But are these metrics actually the measures that predict translational outcomes today? The U.S. innovation ecosystem was established nearly 45 years ago, when the Bayh-Dole Act helped develop a powerful framework to enable universities, industry and investors to work together to transform federally funded discoveries into solutions that benefit society. Today, America’s challenge is no longer generating scientific discovery—it is consistently translating those discoveries into therapies, successful companies and real-world patient impact.
The biomedical innovation landscape is undergoing profound change. Federal research funding is under pressure, venture capital has become more selective, development costs continue to rise and global competitors such as China are accelerating the pace of biomedical innovation. In a recent survey of U.S. industry and academic leaders conducted by Cure, 72% said the biomedical sector of China is improving faster than that of the United States.
In this environment, the ability to consistently translate scientific discovery into patient impact has become a strategic advantage. Exactly how to foster successful translation has remained something of a black box for many institutions. To answer that question, Cure created the Cure Innovation Index, the first national benchmarking framework designed to identify the factors that help research institutions consistently leverage biomedical innovation to drive meaningful health outcomes. By objectively measuring the organizational capabilities that drive successful translation, institutions can move beyond anecdotal assessments toward evidence-based strategies for improvement.
“The Cure Innovation Index was created to answer a fundamental question: Why do some institutions consistently translate scientific discovery into therapies, companies and patient impact while others struggle to do so?” says Seema Kumar, CEO of Cure.
The Index reflects Cure’s broader mission to bring academia, industry, investors, government and nonprofits together to accelerate the translation of scientific discovery into cures.
This content was created by Custom Content from WSJ, a unit of The Wall Street Journal Advertising Department.
Restoring US Healthcare Innovation Leadership
The Cure Innovation Index shows how research institutions can work with industry and investors to move healthcare forward.
American universities and research institutions have produced some of the most groundbreaking medical advances of the past century, from antibiotics to cures for cancer. For decades, this success has been measured through the lens of scientific excellence: publications, grants, citations and discoveries.
of industry leaders find academia-based innovation important to their portfolio
Source: “Industry Views on Academic Tech Transfer Survey,” Cure, 2025.
79%
The Cure Innovation Index considered more than 6,000 institutions of higher learning and biomedical research across three weighted domains: research capabilities, entrepreneurial readiness and market translation. The top 303 of these institutions ranked as the best in biomedical research and translation.
Many already-existing rankings lean heavily into research capabilities, tracking metrics like scientific citations, National Institutes of Health funding and publications, Kumar says. What makes the Cure Innovation Index unique is the inclusion of the range of structural, cultural and operational factors that enable an institution to reliably translate research and are vital for real-world impact.
MEASURING WHAT MATTERS
The Cure Innovation Index isn’t simply a ranking. It seeks to be a roadmap, providing actionable insights for institutions to improve translation and better position themselves for partnerships with industry. Through the Index’s intelligence platform, institutional leaders can identify key strengths and critical gaps to inform their strategic planning for the next five, 10 or 15 years.
They can benchmark performance against peer institutions to better understand where they lead, where they lag, and where their greatest opportunities for improvement lie, Kumar says. Institutions that excel at healthcare innovation share a number of traits, according to the results of Cure’s industry survey, including an entrepreneurial culture and ecosystem, flexible IP policies, faculty engagement and speed in IP-to-tech transfer execution.
“Beyond identifying gaps, the Cure insights engine provides tailored recommendations, strategic insights and practical guidance to help institutions strengthen commercialization capabilities and translational performance,” she says. “The goal is not simply to measure outcomes, but to provide a roadmap for improvement.”
leveraging insights for Better translation
It’s a challenge women’s health researcher and entrepreneur Piraye Beim, Ph.D., knows firsthand, having assembled a consortium of universities to scale her biotech firm Celmatix Therapeutics in 2009, which was sold earlier this year to pharmaceutical company Gedeon Richter. For Beim, slow back offices were a frequent point of frustration.
“In that consortium of roughly 12 institutions, the fastest contracting we ever had was four months. The longest was 18 months,” she says. “The infrastructure to enable those private sector academic partnerships tends to be the highest friction.”
Despite the delays, Beim stresses how vital the collaboration with academia was to her startup’s success. “In addition to helping us recruit patients for our clinical studies and building out our dataset, we were able to source thought leaders for our scientific advisory board, as well as produce a lot of scientific publications and presentations with our academic collaborators,” Beim says.
Strengthening and growing these types of mutually beneficial relationships is a driving force behind the Cure Innovation Index, Kumar says. “The institutions that excel do not view industry solely as a source of funding, nor do they treat industry as an adversary,” she says. “Instead, they engage industry as a strategic partner and begin building relationships long before any licensing or transactional discussion takes place.”
improving outcomes
Cure’s research revealed persistent barriers to commercialization from both the institutional side and the industry side. For researchers, that often amounted to a lack of formal training or education in entrepreneurialism. In fact, only 22% of those surveyed reported having adequate knowledge of the commercialization process. Without this knowledge, scientists may prove poor partners to investors looking to help turn their discoveries into a marketable product.
“When it comes to gaining access to translational funding, entrepreneurial education, industry connectivity and support for early-stage technology development, campus entrepreneurs hit a brick wall,” Kumar says.
Inexperienced or insufficiently staffed technology transfer offices (TTOs), which are responsible for managing intellectual property and helping researchers commercialize their findings, were also a concern: Only 28% of researchers surveyed rated their tech transfer office as highly effective at connecting them with industry partners.
However, 79% of industry leaders find academia-based innovation important to their portfolio, according to data from a Cure survey of industry leaders, and emphasized the value of facilitating mutually beneficial collaborations. Respondents said academia played a critical role in their active partnerships, from foundational intellectual property (IP) and licensing (40%) to pipeline and drug discovery (23%).
As TTOs are increasingly called upon to advance these connections, industry leaders still feel they need support navigating partnerships while avoiding roadblocks that create friction and setbacks. Challenges often centered around speed and processing delays—32% of those surveyed cited it as a barrier when working with academia.
The Cure Innovation Index is also a powerful tool for investors looking to align with innovation partners. “This will help industry figure out who has what capabilities,” says Dr. Thomas P. Sakmar, a professor at The Rockefeller University and Cure Innovation Index contributor. “It will help match the investor to the kind of institution they’re looking for.”
Through partnerships, investors gain access to validated science and research talent, while researchers benefit from industry’s entrepreneurial know-how and capital, all with the end goal of commercializing the next big thing in biomedicine together.
By facilitating strategic collaborations like these, Kumar is optimistic that the Cure Innovation Index will play an important role in furthering healthcare innovation and, ultimately, cures that help the U.S. remain a scientific leader for years to come.
“The next era of biomedical leadership will not be defined by who publishes the most papers,” she says. “It will be defined by who can most consistently transform scientific discovery into therapies that improve patients’ lives.”
“
— Seema Kumar, CEO, Cure
The Cure Innovation Index was created to answer a fundamental question: Why do some institutions consistently translate scientific discovery into therapies, companies and patient impact while others struggle to do so?
Learn how the Cure Innovation Index helps researchers and entrepreneurs drive real-world health impact.
“As industry increasingly seeks opportunities that have been de-risked through proof-of-concept studies, biomarker validation and translational research, institutions must provide their researchers the infrastructure, mentorship, training and support needed to bridge the gap between discovery and commercialization,” Kumar says.
One of the most surprising findings from the team’s research was that translational success doesn’t necessarily correlate with institutional size, funding or prestige. “Some institutions consistently outperform peers with far less resources,” Kumar says. “Their success demonstrates that commercialization is not simply a function of scientific excellence; it is the result of deliberate organizational choices around leadership, incentives, industry engagement, entrepreneurial culture and translational infrastructure.”
Sources: “Industry Views on Academic Tech Transfer Survey” and “Cure Biomedical Academic Research Institutions Survey,” Cure, 2025.
Barriers to Commercialization
Successful industry and institution partnerships require alignment on academic priorities and industry realities.
of industry leaders say academic institutions are open to partnerships but they encounter friction in practice
49%
Researchers often turn to their institutions’ technology transfer office to negotiate industry-sponsored research agreements.
of researchers rated their TTOs as very effective at connecting them to industry partners
28%
Only
Institutional delays make it hard to capitalize on these partnerships.
of industry leaders cited speed and processing delays as a barrier when working with academia
32%
