Credit: Jennifer Tapias Derch
Universities have long been credited for research that advances science and propels technological progress. But their role in the innovation economy goes far beyond knowledge discovery. What’s often overlooked is how powerfully they shape the pipeline of inventors — training the individuals who translate research into patents, products, and companies.
A new study from MIT Sloan makes that role clear: Some U.S. universities are among the country’s most prolific sources of new inventors, producing a significant share of first-time patent holders. An analysis by MIT Sloan’s and Copenhagen Business School’s Mercedes Delgado shows that in regions with low levels of innovation activity, universities account for an average of more than 10% of all local patents and 14% of new inventors.
The findings also suggest that this engine of invention fuels broad-based economic growth — and universities play an outsized role in increasing contributions to the innovation economy from often underrepresented groups, particularly women.
U.S. universities “are really important in attracting inventors into their regions, training them at the forefront of science, and then contributing to the economy,” said Murray, associate dean for innovation.
Where universities can seed economic growth
To build on this momentum, the researchers offer several recommendations for those looking to tap into the innovative engine of universities in their region:
- Expand the number of new inventors from among the ranks of STEM PhDs, resulting into a larger pool of innovators.
- Align university innovation, including PhD training and patenting, with the needs of regional economies.
- Strengthen the innovation ecosystem around university-led innovation.
U.S. universities already attract top talent from across the country and around the world — and train that talent in the skills that define the frontiers of science and technology. For PhD candidates, especially, the training experience can go far beyond academic inquiry. Many work directly with faculty members who are themselves prolific inventors, which gives them early exposure to the process of patenting ideas and bringing them to market.
“Over time, U.S. universities have trained an increasing number of STEM PhDs — and they’ve become better at turning them into innovators,” Delgado said.
At a time when universities’ role in the U.S. economy is open to debate, the study found that 50 leading U.S. universities produced more than 54% of the country’s STEM PhDs and about 68% of all university patents granted between 2016 and 2020.
The analysis also reveals that the influence of universities is especially pronounced in parts of the country with lower levels of patenting activity. In these regions — such as Tallahassee, Florida; Columbia, Missouri; and Nashville, Tennessee — universities often serve as the primary drivers of invention, accounting for 10.7% of all local patents on average.
In contrast, in economically productive regions like San Jose, California; New York; and Boston — where innovation is also driven by the private sector — universities account for just 1.3% of local patenting, though they still account for a significant percentage of new inventors. (For example, MIT leads U.S. universities in patent volume with 1,558 patents from 2016 to 2020, as seen in an interactive map of patenting universities.) That stark contrast is what led Delgado and Murray to argue that where industry-led innovation is limited, universities can fill the gap and help seed economic growth.
And universities with higher overall inclusive innovation are the ones that can better contribute to expanding innovation and inclusion in their local regions, Delgado said.
Delgado and Murray ranked 50 top U.S. universities and university systems using an inclusion score based on their share of female STEM PhD students, the percentage of new inventors who are women, how much progress the institutions have made over time, and the technological fit between the university and its region.
Investing in universities — particularly in underserved regions — they suggest, is not only a research imperative but a national economic development strategy. Some universities outperform even their resource-rich peers when it comes to translating research into real-world impact.
“There are two key things that make a difference,” Murray said. “One is providing real encouragement to faculty members to think about impact — to patent what they do, to see their science out in the world. And second [is] ensuring PhD students are engaged in that process.”
The most successful institutions integrate commercialization directly into their doctoral programs, Murray said, which provides PhD students with not just research training but also mentorship in entrepreneurship.
MIT, for example, ranks first among the 50 leading institutions fostering over 900 new inventors in five years, despite not being the biggest recipient of government research funding — a reflection, Murray argued, of how deeply innovation and entrepreneurship are embedded in its research culture.
She also highlighted federal programs — like the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Innovation Corps, known as I-Corps — that help researchers test whether their discoveries meet real market needs and take the first steps toward commercialization.
“The matching matters.”
But turning research into inventions is only part of the story, the researchers said. When universities align their innovation efforts — research, training, and patenting — with the needs of surrounding regions, they help drive regional economic growth by supporting PhD graduates whose expertise feeds into nearby firms and providing companies with access to new technologies that support growth.
Related Articles
“Universities can do incredibly interesting research, but if they don’t make sure the ideas get out the door and if the regional economy doesn’t find it useful, the impact is limited,” Murray said. “The matching matters.”
The researchers point to the University of Michigan as a case study in the consequences of limited alignment. Despite its strong research output, much of the university’s patenting activity is focused on the life sciences, they argue, while nearby Detroit’s economy is grounded in industry clusters like automotive, aerospace, and other mobility products. They contend that this mismatch diminishes the potential impact of the university’s innovation and highlights the importance of connecting research and innovation with the economic priorities of the region.
Murray and Delgado offer three related recommendations to leaders in a region’s innovation ecosystem on fully leveraging the innovation potential of their local universities — and extending it to more communities:
- Underscore the need for universities to stay in active conversation with local businesses to ensure that their research and training are relevant and vice versa.
- Solicit broader engagement from federal and state policymakers, as well as university leaders, to strengthen university-driven innovation. This includes sustained investment in national programs like I-Corps and targeted efforts to increase diversity in STEM fields.
- Support academic entrepreneurship as one channel through which new inventors can commercialize the science and engineering innovations they developed during their graduate education, which in turn may encourage them to stay in the region.
As the researchers point out, when only a narrow slice of the population participates in the innovation economy, it misses out on ideas, perspectives, and talent that could lead to breakthroughs.
“The talent is there,” Murray said. “It’s just about building the systems and the culture that let it shine.”
Innovation Executive Academy
In person at MIT Sloan
Register Now
