Our team had the opportunity to sit down for a chat with Dr. James Millen, a researcher and Senior Lecturer in Advanced Photonics at King’s College London. James joined the College in 2018 where he leads the Levitated Nanophysics group, which has been supported by the European Research Council (ERC) and the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). James was awarded a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellowship to work in the Quantum Nanophysics group of Prof. Markus Arndt at the University of Vienna between 2015-2018, and in 2017 he was awarded the David Bates Prize for his pioneering contributions to experimental and theoretical quantum optomechanics.

During this very insightful exchange, we had the opportunity to ask James a few questions surrounding his experiences related to commercialisation and industry-academia collaboration. Here’s what we learned:

1. We’d like to hear more about your line of research. At which stage would you say that you are in your current commercialisation path?

I’m interested in how physics changes when dealing with technology at the nanoscale. This is of fundamental interest, not only because there are many mysteries around quantum physics and energy transfer at this scale, but also because it is obvious that technology is continuously miniaturising and we need to understand the consequences of that. Small things are very sensitive to the environment around them, which is good and bad for my research! I use tiny levitating spheres of glass to detect a wide range of forces and disturbances, which has an obvious technological application in precision sensing. My research is currently at an early stage of commercialization, ranging from proof-of-concept to prototyping.

2. What has been the main motivator for you to pursue commercialisation? How was the experience for you?

I believe that my research has the potential to lead to the creation of some really interesting devices, and it’s intellectual curiosity on my part to see that happen! I would love to see technology out there in the world with tiny little levitating particles at their heart. In the UK, academia engagement with industry is viewed extremely favourably, so pursuing this interest is beneficial to my career and the resulting resources strengthen my fundamental research.

I have found it’s a real challenge to progress beyond that proof-of-concept stage, since it seems like a transition which is hard to get funded. On the other hand, I have found that the industry is far more receptive to hearing about new and speculative ideas than I would have expected. 

3. We know that many academics struggle to take the lead in bringing the fruits of their research from lab-to-market. What would you identify as the top 3 challenges, and what can be done to mediate them?

As the research leader, you are expected to lead a lot of the negotiations when leaving the lab. I think that academic institutions could provide project managers for this process, to really steer you through and help you plan from the start, rather than trying to patch things up later in the process.

Academic institutions are rightly protective of their IP, but I think that expectations need to be managed when dealing with speculative research. The point of University-led industrial partnerships and commercialization activities is not to make money, but to make a societal impact, and that should be remembered in negotiations. Finally, I think that every activity is unique, and so any commerialization activity really needs bespoke support.

4. To what extent do you believe it is important to foster entrepreneurial skills and practical industry knowledge among academics? Why?

When thinking about this, I have the same opinion as I do about public engagement activities and outreach. It is clearly a good thing for academia to be doing, but there is no point in forcing individual academics to do it, that leads to bad outcomes. However, academics who do want to go down this path need to be supported with training, since often the initial challenges are quite generic. As the journey progresses, more bespoke support is required and it’s important to give academics access to a more entrepreneurial environment at that point.

Academic institutions are rightly protective of their IP, but I think that expectations need to be managed when dealing with speculative research. The point of University-led industrial partnerships and commercialization activities is not to make money, but to make a societal impact, and that should be remembered in negotiations. Finally, I think that every activity is unique, and so any commerialization activity really needs bespoke support.

5. When you have sought collaboration with industry, what would have made the process easier and the collaboration more fruitful?

I think it’s really that early stage that is hard, identifying collaborations. Some kind of “matchmaking” would be extremely valuable. I think it’s also important to have thorough discussions early on with collaborators about what an academic can provide.

We do not provide a service, and we do not provide products. We provide ideas and expertise, and by collaborating with an academic you are helping to produce knowledge that otherwise wouldn’t be available for your commercial activities.

6. Venture Alliances intends to match 100 academic innovators with 100 business leaders to enable the bridging of knowledge and experience between the research and business sectors. If you were to apply and be selected as a participant, what do you expect the programme to provide you?

It’s important that this is a two-way interaction. Very often, academics will go to commercial partners with their ideas, but it is also important for people in industry to share their knowledge and expertise too. I would definitely expect the process to be a fast-track to identifying new partners in industry, so I would hope that there is a thorough pre-selection and matchmaking process.

7. Do you think initiatives such as Venture Alliances could be effective to generate more entrepreneurial activity within academia? Why?

I think many academics would like to be more entrepreneurial, but the first step can seem overwhelming. Anything which helps with the initial reach-out to industry would be very attractive.

More about James’ research:

• The technology: James is working on a miniaturised, chip-based, vacuum sealed system with integrated electronics for levitating particles. 
• The impact: The novel technology will be a low-loss replacement for other mechanical oscillators, or electromechanical parts such as quartz crystal oscillators. For use in sensing, accelerometry, signal processing.
• TRL: The currency project is developing the technology from TRL4 to TRL6.
• Next steps in the R&D path: The team is focused on identifying the potential markets and building the system prototype.