Search

The article discusses the results of a 2012 survey by the Association of University Technology Managers that researched revenue generated by research at U.S. universities. The commercialization of academic research and start-up companies at schools such as Northwestern University, the University of Florida, and Cornell University are discussed. The University of Nebraska earned revenue through a partnership with German company Bayer Crop Science to study new strains of wheat. The University of Illinois at Chicago and at Urbana-Champaign continued to profit from the HIV drug Prezista.

The article discusses low prices for real estate caused by the 2009 recession as an opportunity for universities to expand. It quotes a real estate official calling the situation a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It notes that the concept of former manufacturing facilities becoming university research facilities may be indicative of a larger social change. Research, it notes, can be the driver of growth in a post-recession economy. The University of Delaware's acquisition of a closed Chrysler automobile plant in November 2009 is cited as an example. It is adjacent to the main campus, and the university plans to develop it gradually with new laboratories. Other examples cited include Johns Hopkins University, University of Massachusetts at Boston, and the Lone star College system.

This article discusses how states with booming industries, such as oil and natural gas, are using their profit to bolster higher education. Schools discussed in the article include the University of North Texas, which is luring researchers by spending millions of dollars on collaborative research projects, North Dakota State University, which is reportedly on a hiring binge, and the University of Alaska, which is building a health-science building and installing other educational facilities. David A. Longanecker, the president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, discusses the other options for this money.

Looks at nanotechnology and the difficulty in pinpointing its safety. Example of testing of nanontubes at DuPont; Placement of nanoscale materials which are already in hundreds of products such as sunscreens and cosmetics; Research which shows that nanoparticles deposited in the nose can make their way to the brain; Infancy of the field; Expense of research into the possible hazards which restricts investigation; Possible environmental impacts; Concerns over the pace of developing products based on nanotechnology and the pace of toxicology and research.

Editorial. Comments on the economic impact of technological research made at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Advantage of utilizing university resources; Role of local venture capitalists and cluster leaders; Call for continued support for the university.

Discusses the commercial impact of basic research and knowledge. How basic sciences generated modern telecommunications, biotechnology computer industry and the Internet; Views on the dependence of the economy to basic science; Significance of investing money in research to apprenticeship training opportunities.

Questions whether pharmaceutical companies should have to pay when they profit from government-funded research. Appeal of the idea for taxpayer funding of research during election campaigns in the United States; How politicians are trying to help fund prescription drugs for senior citizens; Difficulty of determining the role of a government grant in a drug's development; Role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in funding pharmaceutical research.

Presents news relating to United States taxation as of May 19, 1999. The warning of clients by investment managers that Congress might approve White House attempts to eliminate several popular tax strategies; The pending completion of a corporate tax-shelter report; The endorsement of renewing a research credit that expires June 30 by key lawmakers.

Discusses the report by the United States National Science Board urging the National Science Foundation to increase its spending on research and education on environmental issues. Recommendations; House of Representatives' Apporpriations Committee's plan for a cut in the N. S. F.'s budget in fiscal 2000; Outlook.

Details how the National Institute of Health issued draft guidelines that discourage biomedical researchers from requiring excessive fees and other financial conditions for lending material and equipment to other scientists. Possibility of limiting universities' ability to control and profit from tools that their researchers develop; No penalties for those who continue to seek restrictive agreements; How suppliers and users of research tools will continue to have to forge agreements case by case.

Describes the commercial and industrial threats to academic freedom. Lure of industry sponsorship and dominance of self-interest among researchers; Comments from Charles Vest, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge; Prospects of profits for research; Violation of traditional intellectual freedom.

Describes the lack of funding and direction in United States science since the end of the cold war. Dependence of science on government funding; Lost challenge of a national emergency; Need to spur on scientific innovation; Role of business and industry in modern science; Money funding biomedical research compared with other disciplines.

Reports on efforts by Chiron Corp. to stage a comeback from financial difficulties by taking fewer research risks and squeezing more profit from its assets. Cuts in research that will be made at Chiron; What the cuts are designed to do; How research cuts will further narrow its focus.

Questions the United States' performance in research and development (R&D). Reason why the question is pertinent; The study that indicates that R&D spending is holding up fairly well; How this fact bodes well for the future living standards in the United States; United States spending on R&D in 1995, 2 percent lower than the 1990 level; Encouraging trends about America's R&D spending.

Answers two financial and investment questions. Fundamental differences between the United States economy and stock market in the late 1920s and the economy and market in the late 1990s; Using a company's research and development spending in conjunction with its price to earnings ratio to decide whether to invest or not.