Recent research by Malcolm Townes offers an important and data-driven reframing of university technology transfer, placing technology maturity levels (TRLs) at the center of the discussion.
The study examined university technology transfer from the private sector’s perspective, using a combination of patent application data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and in-depth case analysis of companies that evaluated whether to acquire and assimilate university-created technologies. One of the clearest findings is also one of the most uncomfortable: the typical maturity level of technologies emerging from U.S. universities is TRL-5 or lower.
This matters because the research shows that while reaching TRL-6 or higher is often a necessary condition for technology transfer, it is not a guarantee. In some cases, higher maturity is part of a broader configuration of factors that enables transfer. In other cases, a sufficiently mature technology alone may be enough. The implication is that technology transfer is subject to causal complexity, not a single gating metric.
For technology commercialization offices and university gap fund and accelerator programs, this finding challenges traditional approaches that implicitly assume technologies will “pull through” once disclosed or patented. If most university technologies stall below TRL-6, then the real work of commercialization is not licensing optimization but intentional maturity advancement.
This is where GAP funding, startup accelerators, venture studio models, and hospital-based translational programs play an essential role. These mechanisms exist precisely to move technologies across the maturity threshold where private sector partners can realistically engage. When GAP programs are explicitly designed around TRL progression, rather than generic commercialization milestones, they can materially increase the odds of transfer.
The paper also suggests a broader policy implication. Public funding programs and institutional practices that explicitly account for technology maturity, rather than treating all disclosures equally, may be far more effective at increasing the incidence of successful university technology transfer.
In short, this research calls for a more honest and structured approach to commercialization. One that acknowledges where university technologies actually sit on the maturity spectrum and builds systems intentionally designed to move them forward.
Read more here: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202301.0504
