Category: News

MENA Infrastructure is a website that focuses on infrastructural development and construction in the Middle East.

Clay Shirky points us to a column from a few months back by Marcia Angell, which explains why clinical research on drugs isn’t even remotely trustworthy, as it all-too-often seems to involve doctors who have serious conflicts:

Or consider Dr. Alan F. Schatzberg, chair of Stanford’s psychiatry department and president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association. Senator Grassley found that Schatzberg controlled more than $6 million worth of stock in Corcept Therapeutics, a company he cofounded that is testing mifepristone–the abortion drug otherwise known as RU-486–as a treatment for psychotic depression. At the same time, Schatzberg was the principal investigator on a National Institute of Mental Health grant that included research on mifepristone for this use and he was coauthor of three papers on the subject.

Angell notes that this is pretty common:

Indeed, most doctors take money or gifts from drug companies in one way or another. Many are paid consultants, speakers at company-sponsored meetings, ghost-authors of papers written by drug companies or their agents, and ostensible “researchers” whose contribution often consists merely of putting their patients on a drug and transmitting some token information to the company.

And as the relationship between doctors and pharma has gotten deeper and deeper, it means that the results of those all important “clinical trials” — which the pharma supporters always insist are so important — are highly suspect:

Because drug companies insist as a condition of providing funding that they be intimately involved in all aspects of the research they sponsor, they can easily introduce bias in order to make their drugs look better and safer than they are. Before the 1980s, they generally gave faculty investigators total responsibility for the conduct of the work, but now company employees or their agents often design the studies, perform the analysis, write the papers, and decide whether and in what form to publish the results. Sometimes the medical faculty who serve as investigators are little more than hired hands, supplying patients and collecting data according to instructions from the company.

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs–largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome. It is not unusual for a published paper to shift the focus from the drug’s intended effect to a secondary effect that seems more favorable.

And yet the FTC is more worried about a mommy blogger recommending a book that a publisher sent her for free?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Remember when The Wall Street Journal said that Dell was working on an Android MID? Well it turns out that it was bang on as today images and a video of a prototype device known as the Streak emerged by way of everyone’s favorite Vietnamese mobile site. Running Android 2.0, the Streak boasts 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity, a 5″ WVGA multitouch capacitive display, 5 megapixel camera with dual-LED flash, Bluetooth, microSD and a 1300 mAh battery. Looking through all of the pictures, we couldn’t help notice what looks to be the spitting image of a front-facing camera for checking ones hair video calling, but then again it could just be the worst ambient light sensor ever. Enough talk. Hit the jump for a ton of pics and a video, because the Streak cries out to be seen.

Tokyo-based home electronics company Lancerlink [JP] has announced the Finemini720 today, a palm-sized LCOS projector. Sized at just 50×150×125mm, the device weighs 800g. It’s equipped with a 25W LED, produces 55 lumens of brightness and produces 1,280×768 resolution images.

The Finemini720 features a 200:1 contrast ratio, supports 1080p and also offers an HDMI interface.

The device will go on sale in Japan in December, but Lancerlink hasn’t announced a price yet. People living outside Japan might want to ask if the Japan Trend Shop or Geek Stuff 4 U can get one for them.

Via AV Watch [JP]

In Q3, Uncle Sam was the green IT king maker. Read the, “Green IT Q3 Wrap-up.”

Yahoo has partnered with WPP’s GroupM Entertainment to help marketers incorporate their brands into original online programming.

The programs will appear across Yahoo’s network of media properties, including news, sports, finance and entertainment.

"Marketers need big, ground-breaking ideas that engage and delight consumers, and this partnership with Yahoo! will enable them to create unique high value relationships," said GroupM Entertainment Worldwide CEO Peter Tortorici, who will administer the partnership for GroupM.

Joanne Bradford,
Yahoo! Senior VP,
N. American Revenue
and Market Development

GroupM and Yahoo will work together with advertisers to develop concepts that map media content with an advertiser’s messaging, and produce the content for each program. Yahoo will promote the branded programs to targeted audiences across its network.

"Yahoo! has a keen understanding of what makes our audience click, and this partnership will help advertisers develop deeper connections with our users," said Joanne Bradford, Yahoo!’s senior vice president, North American revenue and market development.

"Furthermore, Yahoo! can continue to build on its successful portfolio of the Internet’s most-watched original programming by tapping into GroupM’s incredible creative development talent."

Yahoo points to its TechTicker program with Scottrade as the advertiser, as an example of one of its successful campaigns, calling it the most viewed business and investing program online averaging more than 350,000 streams per day.

GroupM unit Mindshare Entertainment, created "In the Motherhood," an original online series for its clients Sprint and Unilever’s Suave that was later picked up by ABC Television and developed into the first prime time comedy to be spun off from a Web series.

Every once in a while, an investment model comes along that turns the innovation community on its head. An emerging paradigm called royalty-based financing — applied to early-stage start-ups — may be another, according to Gregory T. Huang of Xconomy Seattle. The concept is simple. Instead of buying equity in a young company, an investor agrees to receive a percentage of the company’s monthly revenues – but the upside is capped at a limit of, say, three to five times his or her investment. Instead of waiting five or 10 years for a start-up to go public or become acquired, an investor can start seeing returns almost immediately. The approach should enable investors to fund a wider range of start-ups than those that typically receive venture backing, Huang says. The downside is that returns are capped, so investors who back the next Google or Amazon will still recoup only five times their investment. For entrepreneurs, the model provides start-up money without giving up an ownership stake in the company.

The concept for royalty-based financing dates back to early mining days, when companies needed financing to dig for oil, natural gas, and minerals. The idea also has been used for government-funded economic development programs. It is getting renewed interest from VCs and angel investors who increasingly need quick returns in a tough climate for exits. Royalty-based venture financing “has the real potential of becoming a major new sector in the private capital market,” says Arthur Fox, the founder of Royalty Capital Management in Lexington, MA, who first used the approach with start-ups in the early 1990s. Fox tried the royalty-based idea as a way to generate compensation from companies he was mentoring, instead of taking some stock. He found that the royalty-based system made start-ups more efficient with his time, and he would get paid every month. He next tried the strategy as an investor. “It changed everything, because the normal criteria in selecting companies as a venture capitalist is a high-growth one,” Fox says. “When you invest in a company, buying stock and equity, you have no way of getting out unless they become significantly large enough to have a liquidity event.” With the royalty-based financing approach, “every month you get a check, and it doesn’t matter if they ever have an IPO or get bought out,” he says.

If you want a home run, you still need a conventional equity-based deal, Huang concedes, and that’s the main objection of most VCs to the royalty-based approach. While the model may broaden their investment options, it goes against the traditional high-risk/high-reward model. But royalty-based financing addresses the dire reality of today’s financial markets, says Thomas Thurston, the founder of Portland, OR-based Growth Science International, a research and consulting firm. “Venture capitalists say, ‘I don’t know if I’m comfortable capping [returns] at 5x,’” Thurston says. “On the other hand, you’re probably not getting 5x right now.” Thurston concludes that “there are enough circumstances where [royalty-based financing] is a good tool,” given the traditional limitations that VCs face. The approach could enable more start-ups to get off the ground and more young companies with revenues to grow, compared with the 2% of businesses that attract VC funding. Although angel investors “will be the ones who do the earliest experimentation and start to prove” the royalty-based model, Thurston thinks some intrepid VCs will try the approach as well. “I think it’ll feel less sexy to a VC,” he says. “But VCs who are innovative will say, ‘Sexy or not, I like getting good returns.’

Source: Xconomy

The new director of the Pentagon’s research arm is visiting university campuses in an effort to rebuild bridges that were damaged under the Bush administration. Regina E. Dugan, who was appointed in July to lead the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has already visited the University of California, Berkeley; Stanford University; UCLA; Virginia Tech; and Texas A&M. During the Bush administration, DARPA’s guidelines for financing basic research changed markedly, says Peter Harsha, director of governmental affairs for the Computing Research Association, a Washington organization that represents academic institutions. The agency shortened the period of research financing and tied it to one-year “go, no-go” decisions, undercutting longer-term projects. DARPA enforced classification of research or prepublication review on scientific papers, and it established strict U.S. citizenship requirements for some financing. “It sounds like a lot of that is changing now,” Harsha says.

In her conversations with researchers, Dugan has noted the criticism of the shortened time horizon for DARPA financing and acknowledged that increasing classification of research lessened the impact of the agency’s technology on both civilian and military infrastructure. “University-based research is an important component of DARPA’s future activities,” Dugan said in a statement. “It is our goal to strengthen this partnership, enabling some of the best minds to serve with and in the government in the best interests of the nation and the U.S. Department of Defense.” On her visit to the California institutions, Dugan — a mechanical engineer who has conducted fundamental development work in chemical sensing technologies to detect explosives — spoke to small groups of faculty members from different departments in both the sciences and engineering. “She came by Berkeley and had a frank chat about the past and the future, and I’m pretty encouraged,” says David Patterson, a computer scientist at UC-Berkeley. “She seems to genuinely value academic input into the defense research enterprise and really wants to re-engage the research community in the DARPA mission.”

Source: The New York Times

Many tech transfer offices are stuck in reactive mode. They dutifully receive invention disclosures from faculty, assess them for commercial potential, file patents and provisionals, and seek licensees. This reactive strategy, while understandable given staff shortages and time constraints, does not even attempt to address one very critical factor in successful research commercialization efforts: what does the market want? Recognizing this, a growing number of TTOs have moved away from traditional and reactive “market push” strategies toward a more proactive “market pull” approach. They are actively engaging with innovation seekers in corporations and government agencies to determine their most pressing needs — and then feeding that information back to their research labs.

By listening to their markets, and building strong relationships with industry, they are smoothing a path to licensing revenues and assuring that more of their research dollars result in products that companies want and need. The concept isn’t hard to grasp, but execution can be difficult. It involves not only a shift in strategy and thinking, but also delicate negotiations with researchers who may balk at being “dictated to” about their research focus. In addition, it involves tough legwork in building a “listening” process in the form of strong industry relationships.

But the end result can significantly increase your research funding and licensing revenues while cementing long-term corporate partnerships. That’s why our Distance Learning Division has recruited one of the nation’s leaders in market pull strategy, Lina Ramos of Emerging Growth Enterprise, to give you practical strategies on determining the IP and innovation needs of industry and putting your researchers to work on meeting those needs. Shifting Your TTO from Market Push to Market Pull: Finding the White Space, Thursday, November 12th, from 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EST. For complete details and to register, CLICK HERE.

And don’t miss these other strategy-filled events coming soon:

• October 28, 2009: The New TTO Metrics: Documenting Job Creation, Economic Impact, and Other “Dark Matter” Performance Indicators
• November 11: Home Run Strategies: Finding, Nurturing, and Securing Maximum Revenues from Disruptive University Technologies
• December 8, 2009: Tech Transfer Partnerships: Establishing Effective Legal and Operational Structures for Long-Term Success
• December 16, 2009: Post-License Monitoring and Support: Performance and Revenue Enhancement Strategies (and When All Else Fails How to Pull the Plug and Take Back Your IP)

Until Blue Water Satellite, Inc., came along, “nobody had ever sold satellite monitoring of a reservoir to anybody,” says Robert K. Vincent, professor of geology at Bowling Green (OH) State University and co-founder of OhioView, a remote sensing consortium of the state’s 10 largest public research universities. Six months after operations began, though, initial customers had bought into Blue Water enough that the BGSU spinoff could make its first royalty payment to the university. The payment was just $213, but “there will be more, and they will be bigger,” predicts Deanne Snavely, interim vice provost for research and dean of BGSU’s Graduate College. Blue Water is the first spinoff to commercialize IP developed at BGSU — specifically, a patented algorithm developed by Vincent to detect the presence and location of cyanobacteria in drinking water reservoirs. Blooms of the blue-green algae, which present human health risks, are mapped on images from the LANDSAT satellite and targeted for treatment. The patent supporting the technology was awarded in November 2006 to BGSU, which granted an exclusive license to Vincent’s fledgling company. Working through the licensing process took about 18 months, since “every agreement had to be done for the first time,” Snavely says. In the meantime, Blue Water received a $50,000 grant from the Toledo-based Regional Growth Partnership to analyze the company’s potential. Funded through the Ohio Department of Development, the grant was critical to attract investors to the company. “Blue Water wouldn’t have come out of the chute” without RGP and its finance arm, Rocket Ventures, Vincent says.

Blue Water is Rocket Ventures’ “first university-derived startup client company in northwest Ohio to make royalty payments to its parent university based on real earnings from a bona fide paying customer,” according to Greg Knudson, director of Rocket Ventures. A percentage of the university’s royalties goes to the inventors, and the balance goes into the BGSU research budget. The company has fewer than 10 clients, but several are repeat customers, Vincent says. And with some 150 drinking water reservoirs in Ohio, more than 11,000 nationwide, and more overseas — plus recreational lakes that could use the technology — a worldwide market is possible. “I think it has Google-type potential,” says Vincent, who has already turned down one prospective Blue Water buyer.

Source: Bowling Green State University

A battle is brewing between university researchers and the biotech seed industry over the development of genetically modified (GM) crops. In a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier this year, 26 public sector entomologists complained that crop developers are curbing their rights to study commercial biotech crops. At a July meeting organized by the American Seed Trade Association in Alexandria, VA, representatives from leading seed companies met with the entomologists and developed a set of principles to conduct such research. However, the seed companies are not obligated to follow the guidelines, and the industry’s reluctance to share its products with scientists is fueling the view that companies have something to hide.

Commercial entities have developed nearly all of the GM crops on the U.S. market, and their ownership of the proprietary technology allows them to decide who studies the crops and how. “Industry is completely driving the bus,” says Christian Krupke, an entomologist at Purdue University. Company control starts with a simple grower’s contract. Anyone who buys transgenic seeds must sign a technology stewardship agreement that prevents the buyer from conducting research on the seed or supplying it to a researcher. Thus, scientists can’t simply buy seeds for their studies, and farmers can’t slip them some on the side. “You need permission from industry, and you have to specify what you want to do with the plants,” says Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Seed companies can refuse a research request for any reason. Some may be isolated instances; others result from company policies. Even the notion of seeking permission from companies to conduct studies is a deterrent. “There are three strategies that [scientists] take,” says Elson Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University. “Some are just not doing the research. Some are changing their experimental protocols so that they are acceptable to industry, which may or may not be a good thing. And some are just going out and buying the seeds and doing the research in violation of the technology agreements.”

When requesting permission, scientists usually must describe in detail the design of their experiment, which provides companies with a head start in preparing a rebuttal. Once a company and scientist agree on the study design, they still must negotiate the terms of the research agreement. Negotiations often break down because companies want to limit or control publication of the study. “When you are funded by state and federal dollars, you have an obligation that the research you conduct is public and published,” says Beverly Durgan, dean of extension services at the University of Minnesota. “Signing research secrecy agreements is something we really can’t do.” Several major seed companies say they have negotiated multiyear agreements with major universities that give scientists the freedom to conduct and publish most agronomic research without requesting permission for every study. In fact, seed companies frequently pay academics to study precommercial products, similar to consulting arrangements or discovery work carried out for big pharmas. The companies say they have to keep tabs on public sector research to ensure the studies are done with good stewardship practices and in accordance with regulations, since they could be liable if an adverse event occurred with a precommercial product — even under the watch of a public sector scientist. Companies also say they must ensure that products that haven’t received approval for export to certain countries aren’t shipped there. And, since they want to protect their IP, they’re particularly averse to allowing the public sector to breed crops or to characterize the genetic composition of a GM plant, which can cost up to $100 million to develop.

In some instances, university scientists have raised concerns about data submitted to regulatory agencies, but they’ve had no recourse once the crops were commercialized. In 2001, for example, Johnston, IA-based Pioneer HiBred was developing a transgenic corn variety that contained a binary toxin to fend off rootworms. The company asked some university laboratories to test for unintended effects on a lady beetle. The laboratories found that nearly 100% of lady beetles that had been fed the crop died after the eighth day in the life cycle. When the researchers presented their results to Pioneer, the company forbade them to publicize the data. Two years later, Pioneer received regulatory approval for an anti-rootworm corn variety with the same toxin, but the data submitted to the EPA indicated no sign of potential harm to lady beetles. “If there’s a sense that a problem is being swept under the carpet, that only fuels the fear,” Tabashnik says. “It’s better to be open about it. It’s not as if one problem with one variety means the whole technology isn’t useful.”

Source: PuppetGov

Texas State University-San Marcos has partnered with Arizona-based MicroPower Global to develop cutting-edge “green energy” technology. The partnership, facilitated by the Texas Emerging Technology Fund and the Innovate Texas Foundation, will initially see MicroPower carry out its 12-month prototype development plan using the Multifunctional Materials Laboratory at Texas State. The idea is to build on a technology already planned for the 2010 BMW 5 Series, which converts heat into electricity for the car’s air-conditioning and other power systems. MicroPower believes its work in Texas will yield efficiencies that will, in turn, open up new applications, such as heat recovery from jet engines. During the initial phase, MicroPower aims to build its first thermoelectric-chalcogenide based chips, which can convert heat directly into electricity, leading to significant energy savings. The chips’ targeted efficiencies are in excess of 15%, or three times more efficient than conventional material. Working with Texas State, MicroPower’s goal is to drive development toward the world’s first 20% efficient modules, which they say will revolutionize the thermoelectric market. In addition, the clean, green technology is expected to save energy, reduce harmful emissions, and lead to the availability of substantial carbon credits.

Source: San Marcos Daily Record

Claudia, darling, you come in here. I need you to put more electricity into this iPod. No, miss, I don’t want to wear those pumps to Anna’s party. Let’s get some heels in here. Good, good, you little pork pie. Lose a bit of weight. Ah, my iPod. I need more techno on here. It’s what my lovers listen to.

What’s this? This isn’t my white iPod! Which one is this? The iPhone? Can you make calls on it for me? Really? No, darling, the green one. The doctor said my face would fall into my salad if I don’t inject the green bottle. Call Tom Ford for me. Oh! He’s in my favorites?

Can we do something darling? Can we make a techno thing for the iPod, branded Gucci? So people can listen to music and think about Gucci? Tell Paolo to stop raking those leaves and to take off his shirt and clean the pool or else he doesn’t get into the glossies. That’s right. Mmmm… he’s a delicious bite of watermelon wrapped in thinly sliced cheese, isn’t he. Don’t poke so much with that need, Claudia, or it’s back to Stuttgart with you.

An app you say? Is that like a starter? Oh! A program! Roger must have had something to do with that sort of thing when we married. There’s quite a bit of money in it. Well do it, then. Spare no expense. Now where is my colostomy attachment? I need to get rid of breakfast. Ah, wonderful, Claudia. Wonderful.

The app is free on the App Store, darlings.

Lexington, KY-based Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., has reached an agreement to expand its license for piggyBac technology to cover nearly all commercial applications. The IP, owned jointly by the University of Notre Dame, the University of Florida, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, enables facile genetic manipulation of most species. Transposagen uses this core technology to create TKO Knockout Rat Models — lab rats with a single gene disruption that mimic human disease. The laboratory of Malcolm J. Fraser, Jr., professor in Notre Dame’s department of biological sciences, was responsible for the early characterization and development of the piggyBac DNA transposon. PiggyBac technology now is used for genetic engineering in almost any animal, allowing for both mutagenesis (changing or disrupting genes) and transgenesis (adding genes). PiggyBac enables genetic manipulation for many species, including research animals and agriculturally important animals for which genetic manipulation was previously impossible or cost-prohibitive.

“Transposagen was already using piggyBac to generate tens of thousands of knockout rat lines in a very short period of time,” says Eric Ostertag, the company’s CEO. “We will now be able to use piggyBac to modify the genomes of other important organisms. PiggyBac is also finding uses in human therapeutics as it can be used to reprogram cells to become induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. In the long term, piggyBac may even be used for human gene therapy.” As part of the licensing deal, Transposagen will be responsible for distributing piggyBac to researchers and will control commercial sublicenses. “We will now be able to provide piggyBac to pharmaceutical companies as a novel tool for drug and biomarker discovery,” Ostertag says. The production of animal models is a $1.2 billion-a-year market and is expected to grow 12% annually through 2012.

Source: Reuters

The technology transfer office at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) is veering off the traditional path to commercialization, with a pending sealed-bid private sale of a portfolio of 10 issued U.S. patents and foreign patent applications for noninvasive substance detection, including a noninvasive blood glucose monitor. The TTO has hired the IP brokerage firm ICAP Ocean Tomo, LLC, in Chicago to conduct the private sale for the hospital. CHLA had tried the traditional commercialization route with this particular technology for several years, says Jessica Rousset, director of the hospital’s TTO. However, the standard path was slow-moving, particularly given the limited availability of the inventor, who is also a healthcare professional, she reports.

In preparing for the private sale, ICAP Ocean Tomo conducted a portfolio valuation using a proprietary patent rating system. “They came back with a valuation that actually made a lot of sense to us,” says Rousset, though its assumptions seemed to neglect the upside potential of the IP. “If the technology were to be a front runner in the market, then the valuation that they gave us would be certainly on the lower end,” she states. To hedge this risk and alleviate the concerns of some of CHLA’s board members about the valuation, the TTO was able to add a second payment to the deal structure Ocean Tomo would be brokering. The milestone payment would be triggered “when a licensee’s revenues reach a certain threshold, whether from product sales or sublicensing.” The upfront fee included in the agreement is based on ICAP Ocean Tomo’s conservative valuation.

CHLA worked with ICAP Ocean Tomo to negotiate a customized template license agreement, which in turn will be conveyed to potential bidders. The agreement is a hybrid between a straight sale and a standard license agreement with all of the reporting obligations and various triggers for payments to the IP holder, she explains. CHLA isn’t granting the IP rights as an assignment, which is ICAP Ocean Tomo’s traditional model, “but as an exclusive license, which is necessary for federally funded IP,” she explains. “Furthermore, we were able to get the appropriate reservation of rights in the terms and conditions that is customary when licensing government-funded technologies,” allowing CHLA and other academic institutions to continue to work with the licensed IP. The financial terms pre-set in the license represent minimum bids. “So if the bid comes in under those amounts, we are under no obligation to accept them,” points out Rousset. A detailed article on the private sale, scheduled for November 30, appears in the October issue of Technology Transfer Tactics. For subscription information, CLICK HERE.

Oh, right, 3D laptops. I almost forgot. If you like 3D so much that you want to have it with you wherever you go, then 3D laptops may or may not soon be all the rage. No need to wait, though, as Acer’s 15.6-inch Aspire 5738DG will be available this week.

As previously reported, you’ll need to use special glasses but – BUT! – even standard 2D stuff can be converted to 3D. How is this possible? Glad you asked:

“The notebook features a 15.6-inch Acer CineCrystal HD display coated with a special 3D film which clings to the panel pixel by pixel, enabling the LCD technology to deliver a 3D image. Users slip on a pair of included 3D polarizer eyeglasses, which filter 2D images to 3D, and enjoy eye-popping, true cinematic high def playback of movies, video and games. Customers can use the TriDef Media Player for playback of videos and photos in 3D, while the TriDef Ignition tool to enables 2D to 3D conversion for games and applications supporting DirectX 9 and above.”

Other features include the following:

• Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 CPU at 2.2GHz
• Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
• 15.6-inch LED-backlit 3D screen at 1366×768 resolution
• ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570 with 512MB of RAM (expandable to 2304MB via system memory sharing)
• 4GB DDR2 RAM
• 320GB hard drive (5400RPM)
• Card reader, b/g/n Wi-Fi, DVD burner, webcam, four USB ports
• Six-cell battery, system weighs 6.16 pounds

Starting MSRP of $780, it’ll (likely) be available starting tomorrow.

[Full press release]

Meital Zilberman, a professor in the department of biomedical engineering at Tel Aviv (Israel) University, has developed a biologically active “scaffold” from soluble fibers that may help humans to replace lost or missing bone by regrowing the tissue. With more research, the scaffold also could serve as the basic technology for regenerating other types of human tissues, including muscle, arteries, and skin, Zilberman says. “The bioactive agents that spur bone and tissue to regenerate are available to us,” she explains. “The problem is that no technology has been able to effectively deliver them to the tissue surrounding that missing bone.” Her artificial and flexible scaffolding connects tissues as it releases growth-stimulating drugs to the spot where new tissue is needed — like the scaffolding that surrounds an existing building during the addition of another structure. The technology is being licensed through Ramot, TAU’s tech transfer company. The invention could be used to restore missing bone in a limb lost in an accident or repair receded jawbones to secure dental implants, Zilberman suggests. The scaffold can be shaped so the bone will grow into the proper form. After a period of time, the fibers can be programmed to dissolve, leaving no trace. Zilberman’s technology also has potential uses in cosmetic surgery to “grow your own” cheekbones or puffy lips. But Zilberman says it’s far too early to think of such uses. She prefers to focus on applications such as dental implants, organ tissue regeneration, and peripheral nerve regeneration. “Our fibers provide all the advantages that clinicians in tissue regeneration are calling for,” Zilberman says. “Being thin, they’re ideal when delicate scaffolds are called for. But they can also be the basic building blocks of bones and tissues when bigger structures are needed.”

Source: PhysOrg.com

Large-scale, commercial involvement in university-based science has a detrimental impact on basic research, according to a report issued by Scientists for Global Responsibility, an independent body based in the U.K. “Science and the Corporate Agenda: the detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology” alleges that the drive among universities to commercialize introduces significant research bias and marginalizes work with social and environmental benefits. These impacts occur at different levels, including individual research studies, the agenda-setting process for R&D, and the communication of findings to fellow professionals, policy-makers, and the public. Direct commercial funding of a research study increases the likelihood that the results will favor the corporate sponsor, according to evidence from academic research in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors — for example, by selecting scientists who are sympathetic to the viewpoint of research sponsors. Intentional distortion or suppression of data is less common but does occur, especially in pharmaceutical and tobacco-funded areas, according to the report.

Research transparency also can be compromised through the use of commercial confidentiality agreements and other IP rights considerations. Scientists may have financial interests with the potential to compromise the research process, yet there is little monitoring or policing of the problem so its true extent is unknown, according to the report. The authors found evidence of this problem in the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and biotechnology sectors. When setting the priorities and direction of R&D, governments increasingly use economic criteria to decide which projects to fund, and these decisions often are made in close consultation with business. As companies expand the number and range of partnerships with universities, and as researchers feel increased pressure to attract corporate funding, academic departments are increasingly orienting themselves to commercial needs rather than to the broader public interest, the report charges. The result is a greater focus on IP rights in academic work. “Knowledge is increasingly being ‘commodified’ for short-term economic benefit,” the authors allege, undermining its application for wider public benefit and producing a narrow approach to scientific curiosity. The interest of business in emerging technologies such as synthetic biology and nanotechnology also is leading to decisions about these powerful technologies with little public consultation.

The report calls for universities to adopt minimum ethical standards to guide corporate partnerships. These standards should include social and environmental criteria as well as academic criteria and should be overseen by a special committee, it recommends. Universities also should openly publish information on the nature of their business partnerships and open a register of interests for academics — particularly those working in controversial areas of science and technology. The report also proposes the creation of an independent organization to disburse “a significant fraction” of business funding for scientific research. The aim of this body would be to fund research with a particular public interest and which may be neglected by mainstream funding sources. In addition, “more academic research needs to be conducted into the potentially detrimental effects of the commercialization of science and technology, especially within universities,” the report concludes.

Source: Science Business

Google has released a new Website Optimizer Experiment Management API. This means developers can utilize Website Optimizer for their own applications and experiments.

Website Optimizer is a tool from Google that allows users to perform simple A/B and multivariate testing on websites to see what works and what doesn’t. WebProNews discussed the tool at length earlier this year. Here is a webinar video that will familiarize you with it as well:

"Website Optimizer handles splitting a website’s traffic, serving different variations, and crunching the numbers to find statistical significance," Google says. "Creating experiments with Website Optimizer usually involves a lot of back and forth between your website and the Website Optimizer interface. Using the API, you can integrate Website Optimizer into your platform. In short, you can create and launch experiments from whatever tool you use to edit your site."

The API is an extension of the Google Analytics API, and is part of Google Analytics Labs. Being a labs feature means that it may not be perfect, and users may experience some bugs.

Google says that developers should look at the Google Analytics Data API Protocol document for general information about the GA feeds. The sections on Quota Policy, Audience, Getting Started, and Authentication are relevant to the Website Optimizer API.

2Market Information Inc., publisher of Tech Transfer E-News, has three outstanding valuation resources available for IP professionals – two references and an inexpensive but powerful and precise valuation software system. Here are the basics:

• The 127-page Guide to Intellectual Property Valuation is a must-have resource authored by Mike Pellegrino, a leading expert in IP valuation and founder of Pellegrino & Associates. It provides practical guidance on performing due diligence, conducting legal analyses, and strengthening your IP to enhance its value. The reference includes valuation case studies as well as down-to-earth, step-by-step solutions to the myriad problems that arise in the valuation process. You’ll also find advanced tools that will help you navigate common landmines and arrive at a supportable, optimum valuation for your valuable innovations. (CLICK HERE for more info and a $329 price for E-News readers — a $50 discount.)
• Calculating Lost Profits in IP and Patent Infringement Cases is a 690-page hardcover reference that includes a companion online resource center. This new guide brings together the comprehensive body of knowledge on lost profits damages and delivers a definitive resource for IP professionals, tech transfer execs, financial experts, and attorneys. Written by Nancy Fannon, owner of Fannon Valuation Group, and other leading experts, Calculating Lost Profits delivers a thorough analysis of current case law and valuation methodology that form the basis of damage awards in IP and patent infringement cases. (CLICK HERE for more info and a $329 price for E-News readers — a $50 discount.)
• Competitive Analysis Valuation Software was specifically developed to strike a unique balance between cost and precision. The CAV method measures the principal determinants of IP value in an affordable, easy-to-use way. Its methodology was developed over many years to value IP assets and formulate technology commercialization strategies on behalf of corporate, university and federal laboratory clients of the Technology Commercialization Research Center at Syracuse University. Created by nationally recognized IP law expert Ted Hagelin, the CAV Software yields clear and logical valuation results through a single program platform for actionable negotiation, planning and reporting. (CLICK HERE for more info and a $380 price for E-News readers — a $250 discount.)