A concern that many scientists have is that pursuing the commercialization of an idea requires a patent. In turn, a patent will block any opportunities to publish a paper, which is a much more valuable exchange currency in academic circles.

This perspective on patents and publications is partially true and partially flawed.

Many (if not most) universities have technology transfer officers who are trained in intellectual property protection. They are the ones who have the final say on whether something is worth patenting or not.

I have engaged in many discussions where scientists see their TTOs as an adversarial agent who acts on greed and block the publication of scientifically relevant results.

A delay in a publication can have a devastating effect on a young scientist's career. It can easily mean not getting a fellowship or a grant.

I have heard professors stating that they prefer to publish incremental improvements early on, so that when the TTO realizes what is going on is too late to try to patent since most of it is already in the open. Some open-source projects (both software and hardware) are born out of the necessity of bypassing the TTO's power to limit dissemination.

It is a pity knowing that some universities have reached those levels of incongruent behavior.

Patents are instruments that allow their holders to block others from making or commercializing products. It is not an automatic process. Once you have a patent, if you want to block someone you need to start a legal process. On the other hand as the holder of the patent you know others will not be able to block you if you stick to your invention.

However, the easiest way to bypass a patent is to show there was a previous disclosure of the invention. If there was a poster at a conference, a talk, a preprint, or a paper, it could all be used to invalidate the patent or parts of it. That is one of the reasons TTOs are so adamant about the blocking of all communication until the patent has been submitted.

All conflicts can be prevented with better communication between TTOs and scientists and with clear workplace policies.

Younger scientists (PhDs and Postdocs) may not even know there's a TTO in their universities until it's too late.

An employee normally transfers all the intellectual property they generate to their employers. It is them who make the decision on whether to patent in the first place, to maintain the patent long term (which has cumulative running costs), to license it to third parties, etc. Some employers may hear their employees' opinions, but the ultimate decision resides within the employer.

If starting a scipreneurial journey is something you are considering, even if you don't have a clear idea yet, don't delay the contact with your TTO.

The earlier you start the dialogue, the earlier you'll establish a relationship that will become crucial in the first steps of your adventure.