VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!
BELOW YOU SEE THE CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATION WHOSE POLICY WAS ADOPTED BY CLINTON IN THE 1990s AS THESE PUBLIC-PRVATE PARTNERSHIPS STARTED. ITS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WHOLE HEALTH CARE REFORM IS A REPUBLICAN CORPORATE PLAN TO PRIVATIZE HEALTH CARE.
IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST!!!!
Kauffman Foundation Analyzes
New Approach to Moving University Innovations to Market and Filling Seed-Stage
Foundation to form network to facilitate 'proof of concept' center development
(KANSAS CITY, Mo.) Jan. 24, 2008 — An emerging approach to identifying, funding and commercializing university-based innovation is proving quite effective at seeding new companies, according to research conducted by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Max Planck Institute of Economics.
According to the Kauffman Foundation, "proof of concept centers" are an effective vehicle to help launch the commercialization of university innovation
and to fill the seed-stage funding gap for new technologies.
Proof of concept centers provide seed funding to university-based early stage research as well as a host of advisory services and educational initiatives to
assist students and faculty with market research, mentoring, development and testing of innovations, preparation of business plans and connections to the
The report examines two such centers, the Deshpande Center at MIT and the von
Liebig Center at the University of California San Diego.
According to researchers, since the two centers' creation in 2002, they have collectively awarded nearly $10 million in seed grants and launched 26 seed-stage companies that have accumulated more than $159 million in private
capital. Both centers are funded from philanthropic donations.
The lessons learned from the proof of concept study have led the Kauffman Foundation to form a network that will bring centers together to study best
practices, establish metrics and define points of future research. The Deshpande and von Liebig centers will be founding members of the new network.
"The centers' successes and strategies provide a promising model for replication, and this network will help advance this new approach," said Lesa
Mitchell, vice president of Advancing Innovation, Kauffman Foundation. "The network will help them to share strategies such as how to help grantees leverage
more capital for their technologies."
"By legitimizing a researcher's technology, these centers enable and accelerate the acquisition of private capital for university technology," said Christine A. Gulbranson, director, Advancing Innovation, Kauffman Foundation,
and one of the paper's authors.
"Proof of concept centers assist with the exchange of ideas between the university innovations and industry," said David B. Audretsch, director, Max Planck Institute of Economics. "Providing mentors with experience in innovation and industry connections help link faculty and students to external networks."
The report also provides an outline for other universities to use in replicating proof of concept centers.
According to the report, a successful proof of concept center benefits from locating at universities that produce innovative and marketable technology, are located within a strong external network of investors and innovators and have an administrative team and advisors with a depth of commercialization expertise. A unified approach of providing seed funding, advisory services with industry connections and educational initiatives also is vital to ensure the commercialization of university technology.
A copy of the paper is available for download. In addition,
an analysis of the Kauffman Foundation report will be published in the June 2008
issue of The Journal of Technology Transfer.
My background is as a medical research academic and I've spent 30 years in the medical field. There has always been a slow deliberative nature to medical research that necessarily meant when data was published it had been qualitatively and quantitatively duplicated and tested until safety and accuracy was assured. We did this with public money and with no financial benefit other than our salaries. That made us unbiased and committed to the science. Once the discoveries were made, then anyone could become the enterpreneur. Below you'll see a current article by Health and Human Services that describes the need for all these outside sources and efficiencies to create an effective research environment. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MANAGED TO CREATE THE GREATEST SPAN OF MEDICAL INNOVATION THE OLD FASHION WAY.......PERHAPS IT INVOLVED THE CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH PAYING TAXES THAT SERVED AS REVENUE FOR THIS PUBLIC RESEARCH. SO, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THESE CORPORATE POLITICIANS ARE TRYING THEIR HARDEST TO CREATE A MODEL THAT TAKES BEST PRACTICES AND CORPORATE FUNDING OUT OF THE LOOP. LEVERAGE IS IN.
CHAPTER ELEVEN - Health and Human Services Text
Fostering Evidence-Based Practice and Innovation
Researchers increasingly have relied upon private sources and clinical revenues for funds. Funds for health research and development increased by 10.5 percent annually between 1984 and 1994 (Mechanic, 1996), but the source of
research money has shifted from predominantly public sector (45 percent of funds in 1993 compared to 56 percent in 1983) to private sector sources (50 percent in
1993 compared to 39 percent in 1983) (NIH, 1996). The pharmaceutical industry, for example, invests $19 billion a year in research (Bello, 1997). THIS SHIFT IS DUE TO THE PRIVATIZATION OF MEDICAL RESEARCH FOR PROFIT. PHARMA AS WE KNOW MADE MEDICINE A PROFIT MACHINE. THEY ALSO PROVIDED TONS OF MEDICINE THAT PROVED NOT TO DO WHAT THEY SAID AND WAS MARKETED BEFORE TESTING ELIMINATED CHANCES OF HARM. THIS IS WHAT THESE INNOVATION CENTERS WILL PUT INTO OVERDRIVE!!!
Research Infrastructure and Workforce.
Expanded public and private funding of health care research needs to be accompanied by a robust research infrastructure and a workforce of highly qualified investigators. The
highly competitive health care market poses challenges to academic health centers and may threaten the subsidies that clinical revenues provide for research and education (HHS, 1997). One study estimates that clinical services delivered by medical school faculty raised more than $800 million in 1993 that was used to subsidize clinical research -- an amount equal to about one-fifth of the funding medical schools received from NIH grants (AAMC, 1997). The costs that academic health centers incur due to their research and teaching functions, as well as the disproportionate share of uncompensated care that many provide, leads to charges that have been estimated to be as much as 15 percent to 35 percent higher than community hospitals, even after adjusting for case-mix differences (Skirboll, 1997; Blumenthal, 1996). These higher charges can make it difficult for academic health centers to compete with other health care delivery organizations. THE FACT THAT THE HEALTH CARE FIELD HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BECOME 'COMPETITIVE' FINANCIALLY RATHER THAN ACADEMICALLY IS THE PROBLEM.
In addition, academic health centers face increased competition from private research centers as a greater share of funding flows to these entities from industry sources. One analyst estimates that these contract research organizations currently manage one-half to three-quarters of Phase III and Phase IV clinical trials (Blumenthal, 1996). Although the portfolio of health care research conducted by academic health centers and private research centers often
differs, traditional research institutions are facing increased competition not only in the funds available for research, but also in the increasing array of organizations available to provide research capability.
ACADEMIC HEALTH RESEARCH DOES NOT NEED TO COMPETE .....THAT IS NOT ITS MISSION. PRIVATE INDUSTRY CAN SUPPORT PRIVATE RESEARCH ALL IT WANTS AS LONG AS IT IS PAYING TAXES TO SUPPORT PUBLIC RESEARCH! THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF HEALTH CARE IS AN ANATHEMA IN A FIRST WORLD DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND MUST STOP. THIS IS A THIRD WAY CAUCUS POLICY........WE NEED REAL PROGRESSIVES IN OFFICE.
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!