Innovation, entrepreneurship, promotion, and tenure

Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Promotion and Tenure in Biomedical Engineering: Communication from the Biomedical Engineering Society Long Range Planning Committee

Promotion and tenure (P&T) remain the central tenets of academia. The criteria for P&T both create and reflect the mission of an institution. The discipline of biomedical engineering is built upon the invention and translation of tools to address unmet clinical needs. 'Broadening the bar' for P&T to include efforts in innovation, entrepreneurship, and technology-based transfer (I/E/T) will require establishing the criteria and communication of methodology for their evaluation. We surveyed the department chairs across the fields of biomedical and bioengineering to understand the state-of-the-art in incorporation, evaluation, and definition of I/E/T as applied to the P&T process. The survey results reflected a commitment to increasing and respecting I/E/T activities as part of the P&T criteria. This was balanced by an equally strong desire for improving the education and policy for evaluating I/E/T internally as well as externally. The potential for 'broadening the bar' for P&T to include I/E/T activities in biomedical engineering may serve as an example for other fields in engineering and applied sciences, and a template for potential inclusion of additional efforts such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into the pillars of scholarship, education, and service.

Perspectives On Bioinspired Product Development: Entrapping Surfaces Based On Leaf Microstructures

Scientists who work on bioinspired systems may see the potential for products resulting from their research, but are often unaware of the various steps or issues related to commercialization or product development. Commercialization topics lie outside the usual training of a basic biologist, and therefore much of their exposure to these topics is adventitious, such as from casual conversations at meetings. Thus, the information gleaned may be somewhat piecemeal. In this paper, I briefly summarize some of what I have learned over the last ten years about commercialization from a variety of different sources, related to a bioinspired project in which I am involved. My collaborators and I have invented and patented a technology to entrap insect pests by a purely physical mechanism (a "physical insecticide" that does not involve a chemical insecticide). This bioinspired technology is based on a historical control method, in which leaves from bean plants were used to capture bed bugs for hundreds of years in parts of Eastern Europe. Sharp recurved microstructures (nonglandular trichomes) on the leaf surfaces irreversibly impale the tarsi (feet) of the bed bugs as they walk over the surfaces, trapping them in place. Pest professionals have identified bed bugs as the most difficult pest to control; there is a clear need for new methods of control for this pest. There are societal benefits and consumer demand for products that are sustainable, without regulatory constraints, and that minimize insecticide exposure for humans. But how would these products be developed from this starting point of a bioinspired invention? I will briefly share some of our experiences in the early and ongoing product development of entrapping surfaces, with the hope that this might interest or aid others who are considering entrepreneurial activities. Unfamiliar topics such as intellectual property, customer segmentation, value propositions, business models, conflict of interest, and conflict of commitment may require some attention from prospective entrepreneurs. This brief and introductory overview is intended for those academic scientists with little to no experience or knowledge in the area of commercialization.

Advancing a cultural change agenda in higher education: issues and values related to reimagining academic leadership

Traditional models of academic leadership are based largely on managerial and transactional approaches. Such efforts frequently support status quo individual success rather than values-based leadership based on collective institutional or sustainability-centered pursuits. Evolved reward systems and leaderships modes that support collective and institution-level effort and innovations prioritizing community and sustainability require new leadership models. Innovative leadership models that transcend traditional gatekeeping are needed and four leadership modes to support innovation and collective efforts are discussed, including shared leadership that draws on distributed contributions of multiple individuals; creative or innovative leadership that requires risk-taking, experimentation, and experiential learning; qualitative leadership that is data-driven and includes evidence-based innovation; and, dynamic leadership based on demonstrated agility and ability to traverse different spaces using diverse modes of doing and thinking. Progressive leaders can move in and out of these modes in response to ecosystem needs, demands, and changes through the use of design thinking and initiatives to support innovation and sustainability in higher education. Success in evolved leadership approaches, including centering sustainability goals that impact institutions themselves and communities in which they exist, require aligning reformed leadership goals and practices with funding models and reward systems, as well as policies and institutional change strategies.