On a blustery winter afternoon in January, the Center for Blood Research at the Harvard Medical School (HMS) held its first-ever product conference in an attempt to woo bidders for its new technologies.

Approximately 50 venture capitalists and entrepreneurs turned out for a plush hotel conference room reception to witness a two-hour demonstration of the fruits of cutting-edge research in immunology—innovations that might also be invaluable to the biotechnology industry.

The conference reflects an insurgent trend at Harvard called “technology transfer”—the process of selling discoveries made at universities to private firms.

The practice is touted by advocates as a way to expedite the movement of important discoveries out of the academy and into mainstream usage—and to turn a profit for universities in the process. Tech transfer promises to bring in millions of dollars in royalties to the University and its professors—a total of nearly $20 million last year for Harvard alone.

Although professors embrace the idea of increased funding for their research, many point to the ethical issues that could be raised by allowing private firms to fund research in which they have a definite interest.

“There are really serious conflicts of interest that naturally can’t be avoided,” says Baird Professor of Science, Emeritus, Dudley R. Herschbach.

University officials acknowledge these concerns but insist they should not preclude Harvard from exploring the benefits tech transfer has to offer.

Though Harvard has long lagged behind other major universities like MIT in capitalizing on tech transfer, University President Lawrence H. Summers and Provost Steven E. Hyman have prioritized expanding tech transfer as a way to find practical applications for Harvard’s discoveries.

The move comes from a president and a provost who have made the sciences a focus of their tenure.

Summers and Hyman have begun discussing possible strategies to facilitate the practice, and in a watershed speech last fall, Hyman encouraged professors to seriously consider the process.

Last November, the University even sponsored a workshop to counsel graduate students and professors on the process of starting their own biotechnology companies with Harvard-patented technology.

And though no concrete changes have yet been made, Hyman says that his goal is “making [tech transfer] something that is considered a normal thing to do if you have a discovery that has utility to the public.”

Catching Up on Cashing In

Universities have long been permitted to utilize intellectual property of their own creation for profit. But the vast majority of university research is at least partially supported by federal funds, which has historically allowed the government to retain title to those discoveries.

Until 1980, universities had to cut through significant amounts of red tape before being allowed to patent and sell discoveries made with the aid of federal funds. Under that system, very few inventions in academia ever made it into the mainstream.