Entrepreneurship in the Academic Radiology Environment

Published:October 14, 2014DOI:

      Rationale and Objectives

      Innovation and entrepreneurship in health care can help solve the current health care crisis by creating products and services that improve quality and convenience while reducing costs.

      Materials and Methods

      To effectively drive innovation and entrepreneurship within the current health care delivery environment, academic institutions will need to provide education, promote networking across disciplines, align incentives, and adapt institutional cultures. This article provides a general review of entrepreneurship and commercialization from the perspective of academic radiology departments, drawing on information sources in several disciplines including radiology, medicine, law, and business.


      Our review will discuss the role of universities in supporting academic entrepreneurship, identify drivers of entrepreneurship, detail opportunities for academic radiologists, and outline key strategies that foster greater involvement of radiologists in entrepreneurial efforts and encourage leadership to embrace and support entrepreneurship.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. The Value of Investment in Health Care, MEDTAP International. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2014.

        • Ginsberg P.B.
        Controlling health care costs.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 1591-1593
      2. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, A data book: healthcare spending and the Medicare program; June 2013. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2014.

      3. Association Of University Technology Managers United States Licensing Activity Survey Fiscal Year 2012 Highlights. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2014.

        • Loscalzo J.
        Entrepreneurship in the medical academy: possibilities and challenges in commercialization of research discoveries.
        Circulation. 2007; 115: 1504-1507
        • Markel H.
        Patents, profits, and the American people—the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 794-796
        • Grimaldi R.
        • Kenney M.
        • Siegel D.S.
        • et al.
        30 years after Bayh–Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship.
        Research Policy. 2011; 40: 1045-1057
      4. Valdivia WD. University Start-Ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Available at:∼/media/research/files/papers/2013/11/start%20ups%20tech%20transfer%20valdivia/valdivia_tech%20transfer_v29_no%20embargo.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2014.

        • Malakoff D.
        The many ways of making academic research pay off.
        Science. 2013; 339: 750-753
        • Kenney M.
        • Patton D.
        Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model.
        Research Policy. 2009; 38: 1407-1422
        • Siegel D.S.
        • Waldman D.A.
        • Atwater L.E.
        • et al.
        Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies.
        J Eng Technol Manage. 2004; 21: 115-142
        • Lexa F.J.
        Medical entrepreneurism: the current opportunity in America.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2004; 1: 762-768
        • Lexa F.J.
        • Lexa F.J.
        Physician-entrepreneurship: a user's manual, Part 1: critical questions for early-stage medical ventures.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2005; 2: 607-612
        • Clarysse B.
        • Tartari V.
        • Salter A.
        The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship.
        Research Policy. 2011; 40: 1084-1093
        • Hsu D.H.
        Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding.
        Research Policy. 2007; 36: 722-741
        • Fini R.
        • Grimaldi R.
        • Marzocchi G.L.
        • et al.
        The determinants of corporate entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms.
        Entrep Theory Pract. 2012; 36: 387-414
        • Katzenbach J.R.
        The wisdom of teams: creating the high-performance organization.
        1st ed. HarperBusiness, New York, NY1999
      5. Boh WF, De-Haan U, Strom R. University Technology Transfer Through Entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Social Science Research Network Electronic Journal [Internet]. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2014.

        • Colyvas J.A.
        • Powell W.W.
        From vulnerable to venerated: the institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences.
        Res Sociol Org. 2007; 25: 219-259
        • Stuart T.E.
        • Ding W.W.
        When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences.
        Am J Sociol. 2006; 112: 97-144
        • Gunderman R.B.
        Academic time and the future of radiology.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2007; 4: 267-269
        • Goldfarb B.
        • Henrekson M.
        Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property.
        Research Policy. 2003; 32: 639-658
        • Patino R.M.
        Moving research to patient applications through commercialization: understanding and evaluating the role of intellectual property.
        J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2010; 49: 147-154
      6. From Idea to Patent, Radiologist inventors share their insight. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2014.

        • Lemke H.U.
        A network of medical workstations for integrated word and picture communication in clinical medicine, technical report.
        Technical University Berlin, Berlin1979
        • Avrin D.E.
        • Urbania T.H.
        Demise of film.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 303-304
        • Mendelson D.S.
        • Rubin D.L.
        Imaging informatics: essential tools for the delivery of imaging services.
        Acad Radiol. 2013; 20: 1195-1212
      7. Radiologic Society of North America Image Share. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2014.

        • Smith S.W.
        • Sfekas A.
        How much do physician-entrepreneurs contribute to new medical devices?.
        Med Care. 2013; 51: 461-467
        • Chatterji A.K.
        • Fabrizio K.R.
        • Mitchell W.
        • et al.
        Physician-industry cooperation in the medical device industry.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2008; 27: 1532-1543
        • Chan M.
        • Estève D.
        • Fourniols J.-Y.
        • et al.
        Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges.
        Artif Intell Med. 2012; 56: 137-156
      8. Petkova H, Schanker B, Samaha D, Hansen J. Background Paper 6 of the Priority Medical Devices Project: barriers to innovation in the field of medical devices. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available at: Accessed July 21, 2014.

        • Kaplan A.V.
        • Baim D.S.
        • Smith J.J.
        • et al.
        Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval.
        Circulation. 2004; 109: 3068-3072
        • Smith J.J.
        Regulation of medical devices in radiology: current standards and future opportunities.
        Radiology. 2001; 218: 329-335
        • Douglas F.L.
        • Narayanan V.K.
        • Mitchell L.
        • et al.
        The case for entrepreneurship in R&D in the pharmaceutical industry.
        Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010; 9: 683-689
        • McClennan B.L.
        Preston M. Hickey memorial lecture. Ionic and nonionic iodinated contrast media: evolution and strategies for use.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990; 155: 225-233
        • Brasch R.C.
        New directions in the development of MR imaging contrast media.
        Radiology. 1992; 183: 1-11
        • Blomley M.J.
        • Cooke J.C.
        • Unger E.C.
        • et al.
        Microbubble contrast agents: a new era in ultrasound.
        BMJ. 2001; 322: 1222-1225
        • Weinmann H.-J.
        • Ebert W.
        • Misselwitz B.
        • et al.
        Tissue-specific MR contrast agents.
        Eur J Radiol. 2003; 46: 33-44
        • Patel A.A.
        • Solomon J.A.
        • Soulen M.C.
        Pharmaceuticals for intra-arterial therapy.
        Semin Intervent Radiol. 2005; 22: 130-138
        • Woodcock J.
        • Woosley R.
        The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development.
        Annu Rev Med. 2008; 59: 1-12
        • Nunn A.D.
        Molecular imaging and personalized medicine: an uncertain future.
        Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2007; 22: 722-739
        • Nunn A.D.
        The cost of developing imaging agents for routine clinical use.
        Invest Radiol. 2006; 41: 206-212
        • DiMasi J.A.
        • Hansen R.W.
        • Grabowski H.G.
        The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs.
        J Health Econ. 2003; 22: 151-185
        • Christensen C.M.
        • Bohmer R.
        • Kenagy J.
        Will disruptive innovations cure health care?.
        Harv Bus Rev. 2000; 78 (199): 102-112
        • Christensen C.M.
        The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail.
        Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA1997
        • Hansen E.
        • Bozic K.J.
        The impact of disruptive innovations in orthopaedics.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467: 2512-2520
        • Chan S.
        Strategy development for anticipating and handling a disruptive technology.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2006; 3: 778-786