Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Vol 19, May 2014, pp 167-176

Technology Transfer and Commercialization – Innovative Model for

Strengthening Research and Industry Linkages and Valuation through
Public Private Partnership in Agriculture*
Sudha Mysore†
Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore 560089, India

Received 11 December 2013

Innovative technical knowledge, often packaged as ‘improved technology’ is imperative for agricultural crop
productivity enhancement. The effort of technology development is complete only when it is adopted by the end user as a
product suitable for commercial application. It is thus important that university/research organizations understand industry
needs or work in close collaboration with the industry. With a view to enhance university/research-industry linkages,
augmenting ‘market driven research’ and assigning ‘value’ to innovative research, universities world-over have initiated
technology transfer and commercialization efforts. Public sector lead university/research organizations are repositories of
rich crop germplasm and skilled plant breeding that could offer unique solutions or provide a platform for modern improved
technologies with effective pest and disease resistance traits. Use of such germplasm for developing varieties/hybrids with
disease or pest resistance both by public and private sector research efforts is the order of the day. However, these could just
be simple exchanges; or simple licensing between public and private sector units involving arbitrarily assigned value and not
active partnership. A collaboration that not only enhances the value of the material in use, but also brings forth a multitude
of benefits to society is a model that needs to be promulgated in emerging economies, especially while utilizing genetic
resources. This paper presents three such models of public-private partnerships by Brazil, Chile and USA involving unique
approaches of valuing improved genetic material that helped enhance the overall value of the end product and also promoted
effective public private partnerships for emulation by other emerging economies.

Keywords: Technology transfer, public private partnership, valuation

Innovative technical knowledge has well been proven ‘value’ to innovative research, universities world
to be the source of productivity enhancement in over have initiated technology transfer and
general and of agricultural crop productivity in commercialization efforts. The Bayh-Dole Act 1980
particular. Public sector universities and research (35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.) has particularly been referred
institutions have been the primary sources of such to as enabling university/research organizations to
technical knowledge packaged as improved surge forward in this endeavour. Evidence from the
technologies. The effort in technology development is US universities and research organizations suggests
complete only when the technology is adopted by the strengthening of university industry linkage post
end user, which is possible only if the technical Bay-Dole Act with technology transfer and
knowledge is transformed into a product suitable for commercialization efforts, generated a fourfold
commercial production and application. It is thus increase in numbers of licenses and royalty
imperative that university/research organizations incomes between 1980 and 1990 (refs 1,2). The share
understand the needs of the industry or work in of total R&D support to US colleges and universities
close collaboration with the industry. With a had risen steadily from 5.3% in 1953, to 10.0%
view to enhance university/research-industry linkages, in 1975, to 11.0% in 2000. Of the US$ 42,431 billion
augmenting ‘market driven research’ and assign in research performed by the US academic sector in
________ 2004, 61.5% was provided by the federal government,
†Email: [email protected] 19.3% was from the institutions’ own funds, 9.0%
*The paper forms a part of the research activity of the author provided by private non-profit organizations, and
in the Fulbright-Nehru Senior Research Fellowship programme
during 2012-13 at Michigan State University, East Lansing,
approximately 5% each by industry and special state
MI, 48824 government programs.3
168 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2014

According to recent estimates by Association of Public-sector lead universities/research organiza-

University Technology Managers (AUTM), the US tions, and national and international seed depositories
university system’s total licence revenue increased are repositories of rich and useful germplasm
by 3% from 2009 to 2010 at US$ 2.4 billion4 that could offer unique solutions or provide a
from transfer of innovative technologies and platform for modern improved technologies with
commercialization through university industry linkage effective pest and disease resistance traits. Use of
in 2010. This revenue is primarily an indicator that such germplasm for developing varieties/hybrids with
technologies developed at universities and research disease or pest resistance both by public and private
institutions have been incorporated into products. sector research efforts is the order of the day.
Revenue is generally obtained as a royalty on product However, these solutions could reach the market
sales, so this revenue demonstrates that valuable through simple exchanges; or through simple
technology is reaching the public. This only further licensing between public and private sector units
justifies the argument that ‘innovation’ is the primary involving arbitrarily assigned value and not
source of technical knowledge as has been necessarily involve active partnership. A
emphasized in several fora by the World Intellectual collaboration that not only enhances the value of
Property Organization’s (WIPO’s) development the material in use, but also brings forth a multitude
agenda5 and that the true value of an innovative of benefits across society is the one that needs to
knowlegde is realised when it is commercialized. be promulgated in emerging economies, especially
The new world order under the World Trade while utilizing germplasm/genetic resources.
Organization (WTO)-led Trade Related Aspects of This paper presents three cases of public private
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement partnership models in agricultural research
also has emphasized and compelled emerging collaboration involving germplasm valuation from
economies to adopt intellectual property rights (IPR) Brazil, Chile and USA. The paper attempts to draw
legislation for enhancing innovation behaviour inferences useful for application in emerging
among its researchers. economies like India, which are in the process of
expanding technology transfer and commercialization
A number of emerging middle and low income to enhance PPP models. The paper is presented in
economies have been quick to emulate this policy, three sections: the first presents two case studies, one
falling in line with TRIPS, and have started adopting each from Brazil and Chile involving PPP on genetic
legislation for initiating technology transfer and resources; the second details the case study
commercialization of university/ research results since undertaken by the author on Soybean Aphid
early in the new millennium. Most countries have Management research and PPP model adopted by
either initiated the process or have completed Michigan State University, USA and the last draws
modifying their legislation to become TRIPS- inferences and useful lessons from the three cases for
compliant and also have started technology transfer application in other emerging economies.
offices (TTOs) in their universities and research
organizations. Stronger university-industry linkage, University/ Research Institute Industry Linkage
boost to ‘innovation behaviour’ through faster scaling Case Study of Brazil’s Technology Transfer Efforts
up of ‘proof of concept to industrial application’, Brazil is one of the earliest among the emerging
‘incentivizing innovation’ in research and enhanced economies to adopt IPRs and technology transfer
public private partnerships (PPP) are some of the policies.6 Besides the central office for technological
positive outcomes that weigh in favour of promoting innovation established at the National Council for
the concept of TTOs and commercialization offices at Scientific and Technological Development to promote
the university/research organizations. The primary innovation at universities and encourage technology
aim of TTO and commercialization of university transfer to Brazilian industry since mid 80s,
research is to make the research more useful for the Technological Innovation Centers operate today at
industry and also to enhance the participation of the different Brazilian universities to protect intellectual
private sector into public sector research endeavours, property and facilitate the university–industry
especially in agricultural research, though such interface. Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
linkages appear common in the pharma and medical (EMBRAPA) started a special agency, the USP
devices fields in developed countries. Agency for Innovation, in 1996. The Technology
 MYSORE: INNOVATIVE MODEL FOR PPP PARTNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURE 169

Development Support Centre started in 1989, and proposal arising from making glyphosate-resistant
Inova, a TTO under Unicamp in 1999 (ref. 7). essentially derived varieties from EMBRAPA
Unicamp’s Inova, one of the biggest technology germplasm, both Pharmacia and EMBRAPA were
transfer offices in Brazil, undertakes patenting interested in executing the licence but were unsure of
innovations and transfer of technologies. Within a short assigning value for the EMBRAPA owned
period of four years since inception, by 2003, Inova germplasm. Through the intervention of Cornell
obtained 191 patents (48% in chemistry) and had University lead economists, this PPP was successfully
administered over 128 technology transfer agreements.6 negotiated and executed.
Inova owns the technologies and attempts to The results of the ‘economic surplus model’, which
commercialize them on its own, though the law permits takes into account both the anticipated costs and
transfer of ownership to innovators. In a unique model anticipated accrual of benefits due to adoption of a
of commercialization, instead of commercializing new technology, adopted by the economists suggested
available technologies arising from basic research enhanced benefit to both Brazil’s economy and the
programmes after an invention occurs, Inova also rest of the world if Pharmacia and EMBRAPA
undertakes market research for identifying the market cooperated and developed GM varieties. The model
demand in advance of the research project and attempts predicted the flow of costs and benefits to the two
to scale up and commercialize those specific organizations and the world at large with and without
technologies that have proven market demand. Inova the technology. Results suggested that the combined
also promotes joint research projects with 50% funding cooperative average annual sales of soybean varieties
from private companies. Over ten companies that from Pharmacia/ EMBRAPA resulted in US$ 1070
have incubated with Inova in the last two years are million additional revenue as against that from the
ready for take-off. The TTO allotted an exclusive sale of EMBRAPA varieties alone or Pharmacia’s
licence of one of its agricultural technologies to a varieties alone. Further, the total economic surplus
company for 20 years with 1.5% royalty per annum, generated from the PPP was estimated at US$ 51.49
33% of which is distributed to the innovators.8 million for Brazil alone.9 Based on these results,
EMBRAPA and Pharmacia arrived at the appropriate
A unique case of PPP was implemented in soybean value for the use of germplasm from EMBRAPA and
research by EMBRAPA during late nineties. negotiated the PPP model.
EMBRAPA, a publicly held research organization,
has been a repository of useful germplasm for several Case Study of Chilean Efforts at Technology
crops including soybean and is a leader in Brazilian Commercialization
soybean variety development since the 1990s,9 In Chile, the National Innovation Council for
Pharmacia (former Monsanto), a private seed Competitiveness (Consejo Nacional de Innovación
company, bought a small Brazilian soya seed para la Competitividad, CNIC) is the highest body
company ‘Monsoy’ in the early 90s, which had that caters to the needs of research and development,
developed varieties of soybean with glyphosate while Foundación Chile – an innovative facility
resistance, but were low in productivity. Pharmacia launched in 2004, assumes the primary responsibility
initiated a move to use better-performing EMBRAPA of forming university-industry research collaborations
varieties for creation of genetically modified for improvised PPPs.6,8,10
organisms (GMO) glyphosate resistance, which in Chile, a country rich in natural resources, became
turn would be marketed by Monsoy. According to the active in technology transfer and commercialization
Brazilian Plant Breeders Rights (PBR) law, which starting with the new millennium. The CNIC was
follows the 1978 UPOV treaty as amended in 1991, a initiated to provide broad strategies to improve the
GMO variety varying from the starting variety only relevance and quality of the supply of innovative
by the presence of the glyphosate-resistance gene ideas and to encourage the private sector to invest
insertion would be an ‘essentially derived variety’. more into the public R&D system. Chile adopted a
Thus, if Pharmacia used plant-breeder’s-right- system of intermediaries who link research and
protected germplasm/ varieties of EMBRAPA for any industry information flows referred to as technology
genetic transformation, Pharmacia would require a transfer and commercialization system. Chile adopted
licence to EMBRAPA’s plant breeder’s right to three main complementary approaches in transferring
propagate the GMO variety. In view of the win–win advanced science and technology knowledge into
170 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2014

productive use: (i) management of intellectual million pesos, about US$ 4 million, both from public
property; (ii) strategic partnerships for applied and private resources, between 2006 and 2011 has been
oriented research; and (iii) creation of new knowledge allocated for developing more competitive vine
based firms.9 However, due to reasons such as an breeding programs (61% of the budget), as well as for
insufficient and ineffective reward system, preference nectarines and cherry trees, thus paving way for
for publication over commercialization, and no renewed models of cooperation in scientific pursuits.
facility for benefit sharing of technology
commercialization and royalty sharing, collaborations Innovative PPP Model of Michigan State
could not be initiated. Funding sources’ preferences University
for research being institutional or indigenous While the two case studies referred to above bring
placed high priority on basic research and not on forth two models of PPP in enhancing the value of a
research of commercial value.11 research output through research collaborations, both
In addition to the TTOs, universities also take help have been based on specific but well established
from special units, such as Dirección de products or traits involving genetic resources. Further,
Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas de la both the case studies highlight genetic transformations
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (DICTUC), a which have well established IPR protection
company set up 70 years ago by the Pontificia possibilities as well. The valuation of the genetic
Universidad Católica de Chile, to interact with the resources used showcased varied models. This section
industry by providing advisory and certification in contrast presents a case of R&D collaboration and
services, training and incubation and spin offs (mainly partnership between a public research organization
of campus related activities). Yet, its effectiveness is and a quasi-private organization representing the
hampered by several constraints, such as project producers themselves in arriving at a solution to a
based financing, absence of IP expertise, etc.10 problem benefitting the society as a whole. The PPP
approach presented here is unique since it does not
Since 2004, Foundación Chile in collaboration with
include a GMO and is formulated for the generation
Corporacion Nacional del Cobre (CODELCO) and
of products rather than on provision of a finished
Nippon Mining has initiated a biotech research
product and involves the ‘crop growers’ themselves as
alliance.11 In a unique approach, Foundación Chile has
primary stakeholders.
developed an international network of parties through a
R&D consortium, a technology partner, and a local PPP Model for Soybean Aphid Management (SAM)
technology transfer organization for scaling up the from MSU
results of the research collaboration. The products of The US raises more than half of all the
such collaborative research have been commercialized soybeans produced worldwide. In 2008, US soybean
through new companies with specific commercial foci farmers harvested 2.959 billion bushels (80.54 million
along the value chain, which included nurseries with metric tons) of soybeans. Soybean is an important
access to germplasm, and capacity to undertake some crop in Michigan and the Midwestern United States.
research. After thirteen years of research, one such Farming soybeans has an economic impact of over
consortium, the Biofrutales Consortium, developed the US$ 1 billion for the state of Michigan, which plants
first transgenic variety of table grapes in Chile, which over 2 million acres annually.12
have the characteristic of not requiring chemicals to be Soybean Aphid (SA) is a major invasive pest of
resistant to the main fungi that attack vines and affect soybean in North America. Native to Asia, SA was
production, such as botrytis and the powdery mildew. first detected in the United States in the state of
Since 2005, Foundación Chile has successfully Wisconsin in 2000. SA rapidly spread to over 20
commercialized over 1000 transgenic lines being tested north-central states within four years.13 Heavy
for disease resistant grapes.11 To achieve this grape, infestation of soybean aphid can reduce yield directly
derived from the Thompson seedless variety, the through plant feeding and indirectly through virus
consortium paid the rights for the US technology that transmission and reduction in seed quality.13,14,
was later perfected in the country in order to have a In 2003, when most north-central states suffered
platform for genetic transformation. It is one of the first from unprecedented soybean aphid infestations,
such experiences in the world, and the results have yield losses were estimated to be 0.4 to 0.9 ton/ha
been patented as well. It is stated that more than 3,000 (9 to 13 bu/a).14-17 At US$ 7.00/bu this represented a
 MYSORE: INNOVATIVE MODEL FOR PPP PARTNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURE 171

loss of at least US$ 2.4 billion.18 The Unites States losses. Efforts have been on to find alternate
national average yield fell by 11% compared to the pathways for SA control including identification of
previous 5-year average, and US soybean prices SA resistance by MSU.
exceeded US$ 294/ton ($ 8/bu), 25% above the
previous year.12 The Alternate Approach for SAM
When SA was introduced into the US, no
By 2005, the insecticide treated soybean area in commercial cultivars carried SA resistance.
mid-west states including Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Furthermore, no sources of SA resistance were known
Minnesota, Michigan and Ohio leaped to 20% in in early maturing (maturity group 0 to III) soybean
2005, compared to less than 1% before 2000 (ref. 18). germplasm.23 This left farmers with insecticides as the
Prophylactic treatments with stylet oils or insecticides only means of controlling SA. The SA is expected to
could protect soybean from yield loss. However, the cause yield losses of up to 50% from physical damage
cost of prophylactic treatment exceeded yield and may cause damage through transmission of
enhancement. Control failures also occurred, viruses into the plant. Thus, in the long run, host plant
depending on the arrival time and pest buildup. resistance is the preferred solution rather than risk the
Further, most commonly used soybean aphid cost of insecticide spraying, which has the additional
insecticides (stylet oils, esfenvalerate, lambda- negative environmental consequences of killing
cyhalothrin and zeta-cypermethrin) were found to be beneficial insects.
moderately toxic to humans.19,18 Thus, as an alternate Michigan State University (MSU) developed this
to prophylactic seed treatment and early season alternate approach by introgressing aphid resistance
sprays, an integrated pest management (IPM) protocol from exotic germplasm to elite Michigan soybean
for SA was developed based on extensive field testing germplasm. To facilitate rapid breeding, DNA
in the soybean aphid infested states of Iowa, markers were developed in 2007. The Michigan
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Soybean Promotion Committee (MSPC),23 was
Wisconsin between 2003 and 2005. Researchers created in 1976 to help promote soybean in Michigan.
identified soybean aphid population growth rates and The MSPC is financed through Michigan soybeans
the relationship between soybean aphid density and sold. When a grower sells his soybeans to a ‘first
yield loss, thereby establishing an action threshold at purchaser’ in Michigan, the ‘first purchaser’ collects
250 aphids per plant19 that warranted action. one-half of one per cent (0.5%) of the value of the
Insecticide sprays, whether prophylactic or applied as soybeans sold. The collected amounts are referred to
part of IPM, cost farmers approximately US$ 8-12/a as ‘checkoff’ fees. The checkoff is then equally
in 2004. Under IPM, ineffective spray treatments divided between MSPC and the United Soybean
were avoided, but a cost of between US$ 1.00 Board. The Michigan portion is primarily divided
and $2.00/a was incurred for scouting.18 Thus, in among advancing soybean marketing, improving
years of low SA incidence IPM incurs a cost of only production technology, development of new uses for
US$ 2.00/a, but when spraying is required IPM would soybeans, and communications to producers by
cost approximately US$2.00/a more than prophylaxis. MSPC every year. MSPC often partners with
A study by Song and Swinton21 estimated the researchers at Michigan State University.
loss from soybean aphid in 2004 to be in the range of A total of around US$ 200,000-300,000 is
US$ 274 to $698 million.22 If the soybean expended every year by MSPC at MSU towards
aphid population exceeds the threshold and is soybean improvement, soybean agronomy, and
not controlled, it may cause up to 0.66 ton/ha alternative use programmes.24 Michigan State
(9.7bu/ac) yield loss. However, by timely treatment University’s research efforts at developing elite
when above threshold, using prophylactic or IPM germplasm for SAM have been funded by MSPC. In
treatments, the yield loss can be averted. Although view of the potential of the new technology, MSPC
there is no significant difference in yield effect came forward to license the technology from
between IPM and prophylactic treatments,18 MSU through its Technology Transfer and
the treatments differ in control costs, which consist of Commercialization office, MSU Technologies
spraying cost, insecticide cost, and scouting costs for (MSUT). The Michigan Soybean Promotion
IPM. The pest incidence is anticipated to increase in Committee further decided to commercialize the
future, causing both yield as well as environmental invention to ensure its availability to all the soybean
172 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2014

growers by sublicensing it to a mediator seed genetics In order to provide the economic evaluation of this
company. This mediator company specialized in the technology, four alternate valuation scenarios have
introduction of unique and advantageous trait genes been considered, based on the review of literature.
into the commercial market, and was expected to These include, the estimated economic loss due to
ensure that the invention is sub-licensed to a number soybean aphids, (i) if left uncontrolled, (ii) taking up
of seed companies for further testing and introducing prophylactic control, (iii) gradual adoption of active
the gene into other soybean varieties. A number of threshold-based IPM and (iv) the use of elite aphid
commercial seed companies have sublicensed the resistant germplasm. Results based on literature
invention for further testing and to be brought out as review suggest the SA, if left uncontrolled, would
soybean aphid resistance (SAR) system. The product have an estimated cost US$ 7.16 billion (the present
is likely to reach the market by 2016. value of economic loss for the period 2000-17), or 3%
The Michigan State University is prosecuting of the total US soybean production value during that
patents in the United States claiming the rag3, rag4, period. Prophylactic control can protect yield loss
and rag6 loci.25 The University is also seeking to caused by soybean aphid, but it increases control costs
trademark its SA resistance traits under the compared to the uncontrolled scenario, reducing the
SPARTA™ name.26 Seeing the potential of the estimated loss from US$ 7.16 to $ 3.33 billion, the
identified elite germplasm, the marker and the gene, remaining loss being the cost of prophylactic control.
MSU has obtained a patent on the invention at the
Further, assuming that the IPM is adopted
request of MSPC. The Michigan Soybean Promotion
gradually, thereby replacing prophylactic control
Committee and MSU entered into a licence for the
between 2004 and 2017, additional control-cost
technology under which they share the royalties
losses can be avoided, lowering SA control losses to
generated from MSPC’s sub-licensees.
US$ 1.34 billion. Based on the direct research and
Economic Impact of Elite Germplasm of Soybean extension costs of US$ 31 million, the internal rate of
When the SA resistance invention reaches the return to investment in active threshold-based IPM for
market, it is likely to result in enormous economic soybean aphid control is 140% (attributed exclusively
benefits to all stakeholders of soybean production. to the direct costs of research and outreach) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1—PPP model for SAR

 MYSORE: INNOVATIVE MODEL FOR PPP PARTNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURE 173

The new varieties that would reach the market by 50/50 with MSPC per the license agreement between
2016 with Sparta soybean aphid resistance would the parties. Under this model, MSU may earn about
change the entire SAM scenario. Despite the US$ 1.8 million in royalties from its SA resistance
increased cost of seed due to the inbred resistance at traits over the lifetime of the SA resistance patents.
US$ 3/acre, if resistance is total then the SA According to the above calculation relating
resistance trait technology would completely to Table 1, the market should be willing to
eliminate the cost of insecticide treatments and pay US$ 3.00/bu for SA resistance traits. Typically,
thereby result in enhanced economic benefit to the trait gene values are divided between the trait
soybean growers and society at large through decrease provider and the trait user-farmer such that the
total soybean prices. Not considering the beneficial farmer accrues economic benefits from purchase of
environmental effects, the new technology is the trait technology. Assuming a 50/50 split leads to
estimated to avert the estimated loss of over a trait royalty of US$ 1.50 to the technology
US$ 7.16 billion without incurring any insecticide provider. Alternatively, the technology provider
costs (Table 1). typically receives somewhere around 25% of the
In an attempt to demonstrate the benefits of a PPP, market value of its technology (or, more precisely,
Table 2 presents estimated potential royalty returns the operating profit from use of the technology), the
on SBA resistance to different stakeholders. Even remaining 75% is retained by the licensee as per
with an arbitrary value of US$ 0.0025/# of seed the oft-quoted 25% ‘rule of thumb’ for setting royalty
chosen as the technology royalty and a planting rate rates.27 Using the rule of thumb, MSPC, the licensee
of about 1 bu/acre, it accounts to US$ 0.125/acre in this case, could reasonably expect to receive a
planted. Assuming a rate of 58% aphid infestation royalty of US$ 0.75/bu. These two benefit-
(the percentage of US soybean acreage infested apportionment models place the reasonable royalty
as per USDA data) and 15% market penetration, rate at between US$ 0.75 and $1.50/bu. This again
the royalties accruable to MSU’s SA resistance is demonstrates that the royalty of US$ 0.125/bu used
US$ 3.6 million dollars. The royalties will be split above is likely very conservative.

Table 1—Economic evaluation of different pathways of SAM in Central USA

Scenario Unit cost Aggregate cost Aggregate loss

($/ha) (US$ billion) (US$ billion)

Scenario I (Uncontrolled SA)

Yield and total economic loss 0.66t 7.16

Scenario II ( Prophylactic)
Cost of spraying 8.00
Cost of insecticide 17.40
Sub-total77451000 Ha 25.45 1.97 3.33

Scenario III (IPM)

Aggregate loss 1.99
Direct IPM cost 24.95
Scouting costs 5.00
Sub-total 29.95 2.32
Research Cost 0.31
Net estimated benefit 0.569 – 1.257
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 140%

Scenario IV (Genetic resistance)

Apportioned additional cost 7.5
of seed (US$)
Net benefit accrued 6.7

Source: Author compilation based on refs 18 & 20 and own data

174 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2014

Table 2—Scheme of estimates for royalty accruals for While it is a usual practice for the private
SAM resistance companies to utilize the output of research from the
university to further the research efforts for private
Particulars Units Value
commercial gain and to benefit the society, it is the
Base level production 76.6 Million time, type and terms of partnership that needs
(2003) MT assessment. The three cases presented in this paper
Seed requirement (lbs) 1# planted/50# 3377447200 bring forth the following specific points for
harvested (0.02) consideration while entering into PPP and also while
Purchased seed (lbs) 0.75 2533085400 valuing the genetic resources or products for use by
Aphid R market estimation 0.58 1469189532 the industry.
(lbs)
(i) Public private partnership involving technologies
Expected market penetration
(%) often tend to be based on the products already
During 2021-2024 0.15 220378430 developed from basic research without input from
Total sold (lbs) 2233168000
industrial partners. While assigning value for the
product or a specific trait, both parties involved
Royalty rate/Unit of seed 0.0025
(US$) tend to take the ‘actual costs involved approach’
Total annual royalty (US$) 5582920 and seldom consider the ‘potential economic
Annual royalty receivable 0.5 2791460
benefit’ accruable to the society due to the
by MSU (US$) technology/ product adoption. The true value of
an innovation or a genetic trait depends on the
Source: Author compilation based on proposed payment rates by total economic value society would have lost
MSUT without the technology, as has been demonstrated
by the valuation of soybean varieties by Brazil.
Conclusion and Policy Inferences (ii) The PPP model of Chile is suggestive of the
Technology transfer and commercialization role of facilitators in effective functioning of a
efforts need to ensure that the innovations from PPP. Further, if the product/genetic resource in
university research reach the industry quickly question are ‘protected’ through IPRs, the
and also get scaled up and sold as products, thereby valuation process gets even more streamlined.
benefiting society at large. Further, TTOs are Therefore there is a need for the researchers to
anticipated to strengthen the linkages between aim towards development of technology/advanced
university research and industry. One of the issues lines that hold definite intellectual property rights
that need focus by the technology transfer efforts is and they are protected as well.
the ‘pricing’ or ‘valuation’ of technologies. A second (iii) There is a need to create awareness and imbibe
issue is enhancing public-private partnerships, the process of ‘assigning a value’ to the results of
especially in emerging economies like India. R&D by both the public and private sector
Although a number of technologies in the form of players. A PPP is one that involves collaboration
varieties/hybrids and elite germplasm are exchanged at different stages. Involving a private-sector
between universities/research organizations and partner right from the start of the research
industry, it involves a simple exchange or a process of initiatives through active funding support by the
licensing involving an upfront payment and a minimal parties involved would improve the commercial
royalty. The value or the price for these materials is potential of project outputs and hence help realize
arrived at arbitrarily. As a number of TTOs under the true value and additional benefits. Adopting a
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) crop specific ‘consortia’ or ‘joint venture’
system are debating the valuation processes and research could be viable alternatives.
approaches, this paper brings together three case (iv) Creating ‘crop specific councils’ involving
studies that not only provides successful partnerships growers and other stakeholders is an assured way
between university/research organizations and of ensuring active involvement of all the
industry, but also paves the path for assigning value stakeholders in crop-based R&D efforts. The
for the contributions of university/research efforts at Michigan model of SAM brings forth the fact that
collecting and conserving unique or elite germplasm. involving the crop growers through research
 MYSORE: INNOVATIVE MODEL FOR PPP PARTNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURE 175

priority setting and through the process of 6 Graff G D, in Intellectual Property Management in Health
arriving at research solutions needs to be adopted and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices,
edited by A Krattiger et al. (MIHR, UK & PIPRA, USA),
by other emerging economies as well. The private Section 3.3, 2007, p. 169-195.
sector would then be able to not only appreciate 7 Reydon B P, UNICAMP – State University of Campinas,
the true value of the germplasm or genetic Findings-Micro Level Analysis, IP UniLink Consortium
material used, but would be willing to share meeting, Roorkee, India, 10-11 August 2009.
royalties with the research institutions. 8 Di Giorgio R C, in Intellectual Property Management in
Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best
Practices, edited by A Krattiger et al. (MIHR, UK & PIPRA,
A number of emerging economies face similar
USA), Section 17.16, 2007, p. 1747-1751.
conditions wherein the public university/research
9 Lesser W et al., Elite germplasm for GMO’s in
organizations hold unique germplasm that could add Brazil: Modeling government-agribusiness negotiations,
immense value in furthering research efforts. Linking International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
with the industry through PPPs meets the objective of 2 (3/4) (2001) 391-406.
using the germplasm for useful purposes, benefiting 10 Chile: Fostering Technology Transfer and
the society as also strengthening the research Commercialisation (World Bank, Washington DC), 2009,
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12441
capabilities of the researchers through benefit sharing. (25 November 2013).
Assigning value to the contribution of germplasm or 11 Fernandez C & Moynihan M, in Intellectual Property
specific trait needs special attention. Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A
Handbook of Best Practices, edited by A Krattiger et al.
Acknowledgement (MIHR, UK & PIPRA, USA), Section 17.2, 2007,
This research forms a part of the author’s research p. 1577-1583.
as a Fulbright-Nehru Senior Research Fellow at 12 Pest Management Practices, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, 1998-2003[NASS], 1998,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA. The
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pest/
author gratefully acknowledges the funding support (25 November 2013).
provided by the Fulbright-Nehru Fellowship, USAID, 13 Ragsdale D W, Voegtlin D J & O’Neil R J, Soybean aphid
New Delhi; Dr Karim M Maredia for accommodating biology in North America, Annals of the Entomological
this research and Dr Thomas Herlache, Senior Society of America, 97 (2) (2004) 204-208.
Executive, Michigan State University Technology for 14 Rutledge C E & O’Neil R J, Soybean plant stage and
facilitating this research. The author also is grateful to population growth of soybean aphid, Journal of Economic
Entomology, 99 (1) (2006) 60-66.
the Michigan Soybean Promotion Council for
15 Myers S W & Wedberg J L, Economic impact of
providing her with the details of this research soybean aphids on yields and optimal insecticide timing
collaboration. The author gratefully acknowledges effectiveness, in Proceedings of Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New and Pest Management Conference, Madison, Wisconsin,
Delhi and Indian Institute of Horticulture Research 15-17 January 2002.
(IIHR), Bangalore for facilitating this study. 16 Hunt T, Soybean aphid in Nebraska 2004 (Department of
Entomology, University of Nebraska), 2004.
References 17 Rice M E, O’Neal M E &Pedersen P, Soybean Aphids in
1 Cohen W, Nelson R & Walsh J, Links and impacts: The Iowa-2004, Agriculture and Environment Extension
influence of public research on industrial R&D, Management Publications, Book 86, 2004, http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
Science, 48 (1) (2002) 1-23. extension_ag_pubs/86 (26 May 2014).
2 Bozeman B, Technology transfer and public policy: A 18 Song F et al., Profitability analysis of soybean aphid
review of research and theory, Research Policy, 29 (4) control treatments in three north central states, Staff Paper
(2000) 627-655. No 2006-24, Department of Agricultural Economics, 2006.
3 Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, National Science 19 Fishel F M, Pesticide Use Trends in the US: Agricultural
Board (National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA), NSB Pesticides, PI-139, Pesticide Information Office, Florida
06-01A, Vol 2, 2006. Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
4 AUTM U.S. Licensing Survey FY 2010, Association of Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,
University Technology Managers (AUTM). 2007, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI176 (26 May 2014).
5 Sampat B N, The Bayh-Dole Model in developing countries: 20 Ragsdale D W et al., Economic Threshold for Soybean
Reflections on the Indian Bill on Publicly Funded Intellectual Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae), Journal of Economic
Property, Policy Brief No 5, UNCTAD - ICTSD Project Entomology, 100 (4) (2007) 1258-1267.
on IPRs and Sustainable Development, Washington, DC, 21 Feng S & Scott M S, Returns to integrated pest management
USA, 2009. research and outreach for soybean aphid, paper presented at
176 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MAY 2014

the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual 25 Jhongnan Z, QTL Mapping of Phytophthora Root Rot
Meeting, Orlando, FL, 27-29 July 2008. Resistance and Aphid Resistance in Soybean, PhD Thesis,
22 Livingston M et al., Economic and policy implication of Plant Breeding, & Biotechnology, Michigan State
wind-borne entry of Asian soybean rust into the United States, University, 2012.
Outlook report no, OCS-04D-02 (Economic Research Serve, 26 SPARTA, Trademark details, Serial No 77650367,
US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C), 2004. Registration No 3931614, Registered on 15 March 2011,
23 Mensah C et al., Resistance to soybean aphid in early MSU soybean seeds containing a trait for aphid-resistance.
maturing soybean germplasm, Crop Science, 45 (6) (2005)
2228-2233. 27 Goldscheider R, Jarosz J & Mulhern C, Use of the
24 Personal communication with Michigan State University, 25 per cent rule in valuing IP, Les Nouvelles,
Soybean Crop Improvement Council. 37 (December 2002) 121-133.