New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Smarter Management Means More Inventions Get to Market

Rosemarie Truman, CEO of the Center for Advancing Innovation, says a better system of governance for federally funded inventions could lead to many more good ones becoming commercialized.

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“In the United States we spend about $160 billion a year on R&D. And so for the last seven years we’ve spent about a trillion dollars. With about 250,000 inventions that are sitting on the shelf that have more than 13 years of patent life, and only 0.5 to 0.7 percent of the inventions that are federally funded get out a year. So, what does that mean, get out? That they’re actually commercialized—they’re found and then they’re commercialized.”

Rosemarie Truman, founder and CEO of the Center for Advancing Innovation, a Washington D.C.–based nonprofit. She spoke at the first “Science Meets Congress” event on November 15th on Capitol Hill. Scientific American and Nature Research partnered with California Congressman Jerry McNerney—he has a doctorate in math, by the way—to host the session, which focused on “Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future.”

“So some of the challenges that we have are, first of all, finding these inventions. I just mentioned the ones that are patented, so you can find them through the USPTO. But there are about five times to 10 times the amount that are not patented that are not disclosed. So the energy efficiencies and tools of the future could be sitting there on the shelf, either patented or not…


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“What are I think our big opportunity is in the United States is to significantly change the way we harness our intellectual property. So when we give out this $160 billion a year to different organizations—universities, hospitals, research institutes across the U.S.—we govern it properly. So the inventions become disclosed and we have a clearinghouse for all the inventions. And we have a systematic approach to harmonizing the data around the inventions so that you can actually mine it, characterizing it, and then making it searchable so that you only have to go to one place.”

Listen for more from this session on an upcoming episode of the long-form Scientific American podcast, Science Talk.

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe