English translation provided for reference. Original images are retained in their source language.
In hard technology, a familiar pattern occurs: a laboratory breakthrough appears in a leading journal and receives a patent, yet stalls on the path to commercialisation. Researchers seek technical feasibility, while the market demands commercial viability. The gap leaves many research achievements unused in laboratories rather than contributing to industrial development. How can research results genuinely reach the market? The key is to reshape the commercialisation process around market needs.Southwest University Changshu Research Institute I also hope this article can give you more reference.
1. “Triple faults” in the transformation of scientific and technological achievements
1. Technology gap: “breakthrough” in the laboratory ≠ “product” needed by the market
Many scientific research results perform well in laboratory environments, but once they enter the industrialization stage, they will face a series of practical problems such as cost, process, and supply chain.
For example: Although a high-temperature superconducting material from a university achieved performance breakthroughs in the laboratory, the cost of industrialization far exceeded market expectations, and it was ultimately difficult to implement it.
A new battery technology has high energy density, but poor stability in mass production, which makes companies reluctant to put it into pilot trials.
The core contradiction: scientific research pursues "technical limits", while the market requires solutions that are "mass-producible, low-cost, and highly reliable."
2. Talent gap: “language barrier” between scientists and entrepreneurs
Scientists focus on “technological advancement” and end with papers and patents;
Entrepreneurs focus on "business model", "market size" and "investment return cycle".
Typical case: CRISPR gene editing technology. Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Doudna's team first proposed the principle, but it was companies such as Editas Medicine that really promoted industrialization - because they understand both technology and the logic of the pharmaceutical industry.
Key issue: Lack of “translators”—complex talents who understand both scientific research and business.
3. Funding gap: the contradiction between the “slow cycle” of scientific research and the “fast return” of capital
Scientific research timetable: based on ten years, requiring long-term investment;
Capital timetable: usually 3-5 years to see returns.
Realistic dilemma: In fields such as quantum computing and biomedicine, a large number of early-stage projects have failed due to broken capital chains.
2. International experience: how to let the market drive Transformation of scientific and technological achievements？
1. American model: institutional innovation + capital relay
The Bayh-Dole Act: Allows universities to retain patent rights for federally funded projects, clarifies the revenue distribution mechanism, and incentivizes technology transfer.
Stanford OTL model: The Office of Technology Transfer (OTL) is composed of technical experts, investors, and lawyers to help connect scientific research results with capital, such as Google's early BackRub technology.
Key revelation: A clear property rights system + professional technology transfer institutions are the key to attracting capital.
2. Israeli model: state support + professional intermediary in-depth operation
Yissum Company (Technology Transfer Institution of Hebrew University): Not only screens technologies, but also is deeply involved in productization. For example, Mobileye’s vision algorithm has moved from the laboratory to automotive grade applications.
"Verification first + equity binding" strategy: first use own funds to support prototype development, and then introduce industrial capital to reduce early-stage risks.
Core logic: Let professional institutions do the "commercialization accompaniment" while scientists focus on innovation.
3. Chinese practice: How to build a market-oriented transformation ecosystem?
1. Shanghai Zhangjiang: “Fund + Accompanying” solves pilot test problems
Guidance Fund for the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements: Government funds support the “pilot-proof-of-concept” stage to reduce capital risks.
Professional institutions accompany you throughout the process: helping the team connect with the supply chain and design the business model. For example, only after a pharmaceutical company completes pre-IND verification will market capital be willing to follow up.
Key point: Government funds are not subsidies, but "risk cushions."
2. Beijing Zhongguancun: “Invest first, share later” alleviates capital misallocation
Early-stage government investment: If successful, the investment will be converted into shares; if it fails, the investment will be forfeited.
Typical case: An AI chip team completed tape-out verification with the help of government funds and subsequently attracted market investment.
Core value: Let capital dare to enter the early high-risk stage.
4. Future path: How to make the market truly become the "baton" for the transformation of scientific and technological achievements?
1. Scientific research: From "academic closed loop" to "problem closed loop"
Reform the evaluation system: Increase the weight of industrialization results in professional title evaluation.
Cultivate "scientist + entrepreneur" compound talents: such as MIT's "Entrepreneurial Scientist" training program.
2. Capital side: Build a “patient capital + professional empowerment” system
Establish a proof-of-concept fund: Support technology from lab to prototype stage.
Introducing industrial capital: early technology investment from companies such as Huawei and CATL.
3. Platform side: Upgrading from “technical intermediary” to “commercialization partner”
In-depth companionship: not only connecting resources, but also helping the team design products, price, and find customers.
Case reference: Shenzhen’s “Science and Technology Innovation Commission + Leading Enterprises” jointly built a pilot base to accelerate technology iteration.
4. Policy side: operational details of getting through the “last mile”
Clarify the distribution of equity: Avoid hesitation among scientific researchers due to equity issues.
Optimize state-owned assets management: simplify the technical pricing and shareholding process.
Conclusion: The transformation of scientific and technological achievements is essentially a "market adaptation"
Breakthroughs in the laboratory are only the starting point. The real value lies in whether it can solve market needs. The competition in the future will not only be a technological competition;Conversion efficiency competition. We need:
Scientists understand the market better
Capital understands technology better
Policies are more pragmatic
The platform is more professional
Changshu Research Institute of Southwest University It is believed that only in this way can scientific and technological achievements truly leave the laboratory and become a "hard-core engine" to promote industrial upgrading.
Source of article: Guoke Torch Business Incubator Research Center