Are you galvanising your allies? Part 5: Industry

Prof. Mark Hutchinson gives expert guidance on how research can effectively collaborate with industry in this two-part interview.

May 6, 2025

Professor Mark Hutchinson of the University of Adelaide.

Welcome to part 5 of my series on how to galvanise your allies. So far, I’ve explored how to shift your mindset from communications to advocacy; how to galvanise government on a sectoral level and on an individual level; and how to turn alumni and students into advocates and allies.

In this edition, I sat down with Mark Hutchinson, Director of the  Institute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing, Professor of Biomedicine and lead of the Neuroimmunopharmacology laboratory (say that fast three times) at the University of Adelaide. Mark has extensive experience working at the intersection of industry and research, and shared his experience, suggestions and tips on how to improve collaboration between sectors. We had quite a lot to get through, so this is part one—see you next week for part two!

You’ve worked in the USA and Australia—tell me a little bit about you and your work, and particularly how you’ve worked with industry. 

My career trajectory has indeed spanned both the Australian and United States research landscapes, providing valuable comparative insights. Following my undergraduate and doctoral training in pharmacology and medicine at the University of Adelaide, I undertook postdoctoral research at the University of Colorado Boulder, focusing on neuroimmune interactions in pain. 

It was a really exciting time because we were at the beginning of a field. Every day brought new ideas and new cutting-edge experiments. This period offered firsthand experience of the US research ecosystem—including its scale, funding models, and cultural nuances surrounding industry engagement and researcher mobility between sectors, which differ somewhat from the Australian context. 

I got to work with industry partners who needed us. They saw what we had and what we could do and they came to us for help, which we happily supplied. Uni Colorado Boulder had an incredible startup culture. We just didn't know how good we had it! But there were also things I couldn't do as well in the US. For example, if you wanted to invent a new drug from scratch, the system was set up for you. But if you wanted to rapidly repurpose something, you couldn't do it as easily as you could in Oz. So I came home. 

Upon returning to the University of Adelaide, my research has concentrated on the neuroimmunopharmacology of glial cells (the non-neuronal cells that constitute the majority of the brain). My work is investigating their role in modulating pain, addiction, and therapeutic responses, and is opening new avenues for treatment that use new and old drugs. 

A central tenet of my work has been the translation of fundamental discoveries into practical applications, and building the industry partnerships needed to successfully do this. 

As Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics (CNBP), focused on developing technologies for measuring nanoscale biological phenomena, my team and I developed a culture that directly supported neuroimmune research while also fostering commercialisation. Successful initiatives included our 'bench to boardroom' program, which generated numerous spin-out companies with substantial market capitalisation. 

Through my leadership roles at the Institute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing (IPAS), advisory positions such as on Australia's Economic Accelerator board, and my previous presidency of Science & Technology Australia, I’ve consistently advocated for mechanisms to convert Australia's research excellence into tangible economic and societal benefits.

Give us an Australian snapshot—what are the trends you are seeing? 

Australia's research and innovation landscape is characterised by significant strengths and persistent challenges. We have a world-class university sector that consistently generates high-quality research output and exceeds global benchmarks relative to population size. 

However, there’s a well-documented challenge in translating national research excellence into commercialisation and industry collaboration. Australia has historically ranked poorly among OECD nations for business-university collaboration rates, even though the economic returns for participating firms are demonstrably high. The "valley of death", the funding gap between initial research and market readiness, persists—particularly for deep-tech ventures and SMEs lacking patient capital. 

Encouragingly, there’s been a major trend focusing national focus and strategic investment on tackling the translation gap. The $2.4 billion Research Commercialisation Agenda includes initiatives like Australia's Economic Accelerator (AEA), the Trailblazer Universities Program, and the National Industry PhD Program which are fostering greater collaboration, enhancing commercialisation pathways, and improving talent mobility between sectors. 

There is also a growing emphasis on aligning research efforts with national priorities and directing innovation to tackle key societal and economic challenges, like building sovereign capability and the transition to Net Zero. While cultural barriers, bureaucratic complexities, and difficulties engaging SMEs persist, the current policy landscape reflects a determined trend towards building a more integrated and impact-oriented innovation ecosystem. 

I always say that in Australia we have big R and little d in the University sector, and the inverse in industry. The problem is that, without balance and people who can work across both the R and the D, we will never achieve our potential. We can change this, but to do so we’ll need to agree on national priorities, establish communities and provide the time and space needed to successfully translate ideas into impact.

Give us a global snapshot—what are the trends you are seeing? 

Globally, the role of universities within national innovation systems is undergoing significant evolution. There is widespread recognition that universities are critical partners alongside industry and government in addressing complex global challenges and driving economic competitiveness. The 'Triple Helix' model, emphasising the interconnectedness of these sectors, is often used to describe this dynamic. In light of these changes, governments worldwide are focused on stimulating university-industry collaboration. 

The understanding of knowledge transfer itself has become more nuanced, moving beyond linear models focused on patents and licensing to encompass a complex ecosystem of interactions. This includes collaborative and contract research, co-patenting, academic spin-offs, consultancy, talent exchange through graduates and placements, informal networks facilitated by proximity (e.g., innovation districts), and shared access to facilities. 

There is also increasing appreciation for "innovation without research" and the importance of non-R&D expenditures in capturing value. Global innovation measurement is adapting, with indices like WIPO's Global Innovation Index using broader indicator sets to capture institutional, market, and business sophistication alongside traditional R&D inputs and outputs. Furthermore, the pervasive influence of digital technologies, particularly AI and enhanced connectivity, is fundamentally reshaping R&D processes and creating new opportunities and challenges for international collaboration, data governance, and skills development. 

Unfortunately, all of this is happening slowly in Australia. We are not short of leaders. But we are short of a captain stepping up to make the calls and get everyone playing the same game.

Which countries have nailed it when it comes to collaborating with industry—what common traits do they share?

Several nations consistently demonstrate high performance in university-industry collaboration. Prominent examples include the United States and particularly innovation hubs like Silicon Valley and Boston, influenced by policies such as the Bayh-Dole Act; Germany, renowned for its Fraunhofer Institutes facilitating applied research; Israel, known for its vibrant start-up ecosystem and historically proactive government support; and other high-performing economies such as South Korea and Switzerland, which exhibit strong R&D investment and innovation rankings. 

But direct replication of one country’s model in another country is complex. We are different in Australia. We should recognise this and not use it as an excuse. But we should acknowledge we need to identify our own path forward. 

With that said, these successful ecosystems share several common characteristics. These include:

• Stable, supportive government policies and diverse funding mechanisms that actively incentivise collaboration. 

• Culture that values cross-sectoral partnership, trust, and entrepreneurial risk-taking, often embedded within university reward structures. 

• High talent mobility between academia and industry, facilitated by strong networks, is crucial for knowledge exchange. 

• Effective intermediary organisations (e.g., technology transfer offices, science parks, industry associations) that play a vital role in bridging the sectors.

• Strong industry demand for innovation ('pull') coupled with the capacity to absorb and utilise university research. 

• Pragmatic and flexible approaches to intellectual property negotiation, focusing on enabling partnerships rather than creating early roadblocks.

These traits operate systemically, creating a self-reinforcing environment that’s conducive to impactful collaboration. 

Bottom line: we need a sectoral change. Not a simple ask. We need to capture the hearts and minds of multiple communities to move towards this common constellation of opportunities.

Where are the missed but big opportunities that universities and the research sector have around collaborating with industry?

Australia’s strong research base has significant untapped potential to deliver greater impact on economic and societal issues. I see a number of major opportunities to do this:

Better university-industry collaboration to tackle persistent challenges that hold back innovation. For example, the "valley of death": the critical phase between research completion and commercial viability where funding and support are often scarce. This gap disproportionately affects deep-tech innovations and SMEs, hindering the translation of many promising discoveries. 

More effective ways to engage Australia's vast SME sector. Collaboration pathways are often perceived as too complex or resource-intensive for smaller businesses, which limits their access to innovation and universities' access to diverse applications. 

Better alignment of research translation efforts with national strategic priorities—particularly in building sovereign capability in critical industries like advanced manufacturing, health, defence, and renewable energy. Failing to commercialise research domestically means Australia often misses out on capturing the full value chain from its innovations.

Fostering more integrated innovation ecosystems, such as precincts and clusters. This will facilitate interaction and knowledge spillover—a key ingredient of innovation. We must also ensure the full spectrum of engagement activities, including consultancy, contract research, student placements, and shared facility access, are valued and supported, as these contribute significantly to impact beyond patents and spin-offs. 

Developing a larger pool of professionals who have the skills to navigate the research-commercialisation interface. This remains a critical need. 

I like to look forward and plan backwards from today. The same skill can help in dissecting how we got here. Counting and rewarding papers, and financing Universities for PhD completions, is fantastic—but this means we have a science ‘push’ glut, without the associated innovation ‘pull’ demand. We have a lot of work to do to bring these two into balance.

Thanks for tuning in! Next week, we’ll share Part II. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts!