Probably no one in the University's central administration has a smaller office than Steven H. Atkinson '67, executive director of the University Committee on Patents and Copyrights (CPC). Tucked away in a corner of Holyoke Center, the tiny cubicle seems to rebel against the image of the huge, omnipotent University. But out of that little room have emanated almost all of Harvard's big successes in the area of technology transfer.

Created by the University in the mid-1970s to help patent and copyright their discoveries and inventions, the CPC has evolved into an organ that spends 90 per cent of its time on technology transfer, Atkinson says.

Four years ago, though, there was considerable doubt that technology transfer was a viable option for the University. But by the end of the committee's first two years, Atkinson says, it had discovered quite a few companies interested both in patentable and non-patentable discoveries.

Warning against the hazards of running a technology transfer program mainly for profit, Atkinson is troubled by some of the events of last fall. "The Ptashne situation really distorted the realities on the positive side of what can be done on this," he says, adding that the financial-gain motive is "a mistake that leads you into trouble."

Concentrating on benefiting the public by getting patentable idea to the marketplace, the committee has refined its operations so that it now functions smoothly. Atkinson says, citing once-a-month meetings and precise agendas as committee staples. "What we've been doing since last fall is what we've been doing since we organized," says Henry C. Meadow, dean for planning and special projects in the faculty of Medicine and chairman if the CCP, says. "We've been working outside the framework of the Ptashne case totally."

Saying that the CPC has experienced "good, steady progress," Atkinson takes pride in noting that the committee has gotten about 75 discoveries and inventions patented. He is quick to add that it has found an equal number of patentable ideas. In addition, it has begun to investigate possible changes in the University's existing policy on copyrights, which cover such expanding fields as computer software and audio-visual work. "The committee is a better committee now than it ever has been," Atkinson says.

Despite any dark clouds the Ptashne case may have spread over the public perception of technology transfer, the CPC plans to continue developing. "My view is that what you'll see in ten years or so is a relatively highly organized approach to relationships with industry," Atkinson says, adding. "I think it's do-able--but I think it's a change that has to be dealt with very gradually and very carefully."