Unlocking innovation from within the University base: How Queen Mary University of London is embedding innovation into the research culture

Queen Mary Innovation (QMI) is dedicated to maximising the economic and social impact of Queen Mary’s research using commercial tools. They protect and license intellectual property while building sustainable enterprises and social ventures to bring Queen Mary’s cutting-edge research to a global audience.

QMI currently has a portfolio of nearly 30 companies across diverse industries. They create three new spinouts each year, with plans to accelerate this growth further. In this interview, Dr Phil Clare, CEO of Queen Mary Innovation, shares his insights on the current trends in university commercialisation and the exciting opportunities ahead.

Note the views expressed herein are those solely of the author.

Could you provide your insights on global and national trends in university commercialisation activities?

I like to frame it in the context of universities’ development over the last thousand years, since commercialisation is quite a recent activity. For around 700 years, universities focused solely on teaching. Research has been a formal part of their mission for only a few hundred years. By comparison, commercialisation has only been a formalised activity for about 50 years.

Why do universities engage in commercialisation? Our role is not just to conduct interesting research, but to maximise the impact of that research on the economy and society. Sometimes, the best way to achieve that impact is by building a company to bring the research to market.

Over the last ten to twenty years, universities have collectively embraced the responsibility to make a positive contribution to society and the economy. Thirty years ago, we may have been seen as “ivory towers” where research was published and we hoped that someone else would pick it up and make a difference. That is no longer the case. Today, our job is to engage with the market and the public to make sure that research is used and, more importantly, that it makes a real difference.

Universities are partly a public investment, and while we deliver many outputs—such as educated students, new knowledge, and research—we must also ensure that we deliver benefits for society. This is the context in which commercialisation occurs. Researchers are producing new innovations in virtually every field imaginable, from filmmaking and linguistics to new types of toothpaste, solar panels, and therapies. Our job is to determine whether we can build a business around these innovations, use them to attract investment, or even develop social ventures where the primary goal is societal benefit, but a commercial vehicle is the most effective way to deliver it, such as in healthcare interventions.

Globally, universities are becoming increasingly effective at this. The number of companies emerging from universities continues to grow. One key trend over the past 20 years is a rise in academic interest in being actively involved in the commercialisation process. Previously, tech transfer offices and licensing organisations would often work with ideas somewhat independently of the academics, who were not always interested in being part of the new companies that were being set up.

However, we are now seeing more academics eager to engage in building businesses, which makes our job easier. We are witnessing a shift from a strong focus on licensing to a greater emphasis on business creation. This shift is driven by a variety of factors: the market, the government, and the academic community all want to see more spinouts, while companies are generally taking fewer licences. This is a positive development, and we must adapt to meet these new demands.

Tell me about the TenU activity and its relevance. Do you see it as a blueprint? What more could be done and why?

TenU is a group of ten universities who have come together to take a leadership role in university commercialisation. One of their key initiatives has been the creation of the USIT guides (University Spinout Investment Terms Guides), developed collaboratively with a group of investors. These guides were not just formulated by universities in isolation but were shaped through discussions with investors, entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders. This inclusive approach is crucial because it fosters dialogue and mutual understanding, helping to bridge gaps between differing perspectives.

The TenU initiative is valuable because it encourages open communication among all parties involved—universities, investors, and entrepreneurs. Often, criticisms from both sides are based on limited data and personal opinion. Effective policymaking and decision-making should be based on solid data, not anecdotes or frustrations. The TenU activity was successful in bringing everyone to the table, and its outputs, such as the concept of a “landing zone” for negotiations, were particularly helpful because no two deals are the same.

The greatest value of these guides is that they provide reassurance, particularly for those who do not frequently engage in these kinds of transactions. Universities, governments, funders, and charities tend to be risk-averse, and this can lead to delays as people request more and more information instead of making decisions. This is one reason why universities are sometimes criticised for being too slow. However, slow decision-making can also be found among investors, companies, and funders.

The underlying cause of indecision is often fear of making a mistake. The USIT guides offer a level of assurance for both inexperienced and experienced stakeholders. If a deal fits within the parameters set by these guides, it can be considered a “market normal” deal, which alleviates fears about potential repercussions. Knowing that an agreement aligns with industry standards gives people confidence to move forward more quickly. While speed is important, it is equally important to ensure decisions are well-founded and justifiable, and the USIT guides help to achieve that balance. As a blueprint, these guides are excellent. What more could be done? There is always room for better dialogue and deeper understanding.

What are the main challenges faced by UK university start-ups or spinouts in moving from the lab to the marketplace, and what could be done to address these challenges?

One of the biggest obstacles is the gap between initial research outputs and making them investable. Research outputs are often early-stage ideas, not market-ready products. They require significant development before they attract investment. Bridging this gap involves moving from research-focused thinking to market-focused strategies, which includes engaging with customers early on—a challenge for academics who may not have entrepreneurial experience.

A key challenge is supporting these ventures in their earliest stages. Government funding is helpful for early activities such as market engagement, prototyping, and initial testing. However, these early-stage challenges are often missed out of the story once a company achieves success, even though they are critical to getting there. The UK benefits from a small but experienced community of early-stage investors, and many universities are now taking the initiative to raise seed funding themselves to support innovation.

Despite criticism that universities are not interested in entrepreneurship, they have collectively raised over a billion pounds for investment in start-ups, demonstrating their commitment to growing successful companies. Queen Mary spinout companies alone raised £5m in 2022/23 and have raised over £100m in investment since 2018/19. The perception that the system is “broken” is not accurate; by international standards, the UK is a world leader. While there is always room for improvement, we should recognise our current strengths rather than trying to completely reinvent a system that we are steadily improving.

Universities are also increasingly recognising the need to support spinouts beyond their initial foundation. Twenty years ago, the goal was often to simply get companies out of the university and into the market. Today, there is greater appreciation for nurturing these businesses over a longer period. Universities are providing more formal support, including early-stage investments, and reinvesting proceeds from previous spinouts back into new ventures. There is a misconception that universities are “greedy” for equity; in reality, they mostly reinvest their earnings to fuel the next generation of entrepreneurs.

Another challenge is the speed of deal-making. While delays can occur, they are not always due to the universities themselves. Contracts can be complex, and delays can also result from other parties, including investors and research funders. It is important to streamline processes where possible, and recommendations from recent spinout reviews have been helpful in speeding things up. However, when multiple stakeholders are involved, and their interests must be carefully considered, some delays are inevitable.

So, while there are challenges in the transition from lab to marketplace, significant progress has been made, and universities are actively working to improve their support for spinouts and start-ups.

With increasing pressure on universities to demonstrate economic impact while also managing balance sheet challenges, what could this mean for university commercialisation activities?

I believe this pressure is positive. Universities should demonstrate economic impact and be accountable for public funding, ensuring it generates a return to the economy and society. However, some returns are very long-term. For instance, it has taken 20 to 30 years of research to understand climate change even to the extent that we do now. Early research might not have had immediate commercial use, but its value to society is immense, underscoring the importance of investing in long-term research.

We need to enhance our commercialisation efforts while recognising the interconnected roles of research, education, and innovation. Addressing balance sheet challenges isn’t solely about commercialisation; it involves a holistic approach across all university activities. For example, investing in facilities and activities that benefit both research and external companies can create shared value.

Universities play a crucial role in innovation ecosystems, serving as anchor institutions in local and global economies. At Queen Mary, we’ve been embedded in East London for centuries, committed to benefiting the local community. The challenge is to ensure healthcare innovations, for example, are applied locally within the NHS for the benefit of patients on our doorstep. This thinking has driven us to invest in social ventures—enterprises set up with the primary goal of achieving social impact.

Commercialisation is not limited to traditional fields like big science, pharmaceuticals, or technology. It also includes social policy interventions from social sciences, or socially engaged arts projects, such as films, which are areas where Queen Mary is doing incredible work. In healthcare, it’s not just about developing new drugs but also promoting preventative healthcare approaches.

To drive these changes effectively, universities cannot operate in isolation. Engaging with hospitals, clinicians, local authorities, and community groups is essential to solving societal problems. Commercialisation should be seen as a collaborative effort that involves working with local and global partners.

At Queen Mary, we are positioned in Whitechapel, an area of significant social need but also enormous potential for growth. Our aim is to create an innovation district that benefits local people by creating jobs and opportunities to develop new skills. We are investing in entrepreneurial support, such as hiring an Associate Director for Entrepreneurship, to foster an entrepreneurial culture for everyone, from first-year students to professors.

The debate over issues like equity shares is relatively minor compared to the bigger challenge of how universities, like Queen Mary, can be at the centre of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Universities are deeply embedded in their local communities and are not going anywhere, which makes them vital anchor points for regional growth. While global businesses and capital are mobile, universities provide a stable base that fosters loyalty and belonging.

Our vision is to build an entrepreneurial ecosystem in Whitechapel and across the East End, supporting all members of our community and contributing to the local economy. This requires not just funding but also talent, facilities, and a commitment to making a positive impact. Queen Mary is dedicated to being a force for good in East London, and similar conversations are happening across universities in the UK, recognising our shared responsibility to maximise our impact.

With the scale of science-based real estate being developed nationally, what might this mean for university commercialisation activities?

When considering life sciences and laboratory support, recent reports have highlighted a lack of available laboratory space for spinouts, particularly in the South East of England. During my time in Oxford, investors found themselves needing to become property investors simply to meet the demand for new labs to house these emerging companies. In places like Oxford and Cambridge, there is a very high demand and a clear need for more lab facilities. Laboratory science, especially, does not lend itself to remote working, so the creation of more lab space is crucial.

While some might suggest building labs outside of the crowded South, the reality is that we are in global competition for talent and business, so we need to build in both areas. Ideally, a company unable to find lab space in Cambridge might move to Newcastle, but we certainly don’t want them moving to Boston. Our true competitors are the large innovation ecosystems in other countries, so it’s vital that early-stage companies can benefit from the proximity to their parent university or affiliated hospital, wherever that is.

In terms of the supply of companies coming from universities, it’s a good question. There could certainly be more.

“Unlocking innovation” suggests that there might be untapped potential within universities. What cultural or structural changes do you think are necessary within academic institutions to better support innovation and commercialisation? How do you encourage a culture of entrepreneurship among faculty and students, particularly in environments traditionally focused on academic achievement?

In terms of unlocking innovation and tapping into potential within universities, I believe there is scope, but not in the way that some people might think. There is a common misconception that intellectual property (IP) is just sitting on the shelf, waiting to be dusted off and turned into a successful venture with a bit of investment. However, that’s not the reality. The IP developed in universities requires a great deal of further work to become viable. Experiments with open access programmes, where universities have tried giving away IP for free, often show that there are few takers because the IP isn’t yet investable. This highlights the need for universities to do substantial work to make their IP attractive to investors.

I used to think it was a twenty-year journey of cultural change that universities were on, but now I say we are twenty years into a fifty-year journey. The transformation is ongoing, and it’s clear we are not there yet. The academic career path today is quite different from what it was two decades ago. I remember, as an undergraduate and postgraduate, that the idea of building a start-up based on academic work was hardly ever mentioned. The only time it came up was when a lecturer had started their own business, and they were seen as a true pioneer. Today, however, entrepreneurship is becoming mainstream, and many academics view it as part of their career.

This shift means that work needs to be done to ensure universities become better environments for fostering entrepreneurship, and that academic career paths are developed in ways that better accommodate these changes. While progress is being made, these are generational changes in how universities perceive themselves and manage commercialisation activities. It will take time to achieve these cultural shifts, but I’m not pessimistic – it’s not that the culture isn’t changing; it’s just that it requires time. This is about a long-term shift in what universities are and how members of those universities see themselves in the context of entrepreneurship.

To encourage a culture of entrepreneurship, we need to make it easier for people to engage with entrepreneurial ideas and provide accessible opportunities for students. It is great to see that supervisors are increasingly seeing student entrepreneurship as a path to be encouraged. For those interested in entrepreneurship, universities should provide robust support structures, offering comprehensive information on how to read a term sheet, build a team, understand directors’ duties, handle investors, access resources and the fifty other things you need to build a business.

Starting a business is challenging, universities can therefore help make this easier by building networks, providing training and support, and offering encouragement and funding. We need to view universities as entrepreneurial ecosystems and invest in all the people who are part of them.

Universities are often criticised for taking too much equity or being too slow in enabling venture formation. Do you agree with this perspective, and if so, how can universities change this perception?

I don’t agree –  and nobody in this discussion is disinterested – everyone has skin in the game.  Having said that, it is important that we create properly-constructed investable opportunities, and the right cap table is part of this.

Universities do take equity, and rightly so, as we provide extensive support services and research, which is essentially funded by the public purse and the private resources of universities. When we receive returns from successful commercialisation, it’s not about profit – it’s about reinvesting in future projects and replacing funds that would otherwise come from taxpayers.

That said, it has been valuable to discuss how to balance equity shares in new ventures. The recent spinout review has emphasised appropriately rewarding academics, students, and others who join these businesses, recognising the risks they take. Often, intellectual property (IP) is created by a group, some of whom may join the resulting company while others may not. The increased focus on the running of a company and its operational realities is absolutely correct.

Recent research on founding equity suggests that the proportion of equity a university takes has no significant impact on the amount a company raises later on. There is no evidence to suggest that changing the equity model would make much of a difference to the outcomes for the company. However, it does make a difference to universities, as we need some return to continue funding these activities. So it’s important to remember the broader context.

Tell me about QMI and your ambitions in East London.

QMI uses commercial tools to maximise the impact of research. We see ourselves as being at the centre of a growing entrepreneurial ecosystem within the university.

Research and innovation go together. Our spinouts are special because they are the fruits of significant scientific discoveries. 92% of our research is world leading or internationally excellent (REF 2021) and we’re ranked 14th in the world for the quality of our research (THE World University Ranking 2024).

The core of our work involves taking innovations and transforming them into successful companies and valuable licences. We committed £1.1m of investment into 6 spinouts in 2023/24. Our goal is to ensure that the great ideas we develop are not only brought to market but also benefit society. My ambition is for us to be recognised as a hotbed for this kind of activity.

There are already some fantastic companies across various domains, but I want Queen Mary and East London to be seen as a truly spectacular place where this is happening. The development in Whitechapel is particularly exciting – I want labs to be built so that the companies we create can move in right next door. I don’t want these companies to leave Queen Mary, the Royal London, or East London. We want them to stay here, to grow, and to create jobs in East London, making this a defining characteristic of the area for the next 100 to 200 years.

That’s the ambition – I want Queen Mary to be an entrepreneurial university.

What are some of the most exciting developments on the horizon at QMI?

There are some fantastic developments on the horizon, particularly in AI-enabled healthcare and innovations. We’re working on AI-enabled musical instruments, new therapeutics for arthritis, and social health ventures focused on diabetes and other diseases. We are also exploring new manufacturing processes for solar panels and lightweight materials for satellite parts.

An exciting project is an appetite suppressing therapeutic that we hope will be on the market within the next year. It is superior in every way to the existing products and has the potential to make a significant impact on the obesity crisis. Another highlight is developing ways to diagnose heart disease earlier on, and without needing to be done in a hospital. It’s a really tangible example of how technology can bring down costs and waiting times in the NHS. Every time I speak with my team, I feel excited – there are some truly groundbreaking innovations coming through.

What role could QMI have in the Life Science Cluster in East London? What do you see as the big opportunities?

To some extent, the future is already here – we just want more of it. One of the most exciting developments in the last 10 years has been the filling of the capital gap, with university spinouts becoming much more strongly capitalised and receiving early-stage financing from UK-based funds linked to universities.

Our role is to help grow UK finance to support these companies. UK universities will provide the foundation for building a community of companies that form innovative ecosystems and sustain growth in the UK. We need to ensure that our own economy benefits from this, and the way to do that is by developing innovation districts around universities that anchor these companies here – not out of compulsion, but out of self-interest and culture. I think this is really important.

Globally, university innovation continues to be a key driver of growth. For example, if we look at developments in West Africa, where twenty years ago many universities were young institutions barely engaged in research, they are now actively growing their research capabilities and seeking partnerships with Western universities to foster an innovation culture. This is happening in places like Ghana and Nigeria because they recognise that having vibrant research universities is crucial for their economy, society, and their universities.

University innovation is a vital part of the global economy. The vision is for every university, everywhere, to understand its role in driving entrepreneurial behaviour. We work with partners across Europe and beyond to understand what excellence looks like, learn from each other, and build stronger and more robust university ecosystems.

About the Author

Dr. Phil Clare, CEO of Queen Mary Innovation, is committed to building an outstanding innovation ecosystem at the university.

Throughout his career in research management and knowledge exchange, Dr. Clare has been involved in many of the methods universities use to create positive societal impact. Before joining Queen Mary, he served as Director of Innovation and Engagement at the University of Oxford and has also held positions at the Universities of Bath and Bournemouth.