In life science, Harvard publishes more but MIT profits

When it comes to hatching new biotechnology ideas, who's number one?

It's Harvard. No wait, it's MIT.

With universities around the world increasingly trying to turn their scientific research into lucrative companies and drugs, a massive new study released yesterday takes a look at which schools are really making it happen.

The conclusion: Harvard leads the world in published papers, the coin of the realm for scientific research. But when it comes to converting those ideas into real moneymaking products, it lags well behind its number one neighbor, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The study by the nonprofit Milken Institute looked at several years' worth of science-productivity statistics from universities around the world. For North American schools, it also measured the number of spin-off companies created, and the amount of money schools earn from licensing their technology.

The issue is a crucial one for Boston, and not just because its universities reap tens of millions of dollars annually from technology licensing. Although California has bigger biotechnology companies, and New York has more investment capital, Boston's economy depends on its reputation as perhaps the most fertile ground in the world for new biotechnology ideas.

But the licensing of university-generated ideas -- also called technology transfer -- has attracted critics. They say schools that get heavy government support for their research shouldn't ``double dip" by making companies pay to use the fruits of the work later.

Nationally, MIT's lead in creating new companies isn't surprising, since the school has a reputation for working closely with industry --and for an aggressive licensing office that prides itself on matching companies and venture capitalists with MIT-hatched inventions.

To bring itself into that league, Harvard last year hired a new head of technology licensing, Isaac Kohlberg , who has a track record of creating spin-offs and crafting hefty licensing deals in Israel and at New York University.

Reached yesterday to discuss the survey, Kohlberg drew attention to the time-frame of the data -- the most recent are from 2004 -- and said Harvard's new technology-licensing program is still getting rolling.

``We hope to be able to show -- and it may be five or eight years from now -- a number of therapies and medical devices that came from the labs of Harvard University," he said.

The Milken Institute study has some gaps. One significant absence: Columbia University, where a valuable set of biotechnology patents boosted the school's annual licensing income to well over $100 million. After leading the nation in licensing revenue for several years, and drawing criticism in the process, the school has simply stopped reporting how much money it makes.

Stephen Heuser can be reached at sheuser@globe.com.