Technological innovation is advancing at an ever-increasing pace. Over the past decade, global research and development (R&D) spending, a pivotal driver of technological innovation, has grown from 2.00% of GDP to 2.63%. After over a century of combined effort, 100 million patents were filed as of 2017, serving as the legal proof of technological innovation. This number is expected to double within the next ten years. While the realm of innovation encompasses a wide array of individuals, organizations, and institutions, it is undeniable that a significant portion of groundbreaking innovations can be attributed to a select group of tech companies.

Patsnap releases our very first Global Innovation Report, to identify and celebrate these innovation frontrunners, built on our proprietary “Innovation Capability Evaluation Model”. We identify and celebrate both the world’s top innovators, the Global Innovation 100, who have consistently pushed the boundaries of technology, and the rising Global Disruption 50, young companies who have developed remarkable technology capabilities, bringing disruptive change to the world. These global innovators and disruptors together represent the dynamic landscape of innovation, shaping the future of technology across a diverse array of industries.

Beyond the identification of these companies, we also illustrate some insights into the essence of their innovation. The Global Innovation 100 and Global Disruption 50 are not just 150 individual companies, each of them represents a small innovation ecosystem as there can be hundreds of subsidiaries within each organization. Together they represent the dynamic landscape of innovation, shaping the future of technology across a diverse array of industries.

Jump to…

Who are the 2023 Global Innovation 100?

Who are the 2023 Global Disruption 50?

Innovation is Deeply Interconnected

Methodology Behind the Report

Who are the 2023 Global Innovation 100?

The Global Innovation 100 are the greatest innovators of this era. Over the years, they have led the world’s technology progress, and consistently outperform others in technology innovation.  They are also trailblazers in the innovation ecosystem. They exert a profound influence on companies both within and beyond their respective industries, propelling the advancement of our times.

In the 2023 list, the 100 tech giants demonstrate distinctive capability in all the four technology dimensions. They have a huge technology size with outstanding technology quality, radiating profound technology influence, and a high degree of technology globalization.

Each company also has its own technology characteristics. For example, Samsung Electronics has the largest technology size, who filed a total of 884K patents. Johnson & Johnson outperforms all the others in terms of technology influence, whose patents are totally cited at 6.6M times high. In terms of technology globalization, Huawei has 64K PCT patent filings, and Pfizer’s patents cover a staggering 138 countries and regions – both are top among the 100 companies.

The Global Innovation 100 contribute to a quarter of the World’s technology innovation. Together, they are holding 3.58M valid inventions, which accounts for 22% of the world’s total technology assets. While in terms of technology globalization, they totally filed 1.27M PCT patents, indicating a 27% presence in the international technology competition. Most important of all, their patents are cited 153M total times, contributing to as much as 35% of the world’s technology inspiration. Despite these impressive innovation numbers, these 100 companies, alongside with their 68K tech subsidiaries, they account for less than 2% of the world’s total number of tech companies.

The Global Innovation 100 come from a variety of regions and industries. These top innovators come from 11 industries, 70% of them falling in Life Science & Healthcare, Chemicals & Materials, Electronics and Machinery & Equipment. Among them, Asian companies has a higher percentage in Chemical & Materials, Electronics and Machinery & Equipment, while their American and European counterparts have particularly strong presence in Life Science & Healthcare. In terms of geographical distribution, they come from 15 countries/regions. But in terms of patent applications, their technology footprints spread over the world.

Although showing signs of a slowing pace of innovation, the Global Innovation 100 are taking active steps to develop cutting-edge technologies. They have an average technology growth rate of -2.3% over recent years, slightly lower than overall global technology growth and economic growth. Only one in five of the 100 companies listed has maintained positive growth. But they are also gaining strong growth on some cutting-edge fields, such as smart grids and biomedical engineering. These “high-growth” tech subsidiaries are mainly concentrated in Asia and the U.S.. Both in-house incubation and external acquisition are used to build their portfolios.

Who are the 2023 Global Disruption 50?

The Global Disruption 50 are highly ambitious companies that demonstrate disruptive innovation capabilities and keep growing fast. They often lead to awe-inspiring breakthroughs and bring about disruptive changes in the established world, inspiring new possibilities. They have the potential to become future Global Innovation 100 members. We use our proprietary Model to select those top performers, with important restrictions of being “young” and “active”.

In the 2023 list, we see those young pursuers demonstrate vigorous ambition and significant progress. Founded between 2009-2019, these organizations have built up an astonishing technology competitiveness in less than 15 years. They also exhibit a high growth rate with an average patent application CAGR of 51%. 

Despite their relatively modest size and limited global coverage, these organizations are already showcasing a potent technological influence. A typical Disruption 50 company has only about 3600 patent applications, 2% of the size of an Innovation 100 company. They are also far less globalized, since their technologies only touch averagely 19 countries or regions, merely 1/4 of the average of Innovation 100. However, each of its patents receive 8.3 citations, almost equal to that of a Global Innovation 100 company. Top technology influencers include Snap, Kioxia, Cerence, Stripe etc., whose top 10 cited patents are cited 300-600 times on the average.

The Global Disruption 50 companies mostly come from the U.S. and China. The U.S. maintains a dominant position, accounting for half of the list. And most of them are focusing on Information Technology and Life Science & Healthcare. China is rapidly advancing with 20 companies, particularly in High-Tech Manufacturing, a strong contrast to its relatively weak presence in Global Innovation 100. Other 5 companies come from Japan, Australia, U.K., Ireland and Netherlands, one in each country.

From the Global Innovation 100 to the Global Disruption 50, the world’s innovation is shifting from a physical “world of Atoms”, to a digital “world of Bits”, and even a “world of Atoms empowered by Bits”. Nearly 30% of the Global Disruption 50 companies are from the IT domain. While DoorDash provides online food delivery services in the U.S., Lyft provides online shared transport services. And Zoom is reinventing the conventional teleconference with revolutionary online tools. Many participants from other industries are also offering solutions integrating physical products and digital services. For example, Peloton Interactive is a game-changer in the fitness sector providing workout equipment as well as software and platforms. Pateo is the end-to-end solution provider for the Internet of vehicles from automotive electronics and software to operating systems.

Innovation is Deeply Interconnected

The abundant tech data behind the Global Innovation 100 and Global Disruption 50 also sheds light on the overall landscape of innovation. We can clearly see that innovation is deeply interconnected.

Innovation collaboration is Ubiquitous. The Global Innovation 100 collaborate closely with each other in R&D. 99 out of the Global Innovation 100 participants have collaborated on technology innovation with others from the list. And each global innovative leader has averagely 26 partners in the list. Jointly, they have filed a staggering 85K patents. Those with the most partners are Panasonic, Siemens and Hitachi, each with around 50 partners. While those with the most joint patent applications are Toyota, Denso and Hitachi, each with more than 10K joint patent applications.

Interestingly, these tech giants also demonstrate different collaboration preferences. The U.S.’s 36 companies among Global Innovation 100 are more inclined to file joint patent applications with their overseas counterparts. Their joint patent applications with domestic counterparts are 40% of that with overseas counterparts. By contrast, the Japanese ones prefer cooperating with domestic counterparts, their joint patent applications with domestic counterparts being 6 times that of overseas ones. When we take a closer look at the top 10 technology partners of Global Innovation 100, 9 pairs out of 10 are from Japan. The top pair are Toyota and Denso. Denso, as a former subsidiary of Toyota, continues to technologically cooperate with Toyota after its spinoff. The 2 companies have jointly filed as many as 13K patent applications with each other. Additionally, Toyota Motor and Sumitomo Electric have more than 2K joint patent applications, and so do NEC and Fujitsu. Only 1 pair is from the U.S, namely, Abbott and AbbVie, who have jointly filed 1.2K patent applications.

The Global Disruption 50 participants also have strong relationship with the Global Innovation 100. 5 out of the 50 companies are spinoff from other well-established tech giants, some of which are even among the Innovation 100. For example, Resideo and Advansix are both spin-offs from Honeywell, one of the 2023 Global Innovation 100 companies. Kioxia, the Japanese semiconductor leader, inherited the core semiconductor technology of nearly 20K patents from its former parent company Toshiba, who is also one of this year’s Global Innovation 100. With the “legacies” they have inherited from their former owners, these companies have obtained unique technology advantages from day one, and they continue to make technology breakthroughs.

Methodology Behind the Report

Patsnap’s annual Global innovation report is constructed based on Company Innovation Capability Evaluation Model. The model includes 1+4 dimensions, namely, 1 enterprise competitiveness dimension and 4 technology dimensions, i.e., Technology Size, Technology Quality, Technology Influence and Technology globalization. Integrating all the 40+ indicators up, each tech company has a final score of innovation capability.

Based on the model, we keep evaluating innovation capability of the ~100 million tech companies all over the world, as well as their comprehensive innovation metrics, with a complex calculation of the ~180 million patents behind them.

In the report, we use the model to select the top performers as this year’s “Global Innovation 100”. And for “Global Disruption 50”, we keep the top performance as the core criteria, while adding 2 restrictive conditions of being “young” and “active”: they should be less than 15 years since founding, and their patent growth in past 3 years should have an annual growth rate of at least 10%.

It should be noted that all the companies listed are independent, not subsidiaries of any other company.

Enhance your understanding of global innovation by delving into the full report.

The post Patsnap Releases 2023 Global Innovation Report: The Brilliant Names to the Dynamic Landscape of Innovation appeared first on Patsnap.

Rapid Evolution and Ambitious Growth:

Formation and Growth:

Emerging within the last 15 years, the Global Disruption 50 participants are dynamic entities rapidly cultivating remarkable technological capabilities. Unlike the established giants of the Global Innovation 100, these disruptors, on average, are around 15 years old and boast an impressive growth rate of approximately 50% per year, outpacing both global averages and the slower-growing or stagnating Global Innovation 100.

Innovation Profile:

A typical “innovation profile” of a 2023 Global Disruption 50 company is characterized by a medium technology size, averaging around 3,600 patent applications. Their technology quality is solid, reflected in an invention application percentage of 87%. Despite limited technology globalization, with patents applied for in only 19 countries/regions on average, these disruptors exhibit a strong technology influence, with each patent cited more than 8 times on average.

Comparative Analysis with Global Innovation 100:

Technological Impact:

Despite a relatively modest size and limited global coverage, the 2023 Global Disruption 50 are already demonstrating a potent technological influence, instigating profound transformations across the world. Their technology quality and influence almost match those of the established Global Innovation 100, showcasing the disruptive potential within their compact portfolios.

Invention Application Percentage:

A typical Disruption 50 company boasts an invention application percentage of 87%, aligning closely with an Innovation 100 company’s 91%, highlighting a similar commitment to high-quality innovation.

Patent Citations:

The average number of patent citations for a Disruption 50 company stands at 8.3 times, closely paralleling the Global Innovation 100’s 8.6 times. This similarity underscores the impactful nature of the disruptive technologies being developed by the rising stars.

Technological Globalization:

While the Global Disruption 50 are less technologically globalized compared to their Innovation 100 counterparts, with patents covering only 1/4th the geographic range, their focused influence is already triggering transformative shifts in targeted regions.

Visual Insights into Disruption:

The report is enriched with graphical representations, offering intuitive insights into the disruptive capabilities of the 2023 Global Disruption 50, highlighting their unique strengths and impact on the global technological landscape.

The Patsnap 2023 Global Disruption 50, though relatively nascent in their journey, are proving to be dynamic forces of innovation. With their ambitious growth, solid technological capabilities, and impactful influence, these disruptors are reshaping the innovation narrative. For a comprehensive analysis and deeper insights, explore our 2023 Global Innovation Report and witness the disruptive potential that is redefining the future of innovation.

The post Patsnap’s 2023 Disruption 50: A Closer Look at Tomorrow’s Innovators appeared first on Patsnap.

Disrupting the Established World:

Global Presence and Industry Focus:

The 2023 Global Disruption 50, hailing from 10 countries, are distributed across 10 industries. The Information Technology sector takes the lead, constituting 30% of the disruptors. Notably, Information Technology, Life Science & Healthcare, and Automotive collectively account for 64% of the disruptors, showcasing their dominance in reshaping traditional sectors.

Sectoral Comparison:

Information Technology emerges as the top and fastest-growing sector among the disruptors, comprising 28%, nearly four times that of the Global Innovation 100. The Automotive sector, with 7 pioneering companies, claims 14% of the disruptors, nearly three times more than its representation in the Global Innovation 100.

Shift in Innovation Focus:

Over the last decade, the world’s innovation trajectory has evolved from a physical world of atoms to a digital world of bits, and now towards a “world of atoms empowered by bits.” This paradigm shift is embodied in the disruptive innovations brought forth by the Global Disruption 50.

World of Bits:

Disruption 50 participants are leveraging digital technologies to provide innovative digital offerings. Examples include DoorDash for online food delivery, Lyft for online shared transport services, Zoom redefining teleconferencing, Hyperchain Technology using blockchain for financial and energy solutions, and Snap offering a visual messaging app.

Integration of Atoms and Bits:

Another trend observed is the integration of the physical world with the digital realm. Disruption 50 companies are offering solutions that seamlessly combine hardware and software. Peloton Interactive revolutionizes fitness with workout equipment, software, and platforms. Traffic Control Technology provides end-to-end rail traffic control solutions. Beijing Horizon Information Technology offers auto-pilot computing solutions, Pateo is an end-to-end provider for the Internet of Vehicles, and Cerence pioneers AI automotive assistants with core voice technology.

Visualizing the Disruption:

Graphical representations in the report provide a visual journey into the disruption caused by the Global Disruption 50, offering a dynamic perspective on how these innovators are reshaping the established world.

The Patsnap 2023 Global Disruption 50, with their strategic focus on Information Technology, Automotive, and Life Science & Healthcare, are not merely innovators but disruptors, reshaping the world by transitioning from a physical to a digital realm and finally integrating both seamlessly. For a comprehensive analysis and deeper insights, explore our “Patsnap 2023 Global Innovation Report” and witness the transformative power of disruption redefining the future of innovation.

The post Impact of Patsnap’s 2023 Global Disruption 50 appeared first on Patsnap.

Building from the Ground Up:

Independently Forged Visions:

The majority of disruptors, a remarkable 40 out of 50, embarked on their innovation journey from independent foundations. Guided by visionary leaders with a passion to make a difference, these disruptors, including the exceptional Dutch 3D printer supplier Ultimaker, started from ground zero, challenging established players like GE and HP.

Ultimaker’s inception at the ProtoSpace FabLab in Utrecht exemplifies the potency of independent foundations, propelling them to challenge industry norms and redefine technological landscapes.

Incubated Innovations:

10% of the Global Disruption 50 trace their roots to research institutes, leveraging initial technology developed within these academic environments. Companies like Saluda Medical and QuantumCTek emerged as global pioneers in smart neuromodulation therapy and Quantum Communication, respectively, after incubation in research institutes such as Australia’s Information Communications Technology Center of Excellence and the University of Science and Technology of China.

Saluda Medical’s journey from research excellence in Australia’s ICT Center to commercialization showcases the transformative power of academic incubation in driving innovation.

Spin-offs from Tech Giants:

Another 10% of disruptors are spin-offs from established tech giants, inheriting technologies and gaining unique market advantages from their inception. Companies like Resideo, Advansix, Kioxia, SVOLT, and Cerence, with origins from entities like Honeywell, Toshiba, Great Wall Motor, and Nuance, exemplify the evolution and continuous innovation of spin-off disruptors.

Resideo and Advansix, born from the legacy of Honeywell, and Kioxia, inheriting semiconductor prowess from Toshiba, highlight the strategic advantages gained by spin-offs in the innovation landscape.

The Patsnap 2023 Global Disruption 50, with their varied origins from independent foundations, academic incubation, and spin-offs from tech giants, exemplify the diverse pathways to innovation excellence. For a comprehensive analysis and deeper insights, explore our 2023 Global Innovation Report and witness the innovative tapestry woven by disruptors redefining the future of global innovation.

The post The Origins of Patsnap’s 2023 Global Disruption 50 appeared first on Patsnap.

Global Technological Prowess:

Magnitude of Influence:

The Global Innovation 100, with around 68,000 “tech subsidiaries,” may constitute less than 2% of total global tech companies. However, their impact is colossal, contributing to 22% of the world’s invention assets, fueling 27% of global technology competition, and inspiring a remarkable 35% of the world’s technological innovations, as measured by patent citations.

Innovation Metrics:

In terms of sheer size, these 100 companies and their subsidiaries boast 3.58 million valid inventions, representing 22% of the world’s total. In the realm of technology globalization, their 1.27 million PCT filings account for 27% of the global total. The influence of their patents is undeniable, with a staggering 153 million citations, making up 35% of all patent citations worldwide.

The Current Technological Landscape:

Post-COVID Resilience:

Despite a slowdown in the pace of overall innovation in the post-COVID era, the 2023 Global Innovation 100 remain unwavering in their commitment to cutting-edge technological fields. In a recovering global economy, these companies contributed nearly 1 million patent applications in 2022, reflecting a slight downturn with a CAGR of -2.3% compared to the previous three years.

Investment in Cutting-Edge Fields:

Delving into the dynamics of the 68,000 tech subsidiaries, it is evident that the 2023 Global Innovation 100 are driving progress in cutting-edge technological domains. With 336 “high-growth” tech subsidiaries, these companies are strategically positioned in four key areas: smart grid, biomedical engineering, biopharmaceuticals, and electronic components.

Innovation in Action:

Smart Grid Revolution:

With 57 high-growth subsidiaries in the smart grid sector, companies like Huawei are spearheading innovations in new energy and smart grids, shaping the future of sustainable energy solutions.

Biomedical Engineering Advancements:

In the field of biomedical engineering, 2023 Global Innovation 100 entities like Becton Dickinson, through acquisitions like Scanwell Health, are revolutionizing home testing reagents and mobile phone-based diagnostic solutions.

Biopharmaceutical Innovations:

Takeda Pharmaceuticals, with 34 high-growth subsidiaries, is at the forefront of cutting-edge immunotherapy technology, demonstrating the transformative power of acquisitions and collaborations in the biopharmaceutical sector.

Electronic Components Revolution:

In electronic components, companies like Honeywell are exploring integrated solutions in quantum computing software and hardware through strategic mergers, exemplified by its collaboration with Cambridge Quantum.

As we navigate the dynamic landscape of innovation, the Patsnap 2023 Global Innovation 100 stand as pillars of progress, contributing significantly to global technological evolution. From redefining traditional industries to pioneering breakthroughs in cutting-edge fields, these innovators are leaving an indelible mark on the world of technology. For a comprehensive analysis and deeper insights, explore our 2023 Global Innovation Report and witness the transformative power of innovation in action.

To download the full report, click here!

The post Impact of Patsnap’s 2023 Global Innovation 100 appeared first on Patsnap.

Global Collaboration: A Technological Tapestry

Universal Collaboration:

Technological collaboration is not just common but ubiquitous among the 2023 Global Innovation 100. Almost every participant in this elite group engages in collaborative efforts with their peers, forging connections that span industries and borders.

Active Interactions:

The Global Innovation 100 actively collaborate in technology innovation, with an impressive 99 out of the 100 participants engaging in technological cooperation with others on the list. This interconnectedness underscores a global commitment to shared innovation goals.

Diverse Partnerships:

On average, each Global Innovation 100 participant maintains collaborations with 26 partners within the list. These partnerships may extend between parent companies or involve their subsidiaries. Notable leaders in collaboration include Panasonic, Siemens, and Hitachi, each boasting around 50 partners from the elite list.

Joint Patent Applications:

The collaborative efforts translate into a wealth of joint patent applications, with a staggering 85,000 patents co-invented by these visionary companies. Leaders in this realm include Toyota, Denso, and Hitachi, each contributing more than 10,000 joint patent applications to the collective innovation pool.

Divergent Collaboration Strategies:

U.S. Collaboration Trends:

Global innovation leaders from the U.S. exhibit a preference for international collaboration, with joint patent applications with overseas counterparts surpassing those with domestic partners. The collaborative efforts with international counterparts outweigh domestic collaboration by 40%.

Japanese Collaboration Dynamics:

In contrast, Japan’s Global Innovation 100 showcases a distinctive approach, prioritizing domestic technological collaboration. Joint patent applications with domestic partners are six times more prevalent than those with overseas counterparts, highlighting a preference for fostering innovation within national borders.

Global Patterns Visualized:

Engaging visual representations in the report illustrate the collaboration patterns, showcasing the intricate connections between companies and countries, providing a dynamic perspective on how innovation is fostered globally.

The Patsnap 2023 Global Innovation 100, although fierce competitors in the technological arena, are deeply interwoven in a collaborative tapestry. With active partnerships, diverse collaborations, and distinct preferences among global leaders, this interconnected brilliance sets the stage for a future where innovation knows no boundaries. For an in-depth exploration and comprehensive analysis, refer to our 2023 Global Innovation Report and witness the collaborative spirit shaping the forefront of global innovation.

The post Navigating the Collaborative Web of Patsnap’s 2023 Global Innovation 100 appeared first on Patsnap.

Jump to…

The Regional Landscape

Global Footprint and Patent Coverage

Industries Driving Innovation

Global Innovation 100: The Regional Landscape

Hailing from 15 countries and spanning 11 diverse industries, the Global Innovation 100 showcase a remarkable global reach. With headquarters distributed across countries such as the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, these innovators represent a diverse array of technological prowess.

Region-wise, the majority of the Global Innovation 100 are rooted in the U.S. and Japan, comprising nearly two-thirds of the list. On a continental level, Asia dominates with 40%, driven primarily by Japan. North America, entirely represented by the U.S., and Europe, with a balanced distribution across nine countries, follow closely.

Global Footprint and Patent Coverage:

Surprisingly, the Global Innovation 100 extend their reach far beyond their headquarters. With 68,000 “tech subsidiaries” operating globally, these companies have established a formidable presence in 181 countries, filing a staggering 20.8 million patent applications in over 159 countries.

Asia, North America, and Europe: A Comparative Analysis:

Diving into the characteristics of the Global Innovation 100, distinct trends emerge across Asia, North America, and Europe.

Asia’s Technological Dominance:

• Asia-based companies lead in Technology Size, boasting an average of 280,000 patent applications each, about 1.5 times that of Europe and twice that of North America.
• Top contributors include Panasonic, Samsung Electronics, and Hitachi, filing 1.06 million, 880,000, and 730,000 patents respectively.

North America’s Innovation Influence:

• North American companies excel in Technology Influence, with an average citation of 12.6 times per patent, more than double that that of the Global Innovation 100 from Europe and Asia.
• U.S.-based companies such as Medtronic, Oracle, and Boston Scientific lead the pack with patents cited 49 times, 30 times, and 30 times on average, respectively.

Europe’s Global Technological Reach:

• European companies exhibit a higher level of Technology Globalization, filing patents in an average of 101 countries, surpassing other continents.
• Notable contributors include AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi, BASF, and Shell, filing in over 120 countries.

Industries Driving Innovation:

The Global Innovation 100 are spread across 11 industries, with Life Science & Healthcare, Chemicals & Materials, Electronics, and Machinery & Equipment taking the lead. Together, these four sectors account for nearly 70% of the innovators, showcasing a concentration of technological advancement in critical areas such as healthcare, materials, electronics, and machinery.

In conclusion, the Patsnap 2023 Global Innovation 100 emanate from diverse corners of the globe, driving technological progress and innovation in pivotal industries. For a comprehensive analysis and further insights, refer to our 2023 Global Innovation Report. Explore the trends, discover the innovators, and join us in celebrating the global spirit of innovation that defines the year 2023.

The post The Origins of Patsnap’s 2023 Global Innovation 100 appeared first on Patsnap.

Posted September 28, 2017

Just as Stage-Gate exposed the gaps within organisational processes, innovative organisations are revealing gaps within the Stage-Gate process.

Run a Google search on “weaknesses of Stage-Gate” and you won’t be short of results. Like this R&D today article, which criticises the standardised nature of stage-gates.

Or this Accenture report which claims that stage-gates can kill innovation.

CEB (of Gartner) found in its 2017 survey of senior R&D leaders that they are still wrestling with many of the challenges that Stage-Gate was supposed to alleviate. Top of the list of challenges is “We struggle to communicate the return on investment of our R&D”.

On the surface, it may appear as if the Stage-Gate process is failing to remove fuzziness from innovation—as it promises to do.

But an alternative view suggests Stage-Gate isn’t the problem—the way it’s being used by organisations might be.

I’ll explore how organisations might be hurting their results by misunderstanding the role of their Stage-Gate process —and how you can upgrade yours.

Stage-Gate is not the vehicle, it’s the chassis—you need other parts to get anywhere

There’s a dark spectre that hovers over the spirit of innovation—it’s called risk.

When your job is to constantly step into the realm of the unknown, it follows logically that you *cannot* predict whether you’re making the right moves.

This is compounded by the fact that persistently breaking through limitations is expensive. Like, trillions of dollars kind of expensive. Which means R&D is funded by commerce.

Business people prioritise predictability and calculable returns on their investment (it’s how they got so rich). Innovation offers minimal predictability (at best). You see how things can get tense.

Stage-Gate has been so enthusiastically embraced by innovative organisations perhaps because they think it helps them minimise risk and maximise predictability.

In fact, it doesn’t—it simply accounts for the existence of risk.

To illustrate, the fact that a project passes through all phases of the stage-gate isn’t an inherent indication that it is likely to succeed in the market. It’s simply an indication that a group of people have regularly asked themselves whether they think that project is likely to succeed.

Robert Cooper, pioneer of Stage-Gate, seems to me to suggest as much in his in-depth analysis of how the methodology has evolved:

“Today’s fast-paced Stage-Gate is flexible, allowing the project team considerable latitude in deciding what actions are needed and what deliverables are appropriate for each gate, and adapting to dynamic information.”

Stage-Gate is just a shell—for it to drive you to the promised land, you need to regularly fine-tune the engine you put inside it.

What really affects the success of a project is the quality of the metrics used when assessing whether that project is equipped to exploit opportunities and avoid dangers.

So, I’d like to talk about a source of high-quality metrics that can turn your Stage-Gate process into a supercar, with a turbo-charged engine— IP data.

Specifically, I’ll talk about why intellectual property (IP) data is more insight-driven, actionable and R&D-friendly than most other data sources.

Napoleon Bonaparte said, “War is 99% information…” (and so is innovation)

Clues as to the value of data are evident in most reports assessing the challenges faced by R&D-intensive organisations.

The CEB report referenced at the beginning of this article includes in its list of top challenges, “Not knowing how to incorporate analytics into the innovation process,” and “Not knowing how to make the best use of digital tools .”

Even Robert Cooper says that “adapting to dynamic information” is a prerequisite for success.

Stage-Gate is great but it’s no panacea—and while it can incorporate data, it’s not itself a source of the kind of data that helps you win outside your organisation.

It can give you data about how your internal ideas compare with each other—but how about when your ideas need to win against external conditions?

Organisations try to use a perfectly good tool (i.e. Stage-Gate) as a metric for gauging the wrong outcome (i.e. chances against external risk), so they fail.

But they’re unable to diagnose the cause of their failure—they’ve implemented Stage-Gate, after all. And when companies don’t know how to manage risk, they avoid it.

Risk and innovation are joined at the hip—avoiding risk means avoiding innovation. Risk should be managed, not avoided.

Accenture reports in its study of the Stage-Gate process that “Driven by risk aversion and poor risk management capabilities, the [stage-gate] process often weeds out big ideas in favour of small ones.”

Keary Crawford, an innovation consultant, notes in her Innovation Excellence article:

“…the new work setting can inadvertently lead to powerful “bunker mentalities” that are highly resistant to change, and a culture that favours risk-elimination over the critical risk-reward calculus needed in today’s complex business environment.”

And this is the first dimension in which IP data starts to shine.

Why focus on IP data?

Patents are a monopoly right granted by the state, in exchange for publishing details of how your invention works.

Meaning each patent makes public lots of valuable technical information—and just because you can’t copy that information doesn’t mean you can’t use it.

Patents are also documents which follow a defined structure —for example, all patents contain claims, drawings, summary pages etc. And the type of information contained in each section is clearly defined.

There are also hundreds of millions of patent documents in existence today. This uniformity means, with enough computing power, you can extract patterns and insight from billions of common data points.

IP data is particularly useful to R&D teams and Stage-Gate because:

1. It is inherently biased towards providing insight (not just numbers)—it comprises a combination of quantitative (numbers-based) and qualitative (descriptive) data
2. It is still overlooked by most companies and so represents a huge competitive advantage for those who use it
3. Its records go back to the 1700s, so trends in the data have a healthy historical context
4. It contains data about what competitors and other external parties are doing
5. It contains data indicating the past, current and future direction of markets
6. It is inherently innovation-focussed because it concerns multiple aspects (e.g. technological and legal) of new inventions

I must emphasise that patent data isn’t valuable as a blunt measure of how innovative a company or market is— this is a common and damaging misconception. Not all innovative ideas are patented and patenting intensity is not uniform across the world.

Insight from patent data is more useful for seeing trends in behaviour and technology. It also “telegraphs” how other innovators foresee the future and are reacting to it. And, of course, it reveals things like infringement dangers, partnership opportunities and more.

IP data is valuable in an environment where new frontiers must be continually explored because it not only reveals what companies are doing—it reveals what they are preparing to do.

This means that while you can’t predict what will happen, you can draw educated conclusions about what the market thinks is likely to happen—bringing a level of foresight to a fundamentally unknowable variable (i.e. the future).

What’s the net effect of this approach? The BCG Global Innovation Survey of 2016 shows companies that are good at exploiting data originating externally, are the same companies that have the most successful innovation programmes.

Using examples from Robert Cooper’s report, “What Leading Companies are Doing to Reinvent their NPD Processes”, I will illustrate just how IP data can help you plug holes in your Stage-Gate process.

Download this 3000-word article as an eBook-get all the insight in one convenient PDF

How IP data could have enhanced an exemplary practitioner of Stage-Gate

Mr Cooper’s report opens by pointing to Emerson Electric as being exemplary of Stage-Gate processes.

The company uses “gates with teeth”, regularly reviews its Stage-Gate process (not just the ideas passing through it) and incorporates the voice of customers, among other things.

So, I analysed Emerson’s activities and strategies to see if they could actually be enhanced by IP data. Two things were immediately apparent:

1. Robert Cooper felt one of the reasons Emerson was so successful in using Stage-Gate is that it recognised that “Making the right project choices is another area where significant gains could be made.”
2. Chuck Knight, the former Emerson CEO who sadly passed away earlier this month (September 2017), was renowned for making “controversial moves into the global marketplace”.

In a 2017 Economist article analysing the shift in business from globalisation to localisation , Emerson is pinpointed as “…a conglomerate that has over 100 factories outside America, sources about 80% of its production in the region where it is sold.”

Chuck Knight actually began moving Emerson into the global market soon after he became the youngest CEO of a billion-dollar company, in 1973.

Emerson began filing patents in Japan (1977), then China and South Korea (both 1983)—while US patenting activity was already up and growing well before this time.

And of the 6 patents filed in 1977 (in Japan), 2 concerned “DC motors”. This indicates Emerson had spent lots of time and money on this technology area, likely with specific plans for the Japanese market.

While Emerson was making the risky move of entering a new and unfamiliar market, would it not have helped to have learned from the activities of those who’d been in the market far longer?

Here’s what the technology landscape for “DC motors” looked like in 1977 Japan (with Emerson’s patents in red):

Emerson could have exploited the technical knowledge and trends revealed by the innovators in its market.

Perhaps more importantly, it could’ve seen that Nitsuki Densou KK filed a patent in the same year, relating to a technology that was eerily close to one of Emerson’s—DC motor speed control.

How does this relate to Stage-Gate? Emerson’s focus on “localised internationalisation” began in 1973 and remains today (based on the 2017 Economist article). So, this scenario has likely repeated itself after Emerson’s adoption of Stage-Gate.

Maybe when it began patenting in Colombia (1995) or Indonesia (1999).

As established by Robert Cooper, “adapting to dynamic information” is a key tenet of a flexible and effective Stage-Gate process.

Is there a better illustration of adapting to dynamic information than exploiting the current (and evolving) trends in IP analytics, as a company enters a new market?

IP data would enhance not only the choice of ideas to develop (with infringement and partnership opportunities laid bare on the landscape), but also the direction of development (with ample technical information rendered accessible).

And I can guess what you’re (probably) thinking: that the kind of computing power necessary to access this information wasn’t available in 1977.

That’s true. Yet many modern organisations still make uninformed decisions, as if such rich and actionable data were not available today.

That makes Emerson’s example from 1977 more apt. Whereas IP big data used to be inaccessible to all companies—nowadays, most organisations choose to ignore it at their own peril.

Combine IP data with Stage-Gate to boldly go where no man has gone before

Robert Cooper, in his in-depth report, itemises ways to improve several facets of Stage-Gate—I’m going to explain how IP data can support you in 3 main areas.

1. Optimise your Stage-Gate process by making it risk-adjusted and scalable

   Robert Cooper states that one of the big mistakes organisations make is having “gates with no teeth”—i.e. stage reviews that amount to knowledge-sharing sessions, rather than opportunities to weed out bad ideas and reinforce good ones.

   He emphasises the importance of “go/kill decision points”, stating:

   “In many firms, too much emphasis is on getting through the process—that is, on getting one’s project approved or deliverables prepared for the next gate… In a major shift, P&G changed its emphasis to winning in the marketplace as the goal…”

   He also mentions the importance of having truncated versions of stage-gate, to handle smaller, lower-risk projects (which don’t require the bureaucracy of the whole shebang). These truncated versions would presumably contain appropriately miniaturised “teeth”.

   IP data is one of the few sources of innovation intel that can keep up with fast-moving product development pipelines—and provide big or small data.

   Scott Collins, President and CTO of TeVido, states that one of the big benefits of IP data to his company is that it alerts him to new developments in the company’s technology area.

   Numerous patents are filed every day, across the world. With access to current IP data and insight, you can see if an infringement threat or novel application appears half-way through a project life cycle.

   You can adjust commercialisation strategies with the emergence of licensing or partnership opportunities, and use countless other data points to keep your project on track.

   If you’re dealing with a big project, you can dig deep into the IP data. If you’re dealing with small projects, surface readings of patterns can give quick indications on how to proceed.

2. Improve your Stage-Gate process by adding flexibility, using simultaneous execution

   Robert Cooper explains, “Today, stages are even allowed to overlap in NexGen Stage-Gate… long lead-time activities that are usually reserved for subsequent stages (e.g. …preparation of marketing collaterals…) can be moved into the previous stage to accelerate the project…”

   But he also says, “Simultaneous execution usually adds risk to a project.”

   If you’re going to start printing marketing collateral before a project is finalised, you need to be able to prevent what ex-Xerox R&D chief, Mark Myers, calls the “Oops Factor”. This is a situation where companies forge ahead with a project only to discover (millions of dollars later) that it can’t be commercialised.

   Often, obstacles to the commercialisation of ideas are patents. If you’re in the business of R&D—especially if you want to make your Stage-Gate process more flexible— it’s simply reckless to ignore IP data.

   Just ask Dow Chemical, which was forced to dismantle an entire business unit and abandon a multi-million dollar project because it failed to keep an eye on the IP landscape.

3. Improve your Stage-Gate process by focussing on portfolio management

   Robert Cooper notes, “There are two ways to win at new products: doing projects right and doing the right projects. And that’s where portfolio management—picking the right projects—comes into play.”

   He also notes, “Lack of data integrity is one of the top issues identified in a recent APQC portfolio management study.”

   IP data is valuable because the issue of data integrity is neutralised —all patent documents are reviewed and approved by independent bodies, following long-standing criteria.

   Concurrently, IP data works well as either a “shield” (for defending the value of a project) or a “sword” (for cutting down flawed ideas). It reveals threats (e.g. competitor strategies and infringement dangers) as well as opportunities (technological trends and partnerships).

   John Frieden, R&D Director at Wilbur Ellis, says about IP data, “I expect over time, the next innovation we come up with will have been found based on PatSnap’s patent reports— it has improved my success rate.”

In short, give your Stage-Gate process an IP data-driven engine

I won’t suggest IP data is the solution to all Stage-Gate related problems. But I think it’s fair to say, you’ll never own a fully optimised process unless you incorporate IP data.

Don’t strategise as if your Stage-Gate process needs to operate by the rules that existed in 1977, when your business needs to win on the competitive landscape of 2017.

I’ll leave you with Robert Cooper’s closing words from his report on the Stage-Gate process:

“Take a hard look at your current and potentially out-of-date NPD process and systematically reinvent the process to build in the latest thinking, approaches and methods in order to move to the NexGen Stage-Gate system.”

The post Stage-Gate Process in New Product Development (NPD) appeared first on Patsnap.

Posted March 20, 2017

As companies seek better ways to protect their intellectual property and streamline business strategies the awareness and importance of patents is increasing across the globe.

Patent infringement can either be deliberate or a genuine mistake by a company which has not done its research properly. This is usually the case if a patent has existed for a long time but hasn’t reached commercialisation yet which has led to lack of awareness of this technology.

What is patent infringement?

When a company files a patent for a technology, it gives them the exclusive right to use or sell that technology for 20 years. A patent infringement usually arises when another company develops the same technology, sells that technology or sells the patentees’ technology. This contradicts the purpose of patent protection which involves disclosing a patent in exchange for having a monopoly for a certain period.

The rise of non-practicing entities (NPEs) has intensified the issue. An infringement lawsuit brought by an NPE with its costly litigation and potential damages is a prospect many organisations dread.

NPEs, more commonly known as “patent trolls”, hold patents for a product with no intention of developing it. They usually buy large numbers of patents with the sole intention of filing patent infringement against companies which have potentially used an element of the patent illegally. Some NPEs offer defensive licensing to companies wanting to use the patent to allow companies to eliminate the threat of being sued.

As NPEs don’t develop patents, they are immune from infringement claims or counterclaims from defendants. Most companies end up licensing technology or resolving the dispute in a settlement when they are up against NPEs.

The American Intellectual Property Association conducted a survey¹ of the median litigation costs for patent infringement suits. For a claim that could be worth less than $1 million (£808,800), median legal costs are $650,000 (£526,000). When between $1 million and $25 million (£19 million) is considered at risk, total litigation costs can hit $2.5 million (£2 million). For claims over $25 million, the median legal costs are $5 million (£4 million).

The patent application process is expensive but if there is litigation involved, the expense can be extortionate.

Different types of patent infringement

Direct

Someone may be infringing by manufacturing a product which is protected by a patent – this is known as direct infringement. A company can also infringe on a patent if they import items which are made by a patented method. This infringement can be avoided if the item has been materially changed by a subsequent process or if it is a trivial component of another product.

Indirect

Indirect infringement involves an infringer that may be encouraging or aiding another party to infringe the patent. They might do this by supplying a direct infringer with a component of the invention².

Literal

If there is direct correspondence between the words in the patent claims and the device is being infringed, this is known as literal infringement³. By practicing each of the elements in the patent claim, a person infringes.

What are the consequences of patent infringement?

Infringers will be taken to court.

There are several consequences for patent infringement including paying monetary damages or being issued an injunction to prevent further infringement on a patent.

There are some cases where the court may find there has been no patent infringement, such as if the patentee disclosed information about the invention in prior art, whether it was in a book, newspaper, website or magazine. If the invention was offered for sale in the country and was disclosed to the public a year before the application was filed, then it also can be revoked and no infringement will be found.

If there is infringement, an infringer may be required to pay the legal fees for the patent owner at the court’s discretion. This usually occurs if there are unusual circumstances or where the patent owner’s position is unusually unreasonable.

Remedies:

There are many remedies available for patent owners once they have been infringed. Usually patentees want an injunction to prevent further infringement of their patents but others will demand monetary damages.

In the UK, most small business will go to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) whose cap of £50,000 for damages is highly favourable for smaller businesses that are cost conscious.

Infringement also creates licensees and royalties; companies who have licensed their inventions to other companies will get royalty payments for having the right to use that technology. If a company is liable for patent infringement, that party becomes a licensee and may have to pay royalty for any future sales from the patented technology.

If a party has wilfully infringed on the patent, the court can treble the damages, calculated as three times the financial losses the patentee has suffered. This is to discourage and deter companies from infringing⁴.

The court may also issue an injunction, an order to prevent the infringer from infringing the patent now and in the future. A preliminary injunction may also be issued during the trial to prevent the infringer from using or selling the products before a ruling is reached.

How to avoid patent infringement?

Ensure that you conduct a good freedom to operate search with your legal team or law firm.

A thorough patent search should identify potential threats. If there are no similar patents, then you are free to patent your invention without any worry of infringement. It is also good to identify NPE’s when doing a patent search so you are aware of potential threats early on.

If you do find that there might be an infringement, find out if you can invalidate the previous patent by searching for prior art whether it’s in a magazine, website or any kind of published material. If it is public and has been disclosed before the patent was applied for, you can invalidate the patent.

However, if the patent is valid and you may be infringing, there could be an option for licensing that technology. The original patent holder could grant a license in return for royalties for using and selling their technology. Usually both parties prefer this because it avoids costly court proceedings.

Footnotes

1. https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-going-to-cost-you/
2. https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/manage#infringement
3. http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/patent-infringement-and-litigation.html
4. http://www.manufacturing.net/article/2014/06/patent-infringement-how-avoid-nightmare

The post How do you know if your patent is being infringed? appeared first on Patsnap.

Posted March 13, 2017

Genetic editing has been possible for over 40 years – the first GMO bacteria and mice were created in 1973 and 1974 – but the process has remained expensive, time consuming and relatively limited in its scope.

Compared to these traditional methods, CRISPR is not so much like bringing a gun to a knife fight, more bringing an Apache chopper to a pub fight. The hype surrounding CRISPR is so hot right now there’s even a TV show, produced by Jennifer Lopez, reportedly in development; if that doesn’t spell establishment status, not much else does.

CRISPR is so powerful it has literally allowed scientists to create alien life

CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats to give it its full name, is actually only one half of the process, with Cas9 being the other half. When combined, CRISPR/Cas9 is a very simple, very cheap way of identifying and changings genes. The Cas9 protein sniffs out the exact genes while the CRISPR makes the change.

For a slightly better informed explanation, watch this video:

Or download our whitepaper to read more about the history and development of CRISPR:

CRISPR is not the scientific community’s equivalent of gluten free either and will genuinely remain at the forefront of research, long after we’ve all gone back to stuffing ourselves with lovely, lovely bread. While the patent of the technique has been undergoing only recently resolved legal disputes, it does not appear that the continuing improvement of the technique has been hindered with a team from Western University in Ontario claiming to already have doubled the capacity for choppin’.

And unlike other scientific methods, CRISPR is easy. Well, easy if you’ve already got a PhD or at least a super keen eye for detail, you probably can’t do it accidentally knocking up a fried egg. There is however, for the more cautious drivers, an emergency brake embedded in the system – it really is that clever.

The potential is such that even the possibilities for new uses is almost a research task in its own right, a task we are embracing. In this article, we’ll look at some of the best and the weirdest declared uses for CRISPR so far, and we’ll be updating going forward.

1. Cure malaria – in mosquitoes

   

   Malaria has killed more people than all the wars in history combined. Efforts to stop the spread have focused on post-infection treatments or prevention attempts like mosquito nets.

   If the spread of malaria is the bonfire, chucking cups of water on it isn’t doing much to put it out. Instead of focusing on making bigger cups, scientists at the University of California have dampened the matches.

   By using CRISPR to introduce modified genes into the insects that spread the disease, populations of the mosquitoes can become resistant to the malaria-causing parasites. You’d still need a net to stop yourself from being bitten, but a nuisance is a lot easier to handle than disease.

   This approach is not only hoped to save human lives, particularly in developing countries, but also endangered species of birds in Hawaii.

2. CRISPR + stem

   While trends always aspire (and typically fail) to become traditions, jumping on a trend’s bandwagon is as traditional as apple pie and getting beaten up at school. Even though we’re all universally guilty of it, no one really likes bandwagon jumpers and the only thing worse is someone who tries to merge trends, no one wants that gluten-free 3d printed craft beer.

   However, you get a pass when your merging of two trends is both ingenious and lifesaving. If gene editing is in vogue right now, its predecessor as soon-to-be-huge-but-always-just-around-the-corner is most definitely stem cell technology.

   If CRISPR editing is the cut and paste of the genetic engineering toolkit, then stem cells are the words and punctuation, equally capable of becoming Tolstoy or teacake recipes.

   The team at the Allen Institute in Seattle have used CRISPR to colour code stem cells, allowing them to be better observed, and therefore understood.

3. Resurrect the woolly mammoth

   

   There is nothing more scientists, as well as the covering press, love, than science fiction shrugging off the fiction label. While we maybe still some way off from light speed engines and time travel, CRISPR could be about to bring the science of Jurassic Park to reality, sort of.

   As DNA typically tends to not last the millions of years since the last dinosaur succumbed to the peer pressure and turned into a pigeon, only animals extinct in the much more recent past will be revived, or become ‘de-extinct’.

   The most iconic of these, is of course the woolly mammoth. Extinct only for the last 4,000 years, or the last time The Simpsons was actually funny, there are plenty of lovely chunks of DNA to mess around with.

   Harvard scientists are using some of these chunks to try and figure out which genes specifically separate the mammoth from its threadbare cousin and, when that’s known, re-insert these genes into an elephant embryo. The team claim the elephant-mammoth hybrid could be just two years away.

4. Dinosaur chickens

   The idea that dinosaurs involved into modern day birds is now widely accepted as one of the most embarrassing family trees, rivalled only by the Chihuahua’s descent from wolves.

   In an attempt to understand better the delicate nuances and outright absurdities of evolution, scientists from University of Chicago are using CRISPR to reverse engineer some of the intermediary species between dinosaur and bird. Early results from the experiments have already highlighted the development of the beak.

5. Cure diseases – all of them

   

   Medical research was so much easier back in the old days; when someone is sealing up your severed leg with a red-hot poker, suggesting maybe using some tightly wrapped, clean bandages made you look like a genius.

   All that changed in the 20th century though when medicine’s rapid advances meant you had to do more than wash your hands to be called a pioneer. Vaccines for smallpox and polio as well as penicillin, organ transplants and MRI scanners have all put paid to plenty of diseases, leaving only the tough ones to sort.

   With so much focus on medical research and development, if a disease was anything more than faintly possible to cure, it would have been by now. What medicine has been crying out for is a new tool to provide a fresh approach to disease which have resisted current medical procedures…

   Teams around the world have already made significant progress using CRISPR to attack cancer, HIV, Alzheimer’s, sickle-cell disease, Lyme disease and heart disease.

6. Keep mushrooms fresh

   It could be that scientists want to reduce the amount of food wasted in the developed world as well as feed those in developing countries, or they’re just fed up of finding their mushrooms out of date when they fancy an omelette, if the outcome is the former, the original intention is academic.

   By using CRISPR, it should be possible to not only extend the shelf life of some of the most perishable foods but also increase harvest yield, resistance to common diseases and even nutritional content.

7. Avenge the Three Blind Mice

   They’re actually rats, but the three blind rats nursery tale never quite took off on the grounds of not adding to children’s nightmares. A team from California’s Salk Institute has managed to restore the sight of the rats by replacing the faulty genes, essentially removing the genetic disease retinitis pigmentosa.

   Like other advances with CRISPR, the rapidity of the development is down to the ease of the process; putting clinical trials as close as just five years away is considered a cautious prediction.

   The farmer’s wife best watch out.

8. Create super pigs

   Pig flu, or rather, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV), is the worst nightmare of pig farmers the world over – apart from maybe Animal Farm.

   Capable of afflicting any hoofed animal, once the contagious disease is in a pen, little can be done to stop the spread, causing miscarriages and death and costing the US economy alone $600 million (£493 million) a year.

   Vaccines have so far proved ineffective and continuing to pump pigs full of antibiotics not only doesn’t help keep livestock healthy, it contributes to the increasingly panic-inducing impotence of antibiotics.

   CRISPR is once again on hand to save the day; by breeding three piglets with CRISPR-modified genes, University of Missouri scientists have managed to completely prevent not only infection, but even contamination. Subsequent tests showed the edited piglets’ immune systems hadn’t even bothered to try and produce antibodies.

9. …And transplant their organs into humans

   And sticking with pigs, xenotransplantation, the process of transplanting organs from one species, typically pigs, to another, ideally humans, was once hoped to be the solution to the perennial shortage of suitable organ donors.

   Efforts continually failed, not just because the idea is somehow patently weird, but the ability of the host immune system to deal with the donor’s baggage, even with incredibly powerful immunosuppressive drugs. It’s not so much a square peg in a round hole as a square peg in a lasagne, they just don’t jive.

   CRISPR allows Boston scientists at eGenesis to rapidly edit pig genes to prevent rejection and reduce the chances of infection. What was once seen as a good idea with little chance of reality, could feasibly now be in human clinical trials by 2020.

10. Discover aliens, kind of

    Most things on this list are new things, kind of, they are new solutions to existing problems. But this new thing, created at the Scripps Research Institute in California is entirely new, so new it doesn’t even have a name.

    Everything everywhere has DNA made up of four bases, represented by the letters, G, T, C and A, and has had these forever. This thing, has six, the original four plus an X and a Y. The team used some other chemical wizardry to add the two extra bases to a certain breed of the E. coli virus and CRISPR was enlisted to make sure the thing accepted the new bases.

    CRISPR is so powerful it has literally allowed scientists to create alien life.

    The possible uses, as well as the moral implications, are complete unknowns – a prospect which is simultaneously blood-curdlingly terrifying, mind-bogglingly interesting and spirit-surgingly hopeful.

11. Cause intense moral arguments, and designer babies

    

    The idea of designer babies has been bandied around for years now, epitomising the phrase “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” and that was fine, because you couldn’t at the time. That kept the debate in the hypothetical realm, like prank calling Gandhi for a million dollars.

    But then CRISPR came along and not only resurrected Gandhi, but publicly listed his number and the hours he’s home.

    Using CRISPR to create so-called designer babies could not only eliminate hereditary diseases and other conditions but essentially create super humans.

    The moral dilemma is an entire subject in itself, and one that’s almost certainly to have not been satisfactorily addressed before we see the first designer babies beating everyone else on sports day.

12. Power the world

    Despite the worryingly large number of powerful people in the world adamantly denying climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence, none of them ever seem to address the issue that fossil fuels are running out, whether they’re turning the planet into a sweaty asthmatic or not.

    While much of the uses for CRISPR have focused on a smaller scale, a team of researchers in California are working on a way of editing a strain of yeast which could essentially provide cheap, mass produced biofuels.

    Not only could this reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, but also reduce the cost of the raw materials needed to produce current biofuels.

13. Create even scarier bioweapons

    The current crop of bioweapons is more than likely enough to ruin a buffet or two but like any new invention, there’s always someone wondering how best to use it to kill more people, more efficiently than before.

    A curious quirk of human development seems to overlook overkill, especially when it comes to arsenals, case in point, at the height of the Cold War, Russia and the US had somewhere in the region of 60,000 nukes between them – that’s enough to carpet bomb Jupiter.

    Unfortunately, CRISPR is unlikely to be any different. The same techniques used to pinpoint possibilities for saving lives can also be used to remove abilities for curing a virus, potentially making something as pedestrian as the common cold a lethal, incurable epidemic.

14. CRISPR on the cob

    Corn, or maize, is one of the most popular staple foods in the world, found in every kitchen and pantry the world over, surpassed only by those weird little red candies that appear in cupboards spontaneously.

    Despite, or perhaps because of, corn’s ubiquitousness, its growth, production and distribution is massively affected by the weather; any drought or flood, or natural disaster, and people can starve.

    By using CRISPR to edit the crop’s genes, it’s hoped that corn’s resistance to drought or, perhaps most importantly, an increasing temperature can be radically changed. The team from DuPont hopes to have a commercially viable version of the corn within the next five years, early reports suggest cinemas will be able to charge even more.

15. Speed up photosynthesis

    Practically all plants use photosynthesis and will quickly turn yellow and wither without sunlight but a plant subjected to constant sunlight won’t just continue to process the lovely rays into food. What happens instead is they can sunburn quicker than the first day of a lads’ holiday.

    To counter this, most plants evolved a shield which stops photosynthesis and converts the excessive light into heat to prevent damage. The problem with this process, at least for the harvest if not for the plant, is the speed at which the photosynthesis is reactivated once it’s safe.

    Scientists at the Australian National University in Canberra have used CRISPR to modify this shield in a species of tobacco plant, and just the first experiment produced a 20 per cent higher yield.

    The development could reignite the green revolution led by Norman Borlaug’s corn improvements and lead to even greater crop yields.

16. Cure chesty cows

    You might not have ever heard a cow cough but tuberculosis kills millions of cows worldwide every year. As beef is the third most consumed meat in the world and no one wants to listen to a cow desperately trying to unwrap cough drops in the cinema, it’s hoped CRISPR can once again come to the rescue.

    Researchers from the Northwest A&F University in Shaanxi, China have inserted a new gene into the cow genome which has dramatically increased the animals’ ability to resist the disease.

17. Brew hangover proof booze

    

    Curing diseases, feeding the world and rewriting the fundamental rules of life is all well and good but let’s face it, when you wake up after a night on the lash, who wouldn’t trade all that for a guaranteed hangover cure?

    Well, researchers at the University of Illinois took that pipedream seriously and have been working on the genetic makeup of the yeast strain most commonly used in wine and beer making.

    Not only could the – let’s call it what it is –miracle of genuinely hangover free alcohol be achieved, it would also be possible to boost the health benefits of wine as well as isolate the individual genes of the best flavours.

The post The huge list of CRISPR uses appeared first on Patsnap.