Speaker 1: I've gone through a university spin-out process twice. My first spin-out was a medtech company that was acquired by a big corporation after 10 years. My second spin-out is a biotech company for which we recently closed a $100 million licensing agreement. The adventures of these startups is fun and educational, which is the positive, but it's not quite the whole story. It's a very insecure process with a lot of pressure, long hours, and incredibly high risk of failure with significant responsibility. A recollection that continues to haunt me was when a patient called to ask if our solution could help her, but it was too early for human use and now she's not with us anymore. Although the process of bringing a solution to the market is overwhelming, it's that patient that reminds me of why I'm doing this. It hurts to realize that so many innovations at the universities just don't make their way to patients in need. Universities in the Netherlands are one of the best at doing research in the field of life sciences. We rank in the top three for most patents per capita in Europe, but the number of ideas that actually reach patients are much lower. This is very undesirable. Why is this the case and what can we do about it? I think there's a fundamental reason for this that is deeply embedded in the Dutch culture. It concerns two conflicting attitudes. One is the feeling of academic superiority over commercial success, striving for a scientific value versus moneymaking. And the other is our deeply rooted sense of equality. If the dikes break, we all must step out or we will drown together. Don't think you're special, act normal. These two deeply rooted convictions need some serious rethinking. Let's start with the academic superiority. 75% of researchers at the Dutch universities think that getting money from industry is a bad idea. They think that it creates a conflict of interest, affecting the credibility of scientific results, the overall integrity of the university, the academic freedom of researchers, etc. But without industry cooperation, scientists are not exposed to real market need, like types of research, patents, or even official lab journal requirements. Missing exposure also causes a lack of knowledge and reference frames in dealmaking, which is perceived by 75% as the biggest barrier. An example is the overvaluation of intellectual property by the university. I was free to file the IP on my own graduation project, but asked the corporation from the university. This was a 5,000-year investment at the time, and my university wanted 30% of the shares of my company. Even as an inexperienced student, this didn't require a lot of thought. I took a loan and filed it myself. Those were the cheapest shares I bought in my life. Okay, so the effect isn't quite positive, but what should we rethink? First of all, the picture of fast moneymakers is biased. We're only focused on the successes that make it. We forget that most of the projects that are started never get to market. Without industry exposure, we discredit the endless time and money that are needed to actually get there. I'll give you an example. We made the headlines by signing a licensing deal with a total deal value of 100 million euros within two years after spinning out of the university. What you think is that it took two years to earn 100 million. What you don't realize is the fact that of that 100 million, only a tiny part is in our bank account today. And with that money, we have only just started the development of the therapy, which will take at least on average another eight years, and on average 270 million to get to the market, with a 7% chance of success to actually get there. And for that tiny chance of success, the researcher who studied this field for five years quit his job. We personally invested our own money, spent those years full time with no salaries, heard no 212 times after investment pitches that eventually led to the deal, and still we're looking at a 93% chance of failure. Now what do you see? Also we forget that research at the universities is actually there to serve the community. After research and education, knowledge transfer for the benefit of society is the third core task. I'll tell you a little secret. The only way to let science have any impact at all is by getting to market. And then there's this strange conviction that it should be profitable for universities. In the US, they did research amongst 196 universities. They invested a total of $61 billion in research, leading to a total income of $2.5 billion. That's 4.1% of what was invested. And 40% of that income came from only 12 universities and was based on a single technology. We shouldn't expect being much better than that. Now that we have looked at the feeling of academic superiority over commercial success, I perhaps have a more realistic view on the fact that the market is the only way for science to lead to impact. Let's look at the second very conflicting conviction that stands in the way. It's the deeply rooted sense of equality, the Dutch praising of our being normal. We have a saying, act normal, which is crazy enough. What we tell each other every day is try to fit in. So why do we so strongly adhere to our culture of normalcy? Interestingly, feelings of pride and shame play an important role here. When you identify with the Dutch culture, you inherently want to belong to it. And to belong to it, you want to act like it. Researchers have shown that feelings of pride and shame direct you to act within the boundaries of that group. So in the Netherlands, we feel proud when we fit in. And we feel shame when crossing boundaries of normalcy. So for example, we feel proud when we do as expected. And we feel shame to fail and also feel shame for bragging. A consequence is that successful entrepreneurship is of lower value in the Netherlands than in comparable other European countries. In my last company, I was super proud when I raised my first couple of million euros. And I noticed I started downgrading to later successes, raising tenfolds of that and exiting that company to a large corporation. During this talk, I felt shame telling you the story of the 212 no's, as well as the 100 million yes. Both of these just don't fit in. We're a country where going bankrupt and making millions are equally not well received, let alone talked about. The consequence is that we love to settle for mediocrity, because then we fit in. But getting money from investors is obviously harder for mediocre companies. So let's repeat and rethink those conflicting convictions of superiority and normalcy. The only way that science actually makes it to patients is through getting to market. And it only gets to the market if we dare to stick our heads above the cornfield. Both scientific quality and social impact are increased if daring companies are involved. It's a double-edged sword. But all stakeholders from universities, researchers to entrepreneurs need to act. So here's my call to the universities. Other universities like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge have shown that industry partnerships actually lead the way to more money for high quality and independent science. Harvard had $50 billion in endowments last year. That's 100 times more than the average Dutch university can spend in total, with the same average amount of students. Imagine the groundbreaking research you could do. They actively manage their conflict of interest with careful rules. They secure their academic freedom. And with such amounts of money, the focus on turnover from the tech transfer office becomes less important, and fair IP agreements become much easier. So to the researchers, first of all, please see the market process for what it actually is. Hard, risky, as well as time and money consuming, but with benefits for all stakeholders. Research shows that scientists who work most effectively with industry are also most successful as a scientist due to an upward cycle of money available for research at the universities. And the bonus is that you become more effective realizing impact in our society at the same time. So to the entrepreneurs, go back and share knowledge and experience with your colleagues at the universities. Studies have shown that collaboration between public and private partners are significantly improved when doing so. Send out your best role models that come from industry to slowly bring some positive light. But to accept our heroes and role models, we have to accept our losses too. There's no light without shadow. So please talk about your dark struggles, because they're true. And it serves others to understand the complete picture of the work we're doing to bring an innovation to the patient. Actually, trying to make an impact is extremely hard. But do talk about your successes too. And in doing so, you will feel shame. Feel it. And for the purpose of making that impact for the patient, do it anyway. How could you try and do that today? By repetition, I'm certain that that cornfield that we're not supposed to stick our heads out of will grow a little taller every day.