Triple Threat: How Proof-of-Concept Centers Sustain Academic Translation and Commercialization

• In Event: Innovation Policy, R&D Systems, and Science Funding

Abstract

Proof of Concept Centers (PoCCs) are an important emerging mechanism for increasing the translation of academic research into commercial products. While prior work has documented correlations between PoCCs and commercialization outcomes, we know less about how PoCCs help academic innovators overcome specific barriers along the commercialization pathway. Using a mixed-method design, we argue that PoCCs’ three core program elements—training, mentorship, and funding—have complementary effects that together provide innovators with a more complete toolkit to (1) develop credible commercialization plans, (2) pivot as technical and market barriers emerge, and (3) sustain technology development until private investment becomes feasible. We analyze 314 biomedical technologies supported by six National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded PoCCs between 2015 and 2021 using a hand-collected dataset that tracks technology development and downstream commercial outcomes for up to 8 years following initial support and includes primary investigator (PI) interviews conducted near the end of each PoCC award period. Drawing on 144 interviews, we find that innovators report that training clarified the roadmap to commercialization, mentorship enabled timely pivots that reduced early exits, and funding sustained progress toward commercial application. At the time of award, most projects were not ready to pursue private capital, and in most cases, PIs report they would not have pursued commercialization without PoCC funding. Additionally, we show that marginal differences in award size have a significant impact on the likelihood of attracting follow-on private capital. We estimate project receive an extra $1.61 in private follow-on funding for every marginal dollar in their initial grant. This result is robust to an instrumental-variables approach designed to mitigate selection bias. We interpret these findings as evidence that PIs use available PoCC resources to reach investable milestones—and that training and mentorship, delivered in concert with funding, guide academic translation and maximize the impact of monetary support. These resources help academic to maximize the impacts of their funding, allowing for observable differences in performance based on marginal differences in funding.

Author

• Adams Gabriel Bailey, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  Presenting Author