Tech Transfer Talk

In this episode, I had the great pleasure of catching up with Roger Wyse, Founder and Managing Partner at Spruce Capital Partners. I have had the pleasure of collaborating with Roger over the past decade (or more) and have always found his insights of great value and was delighted to have the chance to discuss his experiences and learnings.

Roger reflected on his early experiences at Burrill and the opportunities and challenges of being the first biobased economy venture fund. He then looked back on the early syndication efforts in building the fund and the journey to establishing Spruce Capital Partners in 2013. Spruce was seeking true disruptors, yet in bioeconomy, disruption is an oxymoron! Producers are conservative as they notionally have '40 shots on goal' (i.e. 40 growing seasons) and industrial biotech is conservative as consumer facing companies have brands to protect. We also reflected on the motivations and time horizons associated with different limited partners.

We discussed time associated with the market forming actions from regulators, such as sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and market constraining actions from (same) regulators in securing approvals to construct processing plants or introducing technologies to market. Roger noted that in terms of time, society now has a 100-year environmental debt that we need to start to pay off!

It came to light that the technology transfer process from research institution to commercial partner in the US and Australian systems have eerie similarities! IP valuation disparities and divergent incentives amongst the parties can make alignment and deal finalisation time consuming. We speculated that this may in fact be the first of the 'valleys of death' that a licensee or venture might face!

Roger co-authored a discussion paper Building a Robust Bioeconomy: A Statement of Concern and Call to Action in October 2023, which explores the convergence of enabling technologies to accelerate the concept to commercialisation process. Reducing the time to market requires market, product and development processes to be undertaken in parallel, rather than the near linear fashion they are today. This requires patient capital alongside a systematic engagement across the stakeholders (or value pool participants). Roger also noted that there are process engineering expertise and infrastructure challenges to support scaleup and bridging product to market challenges.

In this episode I had the opportunity to discuss the genesis and history of Science Meets Parliament (SMP) with Science and Technology Australia running of the 25th SMP in February 2025.

Drs Cathy Foley, Jeremy Brownlie and Ken Baldwin, joined me to explore the origins of the event, how the event has evolved and why it remains a centrepiece to informing parliamentarians of the central role STEM plays in society and the economy.

Ken reflected on the need to focus on science for one or two days, to "flood the parliament with scientists" with a mandate to inform parliamentarians – it wasn't about lobbying. As it happened, the idea was "pushing on an open door" with early bipartisan support. It was noted that it was in fact STA's predecessor, the Forum of Australian Science and technoIlogical Societies that initiated the SMP concept and talked of the challenges of coordination in bringing a new event onto the calendar.

Cathy noted that scientists have unique knowledge, and the event offered members and scientists a forum through which to learn more how they think and the issues they are seeking to address. Cathy reflected on her own experiences at SMP and the life changing exposure that it creates for scientists creating a new dialogue as equals with parliamentarians, offering information on what science can offer. In turn, this brings science to front of mind for politicians, akin to the idea of bringing innovation to the centre of policy making explored at the most recent National Innovation Policy Forum.

Jeremy noted that science and government are both complex systems and that the issues of the day change, highlighting the need for broad science engagement to reflect the breadth of challenges and opportunities being met by parliament. This forum allowed for new ideas to be shared where there is a receptivity to new concepts that could be shared thoughtfully. He noted that parliamentarians are tuned to authenticity, which is an enduring strength of SMP.

We wrapped our conversation reflecting on the challenges that modern media has brought on communicating science and the importance of direct conversations, trust and rigorous science being the cornerstones of social license between the science community and parliament.

In this episode, I had the opportunity to reflect on the 2024 National Innovation Policy Forum with Jane O'Dwyer, CEO of Cooperative Research Australia.

Firstly, we reflect on the opportunity before the Australian innovation community to influence policy and bring innovation to the centre of economic policy, and not merely as an afterthought. We then hear some highlights from the remarks of Minister Ed Husic and Shadow Minister Paul Fletcher at NIPF24. These are important scene setters as they bring out issues of local innovation culture, the need for customers and investors, and to find the unique Australian business model that allows innovation to drive economic growth and productivity.

We took the opportunity to reflect on each of the three discussion sessions from NIPF24. Each of the sessions had recurring themes touching on culture, customers, investment and risk. In discussing risk, Anne-Marie Perret raised the challenges that boards face with director liabilities, pushing risk taking to the background and, in turn, missing opportunities for new ways to create value while serving customers. Glen Keys challenged the participants around leadership behaviours, consequences and the need for a national conversation around how we talk about risk. Lauren Stafford further reflected on risk, introducing the Linda Evangelista Paradox!

In the next session (2), the missing middle was discussed – a topic that emerged from NIPF23 – and explored the idea of government procurement as a market maker. Annette Schmiede exemplified the impact of procurement policy with examples from the health care sector. Elanor Huntington brought forward the notion that the economy should serve people, not people serving the economy, and highlighted the need for Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) to have its place alongside STEM in innovation and technology transfer. David Forman shared his recent experiences of reviewing federal government procurement policies and the misaligned incentives that exist favouring procurement from abroad, rather than domestic service providers.

The third and final session focused on the notion of a New Australian Business Model. Sally-Ann Williams described government procurement as bridging market uncertainty, addressing social challenges and stimulating demand. Sophia Hamblin Wang explained the canyon of death that faces organisations delivering profitability and emissions reduction through scaling production. Roy Green reflected on the 'burning platform' we are on nationally, highlighting that innovation drives productivity but the private sector needs the capabilities and capacity, commonly called absorptive capacity, to take up and scale innovation into profitable products.

Jane and I conclude our reflections on the need for elaborately transformed manufacturing to reassert itself, aligning with sovereign interests and contemporary geopolitical risks. Tying in the prequel remarks from Catherine Livingstone and David Thodey (from episode 40), and, on the day, from Kerstin Oberprieler, Jane poignantly points out that the current cost of living crisis and the long-term living standards of Australians cannot be resolved without innovation at the core of economic policy.

In this episode, I had the opportunity to chat with Matt Ryan of Rubicon Water on a tech transfer success story that is rippling through irrigation markets around the world.

Rubicon Water is an ASX listed company that started in 1995 following the consolidation of a number of Victorian rural water boards. Members of the departing staff identified inefficiencies in the movement of water from dam to crop and started to develop products and solutions to meet market needs for efficient water management.

Early trial work led by Matt in the Burdekin River Irrigation Area around Ayr in Far North Queensland gave confirmation of the market need and the testing of early product solutions. Rubicon's market hypothesis in the late 1990s was that better scheduling and delivery of water from dam to farm would complement (then) application technologies. The value was apparent from the regular drought cycles that affect Australian agriculture. The product required to create value needed to better measure and manage the flows through irrigation channels to match supply with demand.

Matt explained that the Rubicon team didn't have the internal capacity to undertake the product development R&D. He also shared that Rubicon had a hunch that the challenge could be solved with an electrical engineering, rather than (a more conventional) civil, agriculture or hydraulic engineering approach. This disruptive thinking led to a partnership with Professor Iven Mareels (then) at the University of Melbourne before his current roles as Non-Executive Director at Rubicon and Pro-Vice Chancellor at Federation University. Matt also shares a little of the Australian Research Council funding history that sat alongside the research collaborations.

The product, now referred to in the Industry as Total Channel Control (TCC) arising from the hunch was trialled in Far North Queensland and Matt shares with us some of the technical elements needed to bring the product together. This journey included new gate designs (inspired from the aviation sector), telemetry, scheduling software and distributed network control loops (noting that we are still in the late 90s). What was equally fascinating was the industry culture and the challenges in marketing, selling and implementing such a different product offering to market. Matt noted that "the hardest thing is the people".

We conclude our discussion around the current opportunities for Rubicon, particularly as USA water markets are changing in Arizona and California. We also reflect on the broader set of stakeholders that are part of bringing the technology to market, not just in the USA, including urban and environmental water requirements and recognising the rights and needs of indigenous communities.

In this episode I had the great pleasure of catching up on the global bioeconomy with Jim Lane, a global champion of the biobased economy with his daily publication The Digest and semi-annual ABLC events. Over the past 12 months, a lot has been happening in the bioeconomy, and we had the chance to catch up on Bold Goals, renewable fuels and feedstocks, among other things.

Our discussions opened around one of Jim's keynote messages – it's all about the feedstocks! While the energy transition is underway, we discuss the importance of molecules as part of the future energy mix. Jim reckons that accessibility to feedstocks, and not the conversion costs associated with process technologies, is the emerging bottleneck in scaling and acceleration the transition away from fossil resources. We touch on a range of current and emerging solutions including residues (which he sees as a significant pathway), cover crops and tree crops!

Jim introduced the 'zoning problem'. He makes the observation that feedstocks are getting punished rather than producers acting in bad faith, and this is distorting the availability and social license of some options. He sees the greatest challenge in logistics, delivering densified, uniform, standardised raw materials to refinery operations and we explored whether biomass gasification should / could be a pathway solving these challenges.

While Sustainable Aviation Fuel has drawn a lot of the headlines over the past few years, we explored the rising demand from the marine sector – from Jet Zero to Wet Zero. We touch on the greater optionality that the marine sector has for liquid fuel solutions. And with Jet and Wet discussed, we move onto Debt Zero and the need for financing to get the first of kind and next of kind plants up to scale to drive returns and lower risk for the industry.

Jim and I then explore some of the broader challenges in the bioeconomy, specifically the marketing challenge that the industry has around positioning with consumers to drive uptake of products. We have a little Don Draper reflection, around changing the conversation and Jim makes the excellent observation that shaming customers really doesn't work! Marketing also gets some further discussion as we reflect on alternative protein and cellular agriculture.

We close out our conversation reflecting on the Bold Goals initiative (which started 12 months ago) and talk of the 10-billion-ton study. Jim closes out with the acronym of the year – as nobody does it like Sara Lee!

In this special edition, we hear from the National Innovation Policy Forum patrons, David Thodey AO and Catherine Livingstone AC. We reflect on the 2023 NIPF event (also hosted by Cooperative Research Australia), discussing the practical outcomes that were being sought from the last forum and setting them in the context of 'where to from here?' David and Catherine both reflect on culture, risk tolerance, and the layering of process, regulation and legislation and its impact on innovation.

We touch on the three main sessions for the 2024 Forum, being Sharing Risk, Addressing the Missing Middle and An Australian Business Model.

They make a call for more leadership across the community, business and public sectors to define and lead a new model for Australia Inc. rather than waiting for politicians to define or impose political rather than bipartisan policy solutions. How we do we challenge ourselves to drive change? David points to the lack of capital coming into the economy which should be a catalyst for change with Catherine noting this creates a hollowing out that is accelerating but hidden from view by favourable trading conditions.

The opportunity is for us to lead the conversation for how Australia (re)positions itself and defines its role to contribute to the betterment of Australian society and to contribute to the region and the world. We hope that as listeners, forum participants and ecosystem actors, will be provoked to drive us towards a higher performing innovation ecosystem and greater impact from technology transfer activities that can underpin Australia's future.

In this episode, I had the great pleasure of having a wide-ranging discussion with Professor Mark Hutchinson. He is currently a member of Australia's National Science and Technology Council, Advisory Board Member to Australian Economic Accelerator Program, recent past president of Science and Technology Australia, and has been a successful research leader and tech transfer advocate for over 15 years at the University of Adelaide, largely centred on the ARC Centre for Nanoscale Bio-Photonics and Neuro-immunopharmacology Laboratory.

We quickly uncover one of Mark's modus operandi which is to seek forgiveness and not permission. This approach allowed him to get on with addressing roadblocks and challenges in developing and delivering solutions to willing and engaged partners. Given Mark's early experiences in academia in Australia and at University of Colorado at Boulder, we touch on Australian cultural challenges of researchers moving between private, government and research sectors, and differences in partner scale between his USA and Australian activities.

Mark reflects on his 2024 experiences at BIO in San Diego and notes the open engagement culture, the lack of non-disclosure agreements, and the focus on relationships. We contrast this with our observations around Australian tech transfer and Mark raises the notion that we could be suffering from a culture of locked in scarcity where the glass is always half empty. We then discuss some of the arising challenges of tech transfer with a scarcity mentality.

We then explore Mark's successful tech transfer experiences and reflect on the experience of a doctoral student, the cadence of engagement, and the need to change direction to reflect changing circumstances. We also touch on the need to get comfortable with uncertainty and contrast organisational and experimental (or bench) uncertainty. The domestic employment arrangements and consequences are also explored, touching on the Vice Chancellor's Challenge that David Mitchell discussed in Episode 11.

We discuss AUKUS and the innovation and tech transfer opportunities, touching on co-creation as a driver of economic growth through dual use technologies and the opportunities for SMEs. Mark reflectsd on the need to 'get sticky; with our deals and partnerships (which is a variation on the concept discussed with Angeline Achariya in Episode 38) and look to a 'hook and loop' component to government transactions, somewhat inspired by the thinking of Marianna Mazzucato. We discuss the cultural challenge of risk aversion to sharing ideas in this brave new world, and the need to make change through talent heading abroad for experiences and have them returning into a welcoming and engaged innovation system and share stories of success.

Mark shares his paper transportation challenge', noting that not all innovation comes through PhDs! We reflect on the importance of Minimum Viable Products and the importance of engineering alongside research to get products to market. This introduces the notion of scale, which we started discussing on the podcast; firstly with Katherine Woodthorpe) at the start of 2023 and highlighted further at the National Innovation Policy Forum in November 2023. We also touch on this getting discussed by Michael Liebreich with Rosie Barnes in an episode of Cleaning Up. Mark notes that there is a perception that fundamental science is worth more than the translation bridge, however they need to exist in a dynamic equilibrium.

We wrap up our discussion with an impassioned close from Mark around believing in your product, solutions arising from teams, and being prepared to listen to the market and adapt while pressing forward.

In this episode I had the chance to catch up with Dr Angeline Achariya, who has had a successful technology transfer journey moving across industry and the innovation sector throughout her career. With her formative years spent on the land in Fiji and in Queensland, she moved into agribusiness starting at Mrs Crockett's then moving through Mars and Fonterra to where her executive career took route with Yum! Brands and subsequently Mondelez International. Ange then moved to Monash University to lead what she started at Mondelez, before moving back to the private sector with Simplot and now in her portfolio career journey.

We explore what innovation looks like in different organisations and brand environments. We touch on the world of Quick Service Restaurants and the challenge of tech transfer with a younger workforce. We explore in some detail innovation at Mondelez and the establishment of the Monash Food Innovation Centre. This was established in 2013 and was an early Australian forerunner in developing industry, research, government agrifood clusters. Ange took me through some of the approaches taken and the importance of listening to what industry wanted from the emerging entity – an "outside in" rather than "inside out" approach.

In establishing the Centre, Ange describes some of the concerns and cultural challenges that emerged. We touch on SME concerns around partnering and sharing IP, why Monash University and differing perspectives around risk between the founding parties, including the Victorian Government. We discuss the importance of securing a mandate to get on with things and some of the associated governance dynamics. Here risk management and perception were managed through a "no surprises" approach and developing an understanding of the boundaries of involved parties. The rate of change of partner ecosystems also offered some interesting connections back to our recent discussions with David Thodey (in Episode 34) and Andy Shafer (in Episode 36) around culture and clock speeds.

We wrap our discussion with the introduction of the "of getting sticky with customers" and the importance of building relationships through which partners engage over the longer term. Ange also notes that innovation isn't formulaic and that the same approach cannot be applied in all circumstances. Purpose, Strategy, Culture, Risk Appetite and Capability among the partners and within the broader ecosystem also shape approaches to innovation and tech transfer. We finish our discussion talking about the need for resilient sustainability and solving the right problems for the right customer to create new value.

In this episode, I had the opportunity to catch up with my colleague, business partner and good friend, Dr Rohan Rainbow, who has been a leading voice in the implementation of agricultural technologies in Australia for over 30 years. His early childhood journey moved him from suburban Melbourne to farming in rural Victoria, followed by South East South Australia and then settling in the Clare Valley in South Australia. He completed his PhD with The University of Adelaide while working on his agricultural research at SARDI, followed by work as an independent consultant, plus executive officer to both the SA No-Till Farmers Association and establishing the Society for Precision Agriculture Australia, then research investment with the Grains Research & Development Corporation. In 2014, he established his consultancy Crop Protection Australia and in 2018, with myself and Leecia Angus, established AgTechCentric.

Our discussion started with his formative years on farm and how his PhD in soil physics and mechanics set the scene for how engineering parameters can improve crop establishment. In moving into research management, we noted that adoption and extension are easily overlooked in tech transfer circles and yet, are critical to the success of any new technology or practice. Rohan talked of the importance of field days, and the themes that came through were the need for clear value propositions for new technologies, particularly in the context of significant capital expenditure and/or practice changes needed for technology adoption. Rohan reinforced an observation Spiegare blogged about around venture investment in agtech in 2020; that not everywhere is the same – soils, equipment, people –for starters! We then talked about early adopters and the merits of 'first vs fast followers' in agriculture. We noted that someone has to go first in order for there to be a fast follower!

We then explored Rohan's motivations to establish himself as an independent consultant. Recognising the need for technical advice into regulatory and policy discussions, he has worked closely with Grain Producers Australia and, more recently, CropLife Australia on a range of issues. We also discussed the Precision to Decision Report that Rohan led in 2018 – a report that contributed to the foundations of agtech adoption and investment in Australia. We discussed the AUD 20.3 billion potential value identified that agtech could release, progress toward realising that ambition and some of the dynamics in agtech solutions, data stewardship. and satellite markets that have unfolded since the publication. We also touch on the tech transfer challenge around the need for all the components to come together to deliver value.

We conclude our conversation with a discussion around pesticide access in Australia, and the market and regulatory dynamics that are arguably setting Australia at a disadvantage in accessing cutting edge approaches to crop protection and weed management. Rohan's final thought is quite poignant from an Australia agriculture perspective, in that, Australian growers are quick to adopt technologies that work for them, because they have to!

In this episode, I had the opportunity to catch up with Andy Shafer, who's been a leader in building businesses in the 21st century biobased economy. A Dow Chemical alumnus, he started his 'bio-journey' with NatureWorks, a Joint Venture between Dow Chemical and Cargill, where he had a leadership role in bringing PLA to market. He then moved to Elevance Renewable Sciences for 9 years, establishing their market facing partnerships including sales and marketing, corporate brand and communications. He then spent 7 years in private consulting, including the authoring of a book on strategy and ROADMAP development, before joining Gevo in late 2023 as their Chief Marketing, Customer and Brand Officer.

In our discussions, Andy reflects on his journey into the biobased economy and early involvement in the market development of PLA. It was striking that a reframing of the questions and potential benefits lead to a dramatic shift in strategy, leading to a focus of performance in use and less on the fact that it was a 'bio' product. His shares some observations on bringing a new joint venture together, with a team of different industrial backgrounds (and allegiances), and the process of bringing that team together around the JV's mission. He also reflects on the resources and reputation that comes with a new JV entity in contrast to its (larger) parents.

One of the challenges we discuss is developing 'proof of concept' to customers with constrained resources and the need to look toward creative collaborations. Andy sees segmentation as critical to tech transfer as this involves identifying who is going to help you be successful. He also notes that this isn't necessarily the obvious, discussing fast followers rather than incumbents as they may not have the reputational risk associated with trying new approaches. We touch on the role of laggards or, as per Episode 7 with Paul Bryan, the role of the desperate customer.

Andy also reflects on the rate of change and introduces the notion of 'stopwatches vs calendars'. We touched on the importance of timing in Episodes 10 and 13 and how these impact tech transfer outcomes. Here, Andy notes that clients can move at different rates to new ventures. He also notes that capital intensity and downstream supply chain partners, all need time to adjust and adopt new approaches. We touch on how ownership and the introduction of new investors through fundraising rounds can also be subject to asynchronous timing outcomes. The need for synchronicity between investors throughout the life of a venture is critical to sustainable success. Andy discusses how investor misalignment can drive different operational behaviours and outcomes.

We close by discussing his new role at Gevo, and team members Pat Gruber, Chris Ryan and Bill Baum, acting as a gravitational force to bring Andy back into corporate life from his consulting activities. Andy sees Gevo as an opportunity to "help transform another industry on a mission that matters". In taking on the challenge of bringing Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) to market, we again reflect on rates of change and risk.