Since she took office, we would like to know what her objective as Vice President has been in relation to transfer from the creation of Technology-Based Companies (EBT)
To begin to answer this question, it is important to highlight the prominent role played by the CSIC in the field of knowledge management, and its commitment to the transfer and valorization of said knowledge as one of the central lines of action within the Council’s strategy.
Starting from this premise, one of the objectives I would like to highlight are the actions aimed at fostering the culture of entrepreneurship within the CSIC. Promoting this cultural change is the basis that awakens the involvement of the Institution’s personnel with transfer. Although this is one of the main objectives, I am aware of how difficult it is to achieve this type of change. Therefore, this challenge must be accompanied by initiatives that help eliminate barriers to entrepreneurship, which in the long term allow for greater commitment from everyone to transfer.
Could you share some of the initiatives that have been implemented by the CSIC to promote and boost knowledge transfer?
The CSIC has been promoting different initiatives for several years aimed at supporting entrepreneurship within the CSIC, as well as strengthening public-private collaboration, such as the Dinamiza or Impryme programs. More recently, it has launched more intensive strategies such as the EBTON program, the CSIC Hackathon, which seeks to identify scientific solutions that can be transformed into future business ideas, and in which our researchers receive training and advice for two days to orient their research projects toward market demand.
However, this last year we have designed and launched a more ambitious and transversal project, the CONVERGE innovation Hub, an initiative that seeks to facilitate transfer and generate bonds of trust between the CSIC and the different agents of the innovation ecosystem, with actions and programs that, for example, encourage collaboration with companies, collaboration with Public Administrations, and the generation of new entrepreneurial business models.
From your perspective, do you consider that boosting the creation of TBCs (Technology-Based Companies) is one of the most effective strategies for facilitating knowledge transfer?
It is shared by all that the creation of TBCs is not the only strategy for knowledge transfer. There are different common transfer formulas, R&D contracts, as the most established method of public-private collaboration, or industrial property licenses, which regulate the commitment of companies to the development of technologies and which also implies a joint collaboration effort, in many cases, between companies and research groups.
Of course, the creation of TBCs is a fundamental transfer instrument and plays a decisive role as an essential part of the value chain that goes from idea to market. Being one more tool, its role within our institution should be ‘normalized’, since it is an instrument that helps mature technologies, allows projects to grow, and generates an environment that provides security to the ecosystem, both for researchers and for investors and companies. Furthermore, it generates a more innovative and quality business fabric.
Despite this, and even though our research staff has high training and dynamism, the researcher-entrepreneur profile is not the majority, conditioning the generalization of this transfer method in many cases. Our challenge is to offer instruments, advice, and support to facilitate this transition.
What specific characteristics do you consider projects that want to be transformed into a business and that come from research results to have?
Promoting this cultural change is the basis that awakens the involvement of the institution’s personnel with transfer.
The first thing we must emphasize is that business models that come from research results generate disruptive companies, and this disruption is supported by a solid scientific base.
There are many types of companies in the market, but TBCs (Technology-Based Companies) present excellent quality since their disruption is backed by a solid scientific base that allows for the generation of additional differential value.
Another characteristic that is important to point out is that TBCs (Technology-Based Companies) have a longer Time to Market than other companies or startups, since, in order to validate their innovation viability and business models, they usually require greater economic and human resources that allow for their development, and they often need to adapt to the characteristics and timelines imposed by regulatory requirements.
We would like to know your opinion on what the institutional environment and the market need in order to streamline and enhance the transfer process.
The CSIC is a facilitator of the initial path and accompanies researchers in the phase of creating their business models; however, we must be aware that for the growth and consolidation phase to be boosted, other ecosystem actors must take over.
Therefore, it is important to generate a rich and collaborative ecosystem, in which different types of agents—public administrations, investors, venture builders, incubators, or companies—can contribute to boosting TBCs (Technology-Based Companies) in all their phases and can provide support to the team until the consolidation of their businesses.
What are the challenges that you believe the institution should continue to support to facilitate transfer?
We have great challenges ahead, but I would like to focus on two specific aspects: being an institution with the capacity to adapt to changes, to be attentive to what society demands of us and be capable of responding, and derived from this condition, being capable of providing the means to boost collaboration as an essential instrument to facilitate transfer.
