June 20-21, 2014
Saturday Working Groups and Session Leaders
Learning Objectives, Competencies, Outcomes
Rubin Pillay, Ph.D., M.D., M.B.A, M.Sc, BSc(Hon)Pharm
Daniel White Jordan Chair
Founding Executive Director, Center for Health Systems Innovation
Spears School of Business and Center for Health Sciences
Oklahoma State University
1. What is the most appropriate competency and pedagogical framework for bio entrepreneurship education? Is this different to entrepreneurship education? What is the current approach to bio entrepreneurship education and is there logic for creation of separate models?
2. What would our key learning objectives be – from a course and program point of view? Are these portable across programs and countries?
3. How do we measure success? At a programmatic level? From a new venture perspective?
4. Is there potential to develop a competency and pedagogical model as well as generic objective s and outcome measures for bio entrepreneurship education that can form the basis for accreditation? Do we want to become a program accrediting body?
Academic Credibility, including research, publications, grants, resources, cases
Professor, Copenhagen Business School
Director of Research Centre on Biotech Business, CBS
Study Director of the Master's degree in Bioentreprepreneurship, CBS
1) Will the creditability of BEE benefit from a stronger anchoring in academic research?
Academic programs in bio-entreprenurship education (BEEs) have emerged as practical answers to the challenge of commercializing academic research and talent. Typically BEEs are not associated with research programs on entrepreneurship. Does that affect their academic credibility? Should BEEs boost their academic credibility by strengthening their research base?
2) Connecting to the tradition for entrepreneurship research in management science?
Academic research on entrepreneurship has been a prominent topic over the last 10 years amongst economic and management scholars. BEEs have evolved without much connection to this research. Is it important to get better connected to management research on entrepreneurship? And how should this be done?
3) What should a research strategy look like from a funding perspective?
From a funding viewpoint, life science is in a much better position than management research. What should be emphasized in a research agenda on bio-entrepreneurship to link up to the entrepreneurship research from business schools while at the same time preserving its access to life science funding?
4) What research questions will be useful for teaching BEE?
How can research on bio-entrepreneurship help us design BEE programs leading to stronger entrepreneurial performance from students? What research questions should we ask to get answers allowing us improve teaching and program design?
Faculty Development and Recruitment
Christopher A Cullis
Francis Hobart Herrick Professor and Chair of Biology
Director MS in Biotechnology Entrepreneurship Program
Department of Biology.
Case Western Reserve University
1. How does Bio-Entrepreneurship fit into the mission of the Department?
2. Career path implications - buy in by rest of Department or outlier?
3. Recruitment of new faculty (or engagement of existing faculty) into enterprise. Expertise and interest level necessary.
4. Teaching portfolio and courses, - self standing or collaborative (see point 6). Integration into curriculum development.
5. Advising and co-ordination with external bodies for experiential experiences
6. Overlap between Biology Departments, Medical School Departments and Management Schools.
7. Identification and coordination of experiential experiences with small companies, incubators, tech transfer offices, career services.
8. Identification of resources for faculty - e.g. Blackstone incubators, Kaufmann Foundation.
Collaborations and Partnerships, intramural sharing, experiential learning
Lynn Johnson Langer, PhD, MBA
Johns Hopkins University
Director, Enterprise & Regulatory Science Programs
Center for Biotechnology Education
1. How can BioEntreneurship programs incorporate experiential learning in the curriculum? What examples do we have of experiential learning as a group?
2. What are ways we ways we can partner both in curriculum and students? This might include case studies, shared online courses, student exchange opportunities.
3. What are some of the obstacles that might prevent partnerships and collaborations? Shared experiences and how they are overcome.
4. How do we know about other programs student readiness and ability to success and excel in other’s programs?
5. What examples do we have of intramural partnerships and how successful are they?
Society of Bioentrepreneurship Education and Research: Creation and Governance
Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA
Director, University of Colorado
Denver Graduate School Program in Bioinnovation and Entrepreneurship
Proposal to create the Society for International Bioentrepreneurship Education and Research (SIBER)
BACKGROUND and NEED
There are too many US basic science PhD graduate students and postdocs and not enough jobs in academia to go around. At least that is the conclusion you draw if you follow science policy wonks and the blogosphere. The result has been pushback from students and some forward thinking members of the biomedical educational establishment who have been clamoring for some new thinking to address this dysfunctional imbalance between supply and demand.
One response has been the creation of a new academic discipline—Bioentrepreneurship.
However, there are significant barriers to the creation, growth and development of these programs:
1. They engage participants in endeavors that get short shrift on campuses: teaching and innovation. Generating clinical and grant revenue takes priority. Few campuses reward faculty or students for developing or commercializing an idea or paying them extra to teach the courses.
2. Money is tight and little is available to support these programs. They run on a shoestring, are expected to be self-funded, and require uncompensated time from faculty being paid by other disciplines.
3. Biomedical entrepreneurship rests on a four legged stool that includes education, networks, experience and money. The last are difficult to create, scale and sustain.
4. Bioentrepreneurship educators have no home. It is not yet a recognized academic domain, there are limited places to publish peer reviewed research and manuscripts and promotion and tenure committees attribute little or no value to the enterprise.
5. By its very nature, bioentrepreneurship education is an interdisciplinary, multi-campus effort with all of the bureaucratic and systems issues that engenders. There is frequently a lack of alignment of academic entities driving growth and short term money issues trump long term investments in entrepreneurship education innovation.
To close these gaps and, as a component of creating bioentrepreneurship education and research as a legitimate academic domain, we propose the creation of the Society for International Bioentrepreneurship Education and Research (SIBER).
The SIBER will be a 501 (c ) 6 tax exempt member association. Our mission is to advance international bioentrepreneurship education and research by 1) providing education and resources, 2) supporting a research agenda 3) advocating for bioentrepreneurship and 4) creating networks
Upon approval and creation of the SIBER, we will elect a President and President –elect, appoint a founding board of directors and proceed with creating Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws to guide further development and sustainability of SIBER. The goal is to create the organization by Jan 1, 2015.