By Phil Weilerstein
Innovation does not advance in isolation. It grows through dialogue, reflection, and the willingness to adapt. Progress in academic innovation demands that we listen closely to each other, learn from our experiences, and continue working to reshape systems in response to changing needs.
That conviction was a driving force behind a recent listening session I convened with Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM, at the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) Annual Conference. Faculty, technology transfer leaders, funders, and entrepreneurs shared candid perspectives on the future of translation and commercialization of discoveries, inventions, and innovations emerging from higher education. The conversation revealed a mix of optimism and frustration: Institutions are making progress and experimenting with effective new approaches, yet barriers and pain points continue to impede momentum and stand in the way of engaging all academic and research inventors.
What follows are reflections on the most salient themes that emerged from that dialogue—not a definitive roadmap, but an invitation to continue learning and working together to strengthen higher education’s ability to translate ideas into impact.
Persistent Challenges
The discussion made clear that universities continue to face structural and cultural hurdles that slow the pace of translational activity. Understanding these barriers and addressing them head-on is essential to building a stronger innovation pipeline.
What we heard pointed to several recurring challenges:
Complexity in disclosure and intellectual property (IP) processes: For many researchers, the pathway from discovery to disclosure is perceived not merely as an inconvenient bottleneck; it’s a deterrent. Complicated forms, intricate IP requirements, and lengthy workflows create barriers that discourage engagement at the outset. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers possibilities for improving these processes, but tools must be made accessible and paired with clear guidance on their potential applications. Best-in-class solutions are not yet widely adopted, often due to resource constraints, despite early adopters reporting success in streamlining the process and reducing the barriers to disclosure.
Incentives that remain misaligned: Universities often embrace and claim innovation as a valued attribute, but institutional reward systems often do not adequately recognize the pursuit of translational activity, sometimes even excluding measurable activity in favor of publications and grants. Without explicit incentives for entrepreneurial action through promotion and tenure policies, leave structures, and support for translational outputs, faculty face a difficult choice when pursuing commercialization and advancing their academic careers. True alignment would recognize and value them both.
Insufficient recognition and visibility: Stipends, fellowships, awards, and public acknowledgement for invention and translational activities like disclosure and filing of patents send a powerful signal that translational work is valued. Beyond validating individual innovators, recognition helps create a culture where innovation is seen as a legitimate part of academic life.
Limited bandwidth and accessibility: Faculty are not unwilling to engage, but they’re overextended. Institutions that are rethinking engagement by offering targeted, bite-sized learning opportunities and personalized support from technology transfer professionals make participation feasible without overwhelming existing workloads. Similarly, tools and policies that make it easy to initiate the initial steps, such as navigating public dissemination and disclosure, encourage engagement with and targeting of the broader set of translational supports.
Narrow ecosystem connectivity: Innovation works best as an ecosystem, not a solo effort. Ideas gain traction when connected to networks of mentors, alumni, industry, and public-sector partners. Universities that actively cultivate these relationships build stronger translational pipelines, yet several participants noted that many institutions still struggle to build and sustain these connections and relationships.
Practices Showing Promise
The conversation was not solely defined by obstacles. Alongside the pain points, participants shared concrete examples of strategies that have yielded results. These practices demonstrate that change is possible when institutions are intentional and willing to rethink traditional structures.
Here are some of the approaches shared that are driving positive change:
Tech transfer offices are scouting more actively: Instead of waiting for disclosures to come in, many tech transfer offices are now out in the labs, developing relationships and spotting promising ideas early in the development stage to seamlessly support researchers to take the first steps towards translation.
Entrepreneurial education is gaining traction: When researchers embed end-user perspectives and market needs in research development from the beginning, their work is more likely to align outputs with real-world needs. Programs like I-Corps™, which are widely available and often include supporting resources, have provided a shared language for using customer needs and scalable models of translation to identify opportunities in scientific discovery and invention. The impact of these programs is often transformative for researchers. They create a way of seeing that is irreversible. Combined with accelerator programs that support the development of products and ventures, they create an accessible, ongoing pathway for building translational literacy. Also essential is the professional development of technology transfer office (TTO) teams, who play a critical role in commercialization and translation. AUTM, for example, offers effective training that disseminates best practices in translational support through workshops and professional development certifications for the field.
Mentorship matters: Whether they are alumni founders, entrepreneurs-in-residence, or industry partners, mentors are one of the most powerful drivers of progress. Cultivating a strong network supports not only near-term translational opportunities but also sets up the institution for long-term impact. Effective mentoring leverages diverse institutional partners, including entrepreneurial faculty, early-stage investors, industry collaborators, alumni, and advisory bodies, intentionally to ensure that people with ideas have connections to people who can guide them to knowledge resources and additional connections.
Funding fills the gaps: Early-stage support continues to be a determining factor in whether ideas advance beyond the lab. Without access to pre-seed and demonstration funding, even the most promising discoveries can stall before they have a chance to demonstrate proof of concept. Participants in the listening session highlighted how flexible funding streams made it possible to move from idea to prototype and, in turn, attract further investment. Many sources of non-dilutive funding are available, including seed grants, regional and national I-Corps™ competition awards, proof-of-concept funds, and SBIR grants. Participants noted that providing innovators with a clear map of available resources, along with support in the application process, proved highly effective and incentivized engagement. Making information about these resources easy to access and linking that access to early-stage translation support also helped build strong relationships with innovators and fostered deeper engagement in the commercialization process.
Taken together, these approaches show that small but intentional shifts can make a big difference. They also remind us that progress doesn’t depend on one single breakthrough; rather, the focus should be on building systems and supports that make innovation both possible and purposeful.
Looking Ahead
Our session underscored the urgency of making innovation a core part of the infrastructure and mission of higher education. If universities are to fulfill their role as engines of progress, innovation and translational activity must be recognized and supported as central, not peripheral.
Looking ahead, the opportunity is significant. By continuing to strengthen the academic innovation pipeline, we can help ensure that the intellectual contributions of universities reach beyond the lab and into the real world, where they can address urgent challenges.
At VentureWell, we’re committed to advancing this dialogue and supporting institutions as they test new approaches. Initiatives such as the E-Team Program, I-Corps™, and other translational fellowships provide meaningful learning and training in which faculty and students can refine and scale their ideas. Additionally, membership networks like VentureWell and AUTM help institutions build stronger ecosystems by fostering connections and helping innovators build the relationships that turn research into real-world impact.
The NAI conference discussion reaffirmed that while barriers remain, the creativity and commitment across this community are powerful. Now is the time to channel that energy into collaborations that bring innovation out of the lab and classroom into the spaces where it will have the biggest impact.