Dutch valorisation in motion

The Wennink report was presented in late 2025, and recommendations have since been adopted by the cabinet. Where do we stand now when it comes to tech transfer?

Margrethe: “A tremendous number of wonderful things are happening. I always get very enthusiastic when I speak to spin-off founders and see what they are working on. At the same time, there is still a lot of untapped potential when you look at research and how we handle it. I therefore think that more needs to be done than what is stated in the Wennink report.”

So, what exactly needs to be done?

Margrethe: “Several things. First of all, we need to look at the culture within universities. The emphasis is too much on research and publications. Founding a spin-off is not yet held in the same regard as a publication in Nature. It’s about recognising and appreciating doing more with your research. Secondly, we need to pay more attention to available support. It’s great if researchers want to set up a spin-off, but if there is no funding or business support, it won’t get off the ground. That is why I am very pleased with initiatives like the TTTs, Faculty of Impact, and Biotech Booster. And the third, in which the Dutch government also plays a role, is that we need to have a clear vision for venture capital. You simply need that when you are going to grow.”

Sebastiaan: “For me, the Wennink report primarily shows that the glass is half full. Over the past twenty years, we have really made significant progress when it comes to tech transfer. But – and the report rightly shows this – we are still not achieving enough. A great deal of knowledge and potential solutions for societal issues are being developed. However, applying those solutions in practice is not that simple. I therefore agree with Margrethe that we must continue this cultural shift over the coming decades and that we need structural funding for support and proof-of-concept resources within the walls of knowledge institutions. That is how we can truly unlock that potential.”

That is actually where the TTTs play a role, isn’t it?

Sebastiaan: “Absolutely, but the programmes are still ‘lean and mean’ and quite small. Still, that combination of support capacity, proof-of-concept resources, and the initial business financing offered by the TTT programme is truly successful. This is also evident from the formal review by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. So, we need more of that, but in combination with structural funding for that effort. Because to date, that has still been project-based. So, to answer the question from the Wennink report: ‘How can we further improve tech transfer in the Netherlands?’, part of the answer is that we need to focus on the TTTs. Precisely because it is a national programme, knowledge institutions can combine knowledge into intellectual property and teams that transfer that knowledge into a business more quickly. And those companies emerging from TTT scale much faster and receive stronger funding than other startups, because the preliminary exploration has been better. So you can see that it works.”

Margrethe: “To be honest, we should be counting our blessings. In the Netherlands, we have a number of programmes that are running well: TTT, Biotech Booster, and Faculty of Impact. So don’t invent new things, but look at what works and scale it.”

So the glass is half full. How can we fill it up?

Margrethe: “It is indeed not the case that we still have to start. We also have a national technology strategy. That aligns well with what Europe asks for. After all, the Netherlands is too small to do it alone, so we have to look further. In addition, we have instruments that work. You could decide to do everything just a little bit better, or to set up a national organization. But that is tinkering around the edges. You can only really make the leap we need when we scale it up. And because it is knowledge-intensive, we are also building a strong IP position on those core technologies. There are already so many great examples of spin-offs that are making an impact. It can be done in the Netherlands. But we do have to offer people the space and the resources. That is extremely important.”

So, not a national organization, but certainly a national collaboration. How is that strengthened, outside of TTT?

Sebastiaan: “Last year, we founded KEEN-NL, the association for professionals. Not as a national organization from which everything is regulated, but as a nationwide network of professionals who want to work together on the future of tech transfer in the Netherlands. Together, we look at what we need to move forward, and based on that, we develop a national standard – just as we did with the IP deal terms principles. That collaboration ultimately led to KEEN-NL. We want to translate practical experience into instrument development, thereby contributing to national ambitions.”

Margrethe: “Collaboration that is rooted locally is incredibly powerful. There are people all over the country who have specific knowledge about certain subjects. One might provide a medtech perspective, another might bring AI experience. If you combine that, you can see where it does or doesn’t overlap. Sometimes it depends on the type of organization, sometimes on the type of discipline. But those differences should never stop you from looking at how you can tackle things more efficiently together. Not even if the first outcome is only 80% right, because then it will be 90% or 100% next time. You have to start somewhere, together with people with expertise. And that is exactly what KEEN-NL does.”

A lot is going well. Can we also compete internationally?

Sebastiaan: “In several areas, we are even the inspiring example for other countries. For instance, a number of countries have made their own national agreements based on our IP deal term principles. But the TTT programmes are also generating interest. Many countries see how logical it is to approach tech transfer from the combination of the two pillars. That’s also because the success of TTT speaks for itself: the TTT companies are very successful in applying for European Innovation Council (EIC) startup funding. Fortunately for us, that funding will be tripled in the coming years. So if we play our cards right, generate many scalable companies, and pick up the pace, we can bring those budgets to the Netherlands too.”

Margrethe: “The EIC is fully committed to innovation, which is beneficial for us. For many of our knowledge-intensive spin-offs, the Dutch market is simply too small. They need to play at least on a European level. Furthermore, there is still work to be done regarding follow-up funding, legislation, and regulations at the European level. Startups currently have to jump through too many hoops, making them more inclined to launch in the US. That is a shame, of course. We need to work together more in Europe so that we can make progress faster.”

Those seem like quite a few challenges to me.

Margrethe: “Indeed, but across the board, I am optimistic. We have really built something beautiful in the Netherlands, of which you can see that it works. I hope researchers see that too, make full use of it, and don’t let doubts about whether they can do it hold them back. Let others contribute ideas. We have such a great network that a good co-founder or business coach can always be found. Moreover, establishing a spin-off is not the only way to make an impact with research. Think, for example, of social enterprises, changing working methods within organizations, creating innovative policies, collaborating with a corporation…”

Sebastiaan: “Indeed, there is a lot of potential there as well. A national programme like TTT for social venturing would be a wonderful addition to our valorisation landscape. I see many opportunities to get started with. So, above all, let’s do that together!”