Let's Keep Innovation a Top American Priority

From novel vaccine- and bio-preservation techniques to emergency response drones, America's universities are hard at work developing the technologies of tomorrow. The science behind many innovations we take for granted today, like high-definition television and Google's search engine, originated in university labs across America.

These technological advances are not accidents. They're only possible because of the deliberately adopted policies that foster innovation and encourage universities and other research institutions to turn their early-stage patented research into accessible products.

Despite their success, lawmakers and critics continue to target these policies, threatening the nation's advancements in innovation. The new administration must oppose any threats to this thriving yet delicate ecosystem.

Universities owe much of their success in commercializing inventions to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. This bipartisan legislation paved the way for academic institutions and federal labs to patent their federally-funded inventions and license them to private companies.

Before Bayh-Dole, the government retained the patent rights for all innovations that benefited from federal funding. The government's efforts to license these patents were largely unsuccessful. By 1980, the government licensed just 5% of the 28,000 patents it held.

Since allowing universities to control the destiny of their inventions over the past 44 years, innovation and commercialization have flourished. The Bayh-Dole system has boosted U.S. economic output by $1 trillion, supported more than 6 million jobs, and led to the founding of over 18,000 startups.

Over my 25-plus years immersed in innovation for academia, industry, and government, I've touched each part of the virtuous cycle Bayh-Dole enables: research, investment, commercialization, and reinvestment. In my current role at UNC Charlotte, I oversee all of these areas in what is known as "technology transfer."

Here's how it works: First, university tech transfer offices help scientists obtain intellectual property protections for their laboratory breakthroughs. Then, they seek private sector partners with commercial expertise to transform these early-stage inventions into market-ready products. These partners are often startups that rely on venture capital investors.

When university-patented inventions are licensed and turned into successful commercial products, everyone wins. Institutions use their share of the licensing fees and royalties to cover patent filing costs and to fund future research. The original inventors also receive compensation. And the public benefits from access to helpful, sometimes life-saving, new products.

But in 2023, the Department of Commerce released a proposal that would misuse the Bayh-Dole Act to allow federal agencies to relicense patents that received government research funding when they determine the resulting product is unreasonably priced. This misguided proposal conflicts with the historical application of Bayh-Dole and ignores fundamental principles of intellectual property rights.

Officials say the plan will lower prescription drug costs because it could apply to medicines that arose from federally-funded university research. In reality, it would be largely ineffective in achieving this goal. Critically, it could devastate the academic technology transfer system and not just for drug development. Any federally-funded innovations -- from architecture to renewable energy, robotics, and medical devices -- would be at risk.

Despite this, proponents of the plan continue to push for its implementation. Most recently, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) submitted a written question to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. amid his confirmation hearing for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services asking about using the Bayh-Dole Act to lower prescription drug costs. Luckily, RFK Jr. staunchly opposed this in his response. It is critical the Trump administration formally withdraws the proposal.

Turning an early-stage university invention into a commercial product can take over a decade and require billions of dollars in investment. To date, startups and their investors have been willing to accept these long odds. The chance to earn a return -- and help humanity in the process -- makes the risk-reward tradeoff a worthwhile business proposition.

But investor risk tolerance has limits. If the government can relicense patents based solely on perceived unfair product pricing from day one through year 20 in the life of a patent, investors will add this risk into their calculations for funding decisions. There is a distinct chance thousands of promising university innovations will go without venture funding due to the added uncertainty, and they will stay on the shelf.

Intellectual property rights drive our innovation economy by giving inventors the right to reap the gains of their inventions for a limited time, in exchange for contributing those innovations to the public domain. These are the only personal rights expressly written into the body of the U.S. Constitution -- a testament to how important securing intellectual property rights for inventors was to our founders. Curbing those rights sends the wrong message to innovators and investors dedicated to developing and bringing to market revolutionary products that benefit society.

Healthcare affordability is a critical national issue, and no American should struggle to afford medicines they need. But attacking intellectual property rights is the wrong tool to use for this worthy goal.

Laura Peter is the former Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.