than two years, the company folded because of technical/product engineering problems. Wanting to stay in College Station to raise my family, I found a position as Contract Administrator at the Texas A&M Research Foundation in 1986, representing engineering researchers at the University. In 1988, the Texas Engineering Experiment Station recruited me to be Associate Director of its Technology Business Development Division. Then in 1991, the University’s General Counsel approached me to ask me to create a new office to manage A&M’s intellectual property. The Technology Licensing Office was born, with its initial employees being me, an administrative assistant and a graduate student.

 
Why did you make the leap?
It was a natural career progression. I did not fully realize what opportunities lay ahead when I created the office in 1988!
 
Tell us about the state of tech transfer at the institution you joined.
No formal technology transfer function or office existed.
 
What was your vision of tech transfer back then?

I came into the position with experience in startup company formation, business development, and contracts. My knowledge of intellectual property was limited. Technology transfer was something "brand new" and I really knew nothing about it (other than my experience in the startup). So, I learned as I built the function and the office. 

 
What were some of the issues you faced in the early days?
To begin with, there was no intellectual property policy/technology transfer policy whatsoever! I wrote the policy by myself relying upon study of the existing policies of other universities; the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the Deans approved after a complex review process. It quickly became apparent that my staffing was totally too small to handle what lay ahead. With no technical background, it became apparent that I would have to rely upon talented staff members to interact with scientists on a detailed level. It became apparent that we would need close cooperation with the OGC. Over time, we did not interact with the OGC much, as my staff and I became competent legally with the help of outside counsel. The Chancellor would sign all license agreements without OGC review upon my initials on the agreement.
 
We had no expectation of the FLOOD of invention disclosures we would receive immediately, as if the scientists had been holding their innovations in their bottom drawer waiting until the A&M System supported intellectual property protection and technology transfer. There was no budget for intellectual property protection; I had to quickly create a system/process for funding patent applications from all scientific-related Colleges within the University. It started with a patent review committee representing each College. The committee was abandoned fairly quickly, as the Deans relied upon the Technology Licensing Office (TLO) to make decisions. The accounting system for managing distribution of income according to policy, paying for patent expenses, receivables from licensees, etc. was extremely complex. 
 
Finally, the A&M System consists of 17 universities and state agencies. The System wanted these institutions to pay for the TLO, rather than the System Office. I had to devise a way for support to be contributed from individual universities/agencies in an agreeable manner. When the smoke cleared the air, there were six of the components that paid the costs of the office - the Colleges of Science, Agriculture and Engineering at Texas A&M University, the Texas Transportation Institute, the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The others received the TLO's support without contributing to expenses. By 1995, the TLO was self-supported from its 15% share of income and never needed support again, even though the staff had grown to 30 people when I retired from the System in 2004. 
 
What were some of your early successes?
The initial success came from the Texas Transportation Institute - a guardrail that was approved by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and is still installed and used across the U.S. today. It has saved hundreds of lives. The second was the Baculovirus Expression Vector System (BEVS) to create proteins from insect cells. The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station contributed quite a few innovations ranging from improved plant varieties (turfgrass, grapefruit, onions, rice, etc.) to veterinary innovations, the most published being cloning techniques. The College of Medicine was introduced in the early 2000s and had not contributed before I left office in 2004. 
 
Some of your early failures?
Software was expected to be a goldmine but failed to be realized (primarily from Engineering). There were many innovations for alternative energy sources that failed to be realized. I see many of the innovations today; I think the engineers were 10-15 years ahead of commercial application. In fact, I would conclude that most of the failures were engineering innovations (except for the very applied innovations of the Texas Transportation Institute). 
 
What was faculty’s attitude to tech transfer back then?
Very supportive. There was very little backlash from academicians who disapproved of the commercial nature of the process. The very few that did say something came from the College of Science.
 
When did you start to get involved with SUPA / AUTM?
I attended my first meeting in 1988 in New Orleans. 
 
What was the organization like back then?
Small! It seems there were two or three hundred people in attendance, which reflects upon the rapid growth of the "industry" in the 1990s. The people I met in this first meeting were very helpful - colleagues who helped this novice "get up to speed" quickly. I relied upon SUPA/AUTM.
 
Who were some of the leaders of AUTM then?
I remember Neils Reimer, and the MIT folks primarily – Lita [Nelson] and Karen [Hersey].

Did you get involved with any particular issue?
I became particularly interested in the international growth of AUTM, as interest and membership in AUTM from individuals abroad began to become apparent in the early 90s.

What were some of the big Issues in your early day?
How to create an office.
 
What were Board meetings like back then?
Very less formal than in 2001. 
 
What were some of the issues the Boards you were on wrestled with?
How to manage growth. Determining how do best create administrative help as Penny [Dalziel] had managed for so many years, but changes were needed. Much discussion of the bid process that led to the selection of Sherwood. Later, much of the deliberations were focused upon the political pressures facing the organization such as proposed Bayh-Dole changes, march-in rights, etc.
 
What are the biggest changes you’ve seen in the profession since you entered it?
As I have been out of the profession so long, that is a difficult question. I guess that two things stand out. First, it appears that the focus of technology transfer today is in medicine, something of a progression, I believe. Second, it is amazing to me that the Bayh-Dole Act still exists.
 
What do you wish might have turned out differently?
The organization's continued success and growth speaks to the realization that it probably could not have gone better. The attention of AUTM to international relations always disappointed me. Jon Sandelin was the pioneer. As AUTM President, I paid great attention to international inclusion, with creation of Vice President of International Relations (Cathy Garner), and bringing delegations to the AUTM meetings, including delegations from China, Japan, and Russia. I made many trips to Japan and worked closely with Akio Nishizawa to establish the TLO infrastructure in Japan; I count this as one of my greatest accomplishments in my career; Jon was also involved as well, of course. I do not know where international expertise development stands today. 
 
Describe the main challenges, either internal or external to the Association.
The greatest challenge was how to manage the tremendous growth in the organization experienced in the early 2000s. The political issue I recall was march-in rights, with a visit to Senator Ron Wyden. Of course, there was close cooperation with the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) and the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) on the political front, and I represented AUTM in interaction with these organizations.
 
Is there an existing document (s) which describes the situation and the responses?
We changed the logo for AUTM during my tenure (discussions started in 2000 with Jim [Severson]). We also developed a strategic plan for AUTM which probably exists.