This article was first published for evokeAg

A founder we know, while collaborating with a research institution, needed additional expertise. Like any entrepreneur, he walked the halls, emailed researchers, and set up meetings.

Within days, he received a cease and desist notice. The researchers he’d spoken to weren’t part of the official scope of work — he was seen as taking “billable hours” away.

His solution? Meet them over lunch instead.

This isn’t a story about bureaucracy gone wrong — it’s about why Australia’s world-class research advantage isn’t translating into commercialization and innovation outcomes.

Agriculture and the innovation gap

Australia invests nearly $3 billion annually in agricultural R&D — generating an estimated $12 return for every $1 invested. This research excellence has powered decades of productivity growth, keeping us competitive.

Yet across agriculture and beyond, we rank last among 26 OECD countries for business collaboration with research institutions, and lag in translating publicly funded research into commercial outcomes.

In other words: Australia has an unfair advantage in research, especially agriculture, but we systematically fail to turn that into innovation with commercial impact.

There’s no silver bullet. Policy levers and more capital matter, but real progress comes when humans from different worlds, academic and commercial, find ways to work together despite divergent incentives, timelines, and cultures.

Here are a few observations and examples of what can move the needle.

The best innovation model is the one that fits the humans

Startups thrive when the right people are in the right seats at the right time — not when patterns are forced. Commercialisation fails when talent is mismatched.

The two most common models are:

1. The researcher becomes CEO of a startup.
2. The researcher licenses the technology and returns to the lab.

In reality, there’s a whole spectrum in between, and normalizing those options ensures research translates into innovation with the right leaders at each stage.

In our portfolio, we’ve seen researchers play roles from executive to advisor. At Jupiter Ionics, the founding researcher became Chief Scientific Officer, while the company hired a CEO. At Earthodic, Albert Tietz became CTO. Phyllome works closely with UQ, with Professor David Craik serving as scientific advisor.

Building a company isn’t the same as making a discovery. Both matter, but innovation only scales when research expertise and entrepreneurial skills are combined in the right way.

Innovation struggles when incentives clash

Neither startups nor research are “wrong”; they’re just wired differently. Success in commercializing research comes from understanding those differences in IP ownership, research timelines, or competitive advantage, and bridging the gap.

While both researchers and startups aim to create impact, their incentives aren’t always aligned. Startups are famously cash-constrained, but often time is an even more precious resource; speed is survival. Research, in contrast, operates on multi-year funding cycles, so researchers often have a very different context for timelines. 

This mismatch can slow down innovation when not well understood. For example, one agtech startup partnered with a university to fabricate prototype parts. Normally, this gave them access to world-class equipment at low cost. But when the university had a backlog, the startup needed speed while the university could wait. Both were rational; but innovation momentum stalled.

We see a similar challenge in IP negotiations, too. Universities sometimes open with a view that a 20–30% equity stake is the minimum viable amount they could retain to recognize the funding provided to create the IP. Unfortunately, equity considerations this high are often untenable for a startup raising venture capital. Again, neither side is objectively right or wrong. But without alignment, these mismatches stop research from becoming innovation.

Innovation thrives on win-win collaborations

Artificial collaborations fade; genuine win-wins drive sustainable innovation.

Researchers and innovators bring very different strengths to the table. When they complement each other, results can be transformative, but only if both sides are explicit about needs and aligned on resources.

Facilities and equipment are a great example. For startups, building capability from scratch is often prohibitively expensive and time consuming. But research organizations often already have the infrastructure in place and at adequate scale, so granting access can be low cost. What is difficult for one side can be simple for the other, unlocking a win-win collaboration.

Goterra’s early collaboration with CSIRO shows this dynamic. The projects started small, under $50k, which was trivial for CSIRO but critical for Goterra. One trial tested mediums to improve egg laying, generating data that boosted efficiency, attracted customers, and laid the foundation for further research. At the same time, CSIRO gained commercial insight that helped scope more meaningful projects.

That partnership grew into hundreds of thousands in research spend. The lesson: start small, trade fairly, and explain why the project matters to both research and innovation goals.

Australia can’t afford to waste its research advantage

Australia is experiencing record productivity declines. Since 2016, growth has slowed, and even reversed. Restarting productivity is no small feat, and innovation is one of the most powerful levers we have.

At Tenacious, we’ve worked across the system, from researchers and funders to startups, accelerators, farmers, and corporates, and have seen how impactful it can be when research translates into innovation.

There is no single formula. But solutions that embrace human incentives, solve for constraints, and leverage unique skillsets give us the best chance to bridge the gap from research to innovation. When that happens, it stops being theoretical and starts creating lasting value.