AUTM on the Air

Pneumococcal disease remains a serious global health threat, particularly for young children, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems. Developing effective vaccines has never been simple. The bacterium can produce roughly 100 different serotypes, each protected by its own sugar capsule, which means immunity against one strain may offer little protection against another. In this episode, we look at the science that changed how these vaccines are tested and the technology transfer strategy that helped those advances reach developers around the world.
At the center of that story is Moon Nahm, M.D., an emeritus professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and one of the world’s leading authorities on pneumococcal vaccines. Born in Seoul shortly before the Korean War, Moon came to the United States as a teenager and went on to earn degrees in physics and medicine from Washington University in St. Louis. During more than two decades at UAB, he and his team characterized approximately 20 pneumococcal serotypes and developed the Multiplexed Opsonophagocytic Killing Assay, better known as MOPA. The assay is now a global standard for evaluating whether vaccine-generated antibodies can actually protect against disease.
Joining him is Diptiman Chanda, Ph.D., a Senior Licensing Associate at UAB’s Bill L. Harbert Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Diptiman brings more than 20 years of research experience spanning reproductive endocrinology, cancer therapies, and fibrotic lung disease. Since joining the Harbert Institute in 2021, he has helped manage the international licensing of Moon’s technologies, supporting a non-exclusive approach that has made MOPA strains and related tools available to pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, and vaccine developers in low- and middle-income countries.
We talk about the scientific breakthroughs behind more effective pneumococcal vaccines, why research tools can be just as valuable as patented inventions, and how more than 80 licenses helped turn one laboratory’s work into a worldwide public health resource. Moon also shares the story behind SunFire Biotechnologies, the company he founded to provide clinical-stage vaccine testing services, while Diptiman explains what this portfolio can teach other technology transfer offices about access, long-term thinking, and strong relationships with inventors.

In This Episode:
[04:35] Moon and Diptiman join the conversation, and Moon explains why the many protective “sugar coats” surrounding pneumococcal bacteria make vaccination so challenging.
[07:15] The discovery of serotypes 6C and 6D revealed important gaps in vaccine coverage and changed how researchers approached vaccine design.
[08:20] Conjugate vaccines connect the bacterial sugar coat to a protein, producing a stronger immune response in young children.
[10:05] MOPA measures whether vaccine-generated antibodies can functionally destroy bacteria rather than simply counting how many antibodies are present.
[12:40] Early skepticism gave way to worldwide adoption as researchers traveled to UAB to learn the assay, which eventually became a global standard.
[14:30] A more accurate third-generation ELISA earned World Health Organization acceptance and helped establish UAB as a WHO reference laboratory.
[16:15] Seeing vaccines developed with his assays gives Moon a personal sense of satisfaction, especially knowing that millions of people may benefit.
[18:20] Diptiman describes how Moon’s scientific reputation and persistence became the foundation of UAB’s commercialization strategy.
[19:35] Non-exclusive licensing allowed multiple companies to develop vaccines at the same time, expanding supply and improving access around the world.
[22:45] Managing a global licensing portfolio creates new opportunities when vaccine developers need strains that have not yet been characterized.
[24:15] A close working relationship keeps the science and licensing strategy aligned while allowing each person to focus on his area of expertise.
[26:20] Making MOPA strains freely available through the NIH’s BEI Resources has supported academic research and vaccine development in lower-resource settings.
[28:10] Training more than 100 researchers created an international support network that continued long after participants left the UAB laboratory.
[30:40] The portfolio demonstrates the value of thinking long term, recognizing the importance of research tools, and using non-exclusive licenses strategically.
[33:20] Research tools can retain significant value without traditional patent protection when their quality has been validated across laboratories over many years.
[34:15] Moon explains how his childhood dream of using a successful company to support research eventually led to the creation of SunFire Biotechnologies.
[35:45] SBIR funding gave the young company the equipment, staff, and financial foundation needed to accept larger vaccine-development projects.
[38:00] UAB’s technology transfer office helped Moon navigate unfamiliar business, university, and state requirements during the transition from inventor to entrepreneur.
[40:10] New university resources now connect faculty founders with experienced executives, fundraising guidance, laboratory space, and support for SBIR and STTR applications.
[41:20] Affordable pneumococcal vaccines are already being produced for only a few dollars per dose, fulfilling a goal Moon once hoped to achieve.
[43:10] Federal research funding and the Bayh-Dole Act helped turn discoveries from a university laboratory into licenses, jobs, companies, and widely available vaccines.
[45:15] Curiosity continues to drive Moon’s research into the molecule responsible for producing the pneumococcal capsule and its potential as an antibiotic target.
[46:10] Next-generation vaccines with broader strain coverage are creating continued demand for newly characterized strains and corresponding MOPA testing tools.
[47:05] Moon encourages researchers to choose a major problem and pursue it like a North Star, while Diptiman stresses trust, communication, and understanding an inventor’s mission.

Resources: 
AUTM
SunFire Biotechnologies
Moon Nahm - UAB Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine
Moon Nahm - LinkedIn
Diptiman Chanda - UAB Bill L. Harbert Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Diptiman Chanda - LinkedIn

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most difficult cancers to detect early, and that challenge leaves clinicians and patients facing uncertainty when pancreatic cysts are discovered during imaging for other health concerns. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, we look at how a discovery from a Purdue University lab became the foundation for PanCystPro™, a diagnostic test developed by Amplified Sciences to help clinicians better distinguish between benign pancreatic cysts and those that may carry a higher risk of malignancy.
Joining us are Diana Caldwell, CEO of Amplified Sciences, and Joseph Kasper, Assistant Director of Business Development and Licensing for Life Sciences at the Purdue Innovates Office of Technology Commercialization at the Purdue Research Foundation. Diana brings more than 25 years of life science leadership experience, including senior roles at Eli Lilly, co-founding and scaling Pearl Pathways before its acquisition by Versiti, and serving as an Entrepreneur in Residence at the Purdue Foundry. Joe works with Purdue’s life science technologies, helping evaluate commercial potential, identify licensing partners, negotiate agreements, support intellectual property strategy, and guide inventor-led startups through the Purdue Incubator.
Together, Diana and Joe walk us through the journey from Dr. V. Jo Davisson’s research and the BioMatra™ platform to the creation of PanCystPro™, showing what it takes to move a promising university discovery toward real-world clinical impact. Their conversation offers a closer look at the science, the startup path, the role of technology transfer, and the ecosystem support needed to turn an academic innovation into a tool that could help improve decision-making for one of medicine’s most challenging cancers.

In This Episode:
[04:44] Diana Caldwell explains why pancreatic cancer is so difficult to detect early, including the lack of general screening guidelines and the challenge of identifying patients before the disease reaches later stages.
[05:54] Diana describes pancreatic cystic lesions, why they can signal elevated risk, and how the comparison to colon polyps helps explain the clinical challenge.
[08:36] Joseph Kasper discusses the Purdue origins of the technology, including Dr. V. Jo Davisson’s lab, the early intellectual property, and the reagent technology behind BioMatra™.
[10:19] The conversation explores how Amplified Sciences joined forces with Purdue and how the platform’s ultra-sensitive dyes created opportunities for diagnostic innovation.
[12:40] The discussion turns to how pancreatic cancer became the right first market, including UCSF collaborations and the need for better tools in pancreatic cyst risk stratification.
[15:15] PanCystPro™ is explained as a tri-analyte test supported by the BioMatra™ platform, with discussion of the optical detection system and the importance of sensitivity and specificity.
[19:24] The technology transfer journey is outlined, including Purdue’s IP strategy, early startup support, I-Corps resources, and the express license program.
[22:14] Purdue’s institutional support, including Purdue Strategic Ventures, startup investment, and the credibility university backing can bring to an early-stage company.
[24:14]How Purdue’s support has continued as Amplified Sciences has grown, from marketing assistance to the launch of a pivotal clinical utility study.
[26:28] The potential patient impact of PanCystPro™ is discussed, including how it could help reduce uncertainty, avoid unnecessary procedures, and guide appropriate monitoring.
[28:53] Indiana’s life sciences ecosystem and how university research can support broader economic development.
[31:06] Amplified Sciences’ decision to grow in West Lafayette is discussed, including the importance of proximity to Purdue, wet labs, and scientific talent.
[33:56] The value of Purdue’s research park ecosystem is explored, including shared resources, lab capabilities, collaborations, and access to scientific services.
[36:26] The Purdue team’s role in supporting the PanCystPro™ journey is discussed, including IP protection and continued engagement as the company developed.
[38:47] What makes Purdue Innovates helpful for startups, along with the challenges entrepreneurs can face when navigating a large academic institution.
[40:54] The need for more flexible wet lab space, shared services, and lower barriers to entry for research-intensive startups is discussed.
[42:35] Amplified Sciences’ next steps are outlined, including reimbursement, Medicare coverage, early access, and building a broader diagnostic pipeline beyond PanCystPro™.
[44:09] The guests share final takeaways on what it takes to move a university discovery into real-world impact, emphasizing people, teamwork, risk-taking, and a strong innovation ecosystem.
[47:12]How PanCystPro™ demonstrates the real-world value of technology transfer, university research, and experienced entrepreneurial leadership.

Resources: 
AUTM
Amplified Sciences
PanCystPro™
Diana Caldwell - Amplified Sciences
Diana Caldwell - LinkedIn
Joe Kasper - Purdue Innovates
Joseph Kasper - LinkedIn
PanCystPro™: A Breakthrough Test for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer Risk
Vincent Jo Davisson, PhD - Amplified Sciences

The way the federal government supports scientific research could be headed for a significant shift. A new White House report, *Science: A New Golden Age*, lays out a different vision for federal research funding—one that places less emphasis on the traditional university-centered grant model and more on mission-driven research, commercialization, and fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, semiconductors, space, and robotics. For universities and technology transfer offices, those changes raise some big questions about research funding, peer review, indirect costs, and the infrastructure that supports moving discoveries from the lab into the marketplace. 
Today, we are joined by Jeffrey Mervis, a veteran science policy reporter for Science who has spent more than three decades covering the intersection of science and government. His reporting has taken him across five continents, and since joining Science in 1993, he has closely followed federal research policy, science education, and the changing scientific workforce. 
We talk with Jeff about what the White House report is actually proposing, why universities may have reason to pay close attention, and how ideas such as regranting and alternatives to traditional peer review could change the way federal research dollars are awarded. We also look at the push toward faster commercialization, the potential impact of cuts to grants and indirect-cost support, and what technology transfer professionals should be watching as agencies begin translating these priorities into budgets and funding decisions. 

In This Episode:
[01:49] Jeffrey Mervis explains the origins of Science: A New Golden Age, how it draws on Vannevar Bush’s landmark vision for postwar science, and why the report was released just before a House Science Committee hearing.
[04:33] The timing of the report’s release and how it fits with executive orders and other actions the administration has already taken on research funding and universities are discussed.
[07:24] The report’s call to prioritize individual scientists over legacy institutions is examined, along with why separating researchers from the university infrastructure that supports their work may be difficult in practice.
[10:28] The push to direct more federal funding toward grand challenges and mission-driven research rather than relying primarily on the traditional investigator-led grant model is explained.
[13:41] The administration’s concerns about university indirect costs are discussed, along with why changing how research overhead is funded could have broad consequences for institutions.
[16:56] The conversation explores how the administration could redirect existing research dollars toward its priorities even when Congress does not support the major budget cuts it has proposed.
[19:53] The concept of regranting is explored, including how federal grant recipients could redistribute funding to individuals or organizations that may not have the infrastructure to compete directly for federal awards.
[22:46] The risk that reduced indirect-cost support and changing funding models could place pressure on university laboratories, shared facilities, compliance operations, and technology transfer offices is discussed.
[25:53] Concerns that changes to federal grantmaking could give political appointees greater influence over which research receives funding are examined.
[28:59] The conversation explains how political oversight could affect the traditional peer-review process at multiple stages, from the initial screening of proposals through decisions to terminate grants that have already been awarded.
[32:00] The administration’s emphasis on fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, space, semiconductors, and robotics is discussed, along with what that shift could mean for institutions with large biomedical and life sciences portfolios.
[35:28] The tension between accelerating technology development and commercialization and maintaining the long-term fundamental research that makes those advances possible is considered.
[38:45] The conversation explains how priorities are likely to appear in the fiscal year 2028 budget process as federal agencies begin translating the administration’s broader vision into funding requests.
[41:32] Proposals involving national laboratories, industry partnerships, SBIR, and STTR are discussed, including whether those changes are likely to significantly alter how university technology transfer offices operate.
[43:55] University funding, grant levels, and indirect-cost support are identified as the issues technology transfer professionals should watch most closely over the coming months.
[45:11] The episode closes with where technology transfer and research professionals should look for signs of what comes next, including agency solicitations, funding announcements, and changes involving cost sharing.

Resources: 
AUTM
Jeffrey Mervis - Science
Jeffrey Mervis - LinkedIn
White House Report Calls For Big Changes To ‘Calcified’ U.S. Science System
Trump Adviser’s Golden Age Report On U.S. Science Is A Missed Opportunity, Critics Say
Science a New Golden Age - White House Report
Ushering in a New Golden Age of American Innovation: Fiscal Year 2028 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities
Unleashing the Golden Age of Science: Examining the Priorities of the FY2027 Research and Technology Enterprise

Plant discoveries can be some of the trickiest inventions for a technology transfer office to manage. A new variety may come out of years of breeding work, field trials, university research, or newer tools like CRISPR, but the protection strategy is not always obvious. Depending on the plant, the market, and how it will be commercialized, a TTO may need to think about utility patents, plant patents, Plant Variety Protection certificates, contracts, international rights, and the practical realities of working with breeders and licensees.
Today, we explore what every TTO needs to know about plant IP with Heidi Sease Nebel, a Member and Chairperson of the Biotechnology/Chemical Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC in Des Moines, Iowa. Heidi is an intellectual property attorney with more than 30 years of experience obtaining patents and developing IP strategies in biotechnology, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, with deep expertise in plant-related intellectual property. Her work has supported more than 30 universities and research institutions, as well as Fortune 500 companies around the world.
Heidi brings a rare perspective shaped by some of the most important developments in plant IP law, including her involvement in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., which confirmed the availability of utility patent protection for plant varieties. She has also served on the USDA Plant Variety Protection Advisory Board, as Vice Chair of the USPTO Patent Public Advisory Committee, and as a member of CIOPORA, and more. She is a longtime AUTM contributor, a 2022 Iowa Biotechnology Association Biotech Leader Award recipient, AV Preeminent® rated by LexisNexis/Martindale-Hubbell, and has been recognized for multiple consecutive years by IAM Patent 1000 for her top-tier patent expertise.
We discuss the practical issues that make plant IP different from many other university technologies. We also talk about how CRISPR and gene editing affect patent strategy, why TTOs need to be careful with AI tools and public databases, and why it is so important to protect the actual product that will reach the market, whether that is a seed, plant, fruit, or trait-bearing variety. We also walk through licensing, enforcement, MTAs, international protection, and the relationship-building that needs to happen with plant breeders long before a variety is ready for release.

In This Episode:
[04:42] Heidi Sease Nebel explains the main forms of plant IP protection in the U.S., including utility patents, plant patents, and Plant Variety Protection certificates.
[07:18] Why utility patents often provide broader protection for plant varieties, and when a university might consider additional forms of protection.
[10:36] The J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred case and how it confirmed utility patent protection for traditionally bred plant varieties.
[13:42] How the 2018 Farm Bill expanded PVP protection to asexually reproduced plants, hemp, and cannabis.
[16:45] International plant protection, UPOV, plant breeders’ rights, and the importance of tracking first-sale dates.
[19:55] Why experienced foreign counsel matters when pursuing plant protection outside the United States.
[20:34] CRISPR and gene editing strategy, including the need to claim the actual commercial product rather than only the molecular invention.
[22:45] The CRISPR patent pool created by Pioneer/Corteva and how it can help universities address licensing obligations.
[24:02] AI in plant breeding, potential public disclosure risks, and why TTOs should ask more specific questions about tools like ChatGPT and BLAST.
[27:00] Licensing challenges unique to plants, including saved seed, breeding rights, sequencing, genetic modification, and downstream ownership.
[28:49] Royalty structures for plant varieties and how the role of a parent line or asexually reproduced plant can affect licensing terms.
[31:16] Enforcement strategies, including sequencing, third-party storage, chain of custody, private investigators, and sampling licensee offerings.
[33:06] The role of the Seed Innovation Protection Alliance and how it can support TTOs with audits, tips, and enforcement concerns.
[34:47] Building relationships with plant breeders, keeping assignments current, and avoiding disclosure issues during field days.
[36:20] Material transfer agreements, germplasm sharing, and the cultural shift from informal seed exchange to stronger protection strategies.
[39:03] Enablement trends in biotech case law and how they may affect patent claims involving genetically modified plants.
[40:42] Section 101 patent eligibility concerns, naturally occurring traits, and how breeders can create patentable commercial varieties from wild plant material.
[43:25] Europe’s approach to plant patents, essentially biological processes, and the strategic considerations around the Unified Patent Court.
[45:38] Emerging issues Heidi is watching, including future PVP litigation, enforcement standards, and questions around seed deposits.
[48:26] Why plant IP protection can encourage investment while still allowing breeding under plant breeders’ rights systems.
[49:34] AUTM’s growing plant IP community, experienced university resources, and organizations that can help TTOs learn more.
[51:10] Final takeaways on plant IP strategy, CRISPR, licensing, enforcement, and the importance of talking with plant breeders early.

Resources: 
AUTM
Heidi Sease Nebel - McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC 
Heidi Nebel - LinkedIn
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

It might seem like a leap to connect ant colonies with technology transfer, but the connection is closer than it sounds. Ant colonies operate without a boss, a formal plan, or anyone directing traffic, yet they still find food, protect the colony, respond to threats, and adjust when conditions change. For anyone working in research commercialization, where progress often depends on many people and institutions moving in the same direction without anyone controlling the whole system, that’s a fascinating place to begin.
My guest is Deborah M. Gordon, Professor of Biology at Stanford University and one of the world’s leading experts on collective behavior. Deborah has spent decades studying how ant colonies operate across very different environments, from harvester ants in the desert Southwest to arboreal turtle ants in the tropical forests of Mexico and invasive Argentine ants in Northern California. She is also the author of Ants at Work, Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior, and The Ecology of Collective Behavior.
In this conversation, Deborah explains how simple interactions between ants can add up to surprisingly sophisticated group behavior. She also talks about what changes when a colony is dealing with desert heat, a crowded forest canopy, a blocked trail, or a changing climate. This conversation focuses on the question of how complex systems keep moving, adapting, and solving problems when no single person is in charge?

In This Episode:
[03:27] Deborah explains collective behavior as a process that operates without central control, using examples like bird murmurations, fish schools, brains, and ant colonies.
[04:36] Complex group behavior emerges through distributed interactions rather than individual direction, which makes natural systems redundant, adaptable, and surprisingly effective.
[05:50] The ecology of collective behavior shows how systems evolve in response to changing environments, from predators in the sky to shifting conditions on the ground.
[06:45] Ant colonies coordinate largely through smell, with pheromones and cuticular hydrocarbons helping ants respond to the rate and pattern of contact with one another.
[08:15] Deborah’s long-term study of harvester ants reveals that colonies can live 20 to 30 years, with the queen producing generations of workers over the colony’s lifetime.
[10:14] Harvester ants in the desert and turtle ants in tropical forests show how very different environments shape very different forms of collective behavior.
[13:15] Working across biology, mathematics, ecology, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience helps Deborah understand ant behavior in ways that a single discipline could not fully explain.
[14:16] The strongest parallels between ant colonies and human systems come from zooming out to look at how networks operate rather than focusing only on individual identity.
[15:40] Ant task allocation prioritizes redundancy and resiliency, allowing one individual to step into another role when conditions change or a crisis occurs.
[17:15] Turtle ants respond quickly to disruption by using local search within a dense network, while harvester ants may shut down and wait when the cost of adapting is too high.
[18:54] Network structure matters because modular systems can respond quickly to local changes, while centralized systems may be more thorough but slower to act.
[20:23] Research on collective movement in insects, birds, and fish has influenced technologies such as drone swarms and other distributed systems.
[21:05] Deborah distinguishes ant colonies from AI systems by noting that no one programs an ant colony, even when its behavior appears complex or difficult to trace.
[21:46] Comparisons between brains and ant colonies show that networks of simple interactions can be organized in many different ways to produce very different outcomes.
[22:33] Universities are facing a difficult period of uncertainty as students, faculty, and researchers try to predict what kinds of work and support will remain available.
[23:14] Climate change has become a central concern in Deborah’s harvester ant research as the desert grows hotter and drier faster than evolutionary adaptation may allow.
[23:26] The water stress facing harvester ants mirrors larger human challenges, especially in the Southwest where rivers, climate, and resource sharing are under growing pressure.
[24:56] Deborah recommends her TED Talk and Ant Encounters as good starting points for listeners who want to learn more about collective behavior.

Resources: 
AUTM
Deborah M. Gordon - Stanford
Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior 
The Ecology of Collective Behavior
Ants At Work: How An Insect Society Is Organized
Inside The Ant Colony
What Ants Teach Us About The Brain, Cancer And The Internet
The Emergent Genius Of Ant Colonies