A New York City–based life sciences and health-care innovation center has launched an index that measures universities and institutions for their ability to translate academic biomedical research into industrial innovations and commercialization.
Top five universities
- Harvard University
- Stanford University
- University of Pennsylvania
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- University of California, San Francisco
The center, Cure, assessed over 300 academic institutions across the US and ranked them according to 25 parameters related to research capabilities and entrepreneurial readiness, among others. The index also factored in data on universities’ entrepreneurial programs, such as incubators and accelerators, as well as interviews with over 3,000 researchers.
Top five institutes
- Mass General Brigham
- Mayo Clinic
- Scripps Research Institute
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
- Dana–Farber Cancer Institute
According to Cure, the index differs from traditional rankings, which rely on funding levels and discrete measures such as publications and patents rather than on the ability to translate discoveries into real-world impact.
Punching above their weight
- Indiana University Indianapolis
- New York Medical College
- University of Maryland, Baltimore County
- University of Memphis
- Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Some of the findings may not be surprising. Institutions such as Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University top the list. Incidentally, all these universities were subject to federal funding cuts, though many eventually negotiated deals with the US government to reinstate funding.
Cure also compiled a list of unexpected outperformers, which it refers to as universities “punching above their weight.” They include Indiana University Indianapolis; New York Medical College; and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Despite having less funding than heavyweight institutions, these universities and medical colleges scored well in advancing academic research with the dollars they received from the US National Institutes of Health.
A common theme that emerges from the index is that many academic research projects fall through the cracks because of the inability to connect them to venture capital funding that can help them get out of the lab, Cure CEO Seema Kumar says. “I call this the valley of death, where you have got great data, good signals, but that becomes the end of the story.” She says this is an area where academic work could benefit from US government agency programs such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which funds what it calls high-impact research.
Cure was founded in 2020 by James Flynn, who is also the managing partner of Deerfield Management, an investment firm focused on health-care companies. While Deerfield has several partnerships with academic institutions, Kumar says those affiliations didn’t influence Cure’s analysis.
Cure’s campus is on Park Avenue in New York City. Credit:
Cure
Kumar says their online platform allows institutions to view their performance, receive customized improvement recommendations, and compare their strengths and weaknesses with their peers.
Nimi Vashi, who spent years in academia and industry and is the cofounder of a biotech start-up now in stealth mode, says such an index was long overdue. “For too long, biomedical research institutions have been evaluated on input rather than outcomes: how much funding they receive, how many papers they publish, how many patents they file. But none of those metrics tell us what actually matters–whether the science is reaching patients,” she says.
2026 American Chemical Society
Doug Frantz, vice chancellor for innovation and commercialization at Washington University in St. Louis, says he was happy to see his university ranked ninth in the index. Frantz says the most distinctive aspect of Cure’s platform is the tool for comparing specific metrics of one’s own university with peers. “Now you can think about strategically investing,” he says.
