2 ms·
Reading the WSJ article, it's not at all clear what the benefit (to anyone) is of the university spinning out a small for-profit company like Vaccitech. As I u
by mjw1007 6y ago
Reading the WSJ article, it's not at all clear what the benefit (to anyone) is of the university spinning out a small for-profit company like Vaccitech.
As I understand it, the theory is that such a company will be able to commercially exploit research in a way a university couldn't. But if in practice commercially exploiting research means selling the rights to a global firm like AstraZeneca, it seems to me that nothing was gained.
- ABeeSea 6y agoA company is just a financing vehicle. Oxford itself can’t exactly have a Series B to raise capitol to bring research “to market.” And even if they could, it’s not clear that they should given the risks inherit in a speculative start-up.
- mjw1007 6y agoNo, the universities don't see these companies simply as financing vehicles. They're genuinely set up as largely independent entities, with the researchers supposed to be making commercial decisions.