Literature DB >> 18164880

Commercialization of basic research from within the university and return of value to the public.

Roy H Hammerstedt1, Edward L Blach.   

Abstract

The responsibility to return "value" to those who support basic research is an obligatory part of accepting funds to support the research. This reality should, but now does not, impact planning and execution of all basic research from its earliest stages. Universities are becoming ever more important in their role in the accelerating quest of a national goal of transition to a "knowledge-based economy." As such, the complex organizational format of a university, laden with entrenched procedures of questionable utility, should be adjusted to identify the means to commercialize the small subset of projects that appear suitable for further development. Of special concern is the growing tendency to encourage academic "innovators" to develop spin-out companies "on the side." While seductive in perceived simplicity, this is a difficult step and we believe that most such individuals are ill-suited to these activities. Not because of technical ability but because of lack of relevant management experience. We attempt to address that situation through a brief listing of some reasons why people "do research" and outline phases (steps) in moving from concept to application, including an overview of start-up and funding early-stage spin-outs. A discussion of the limits to applying results of basic research to enhancing sperm fertility in commodity and companion animals and humans is provided. Hurdles are so daunting that there is concern as to why anyone would attempt to translate basic observations into practical solutions; which in turn raises the question of why funding agencies should fund basic studies in the first place.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18164880      PMCID: PMC2277478          DOI: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.11.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Reprod Sci        ISSN: 0378-4320            Impact factor:   2.145


  13 in total

Review 1.  The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  D G Altman; K F Schulz; D Moher; M Egger; F Davidoff; D Elbourne; P C Gøtzsche; T Lang
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-04-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Symposium summary and challenges for the future.

Authors:  R H Hammerstedt
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  Detection of differences in fertility.

Authors:  Rupert P Amann; Roy H Hammerstedt
Journal:  J Androl       Date:  2002 May-Jun

4.  Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials.

Authors:  A Vail; E Gardener
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Pitfalls in the design and analysis of efficacy trials in subfertility.

Authors:  Salim Daya
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research.

Authors:  Theodore A Kotchen; Teresa Lindquist; Karl Malik; Ellie Ehrenfeld
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-02-18       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Weaknesses in reports of "fertility" for horses and other species.

Authors:  Rupert P Amann
Journal:  Theriogenology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 8.  Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research.

Authors:  M A Heller; R S Eisenberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-05-01       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Increased in vitro binding of fresh and frozen-thawed human sperm exposed to a synthetic peptide.

Authors:  R P Amann; R B Shabanowitz; G Huszar; S J Broder
Journal:  J Androl       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct

10.  A fragment of prosaposin (SGP-1) from rooster sperm promotes sperm-egg binding and improves fertility in chickens.

Authors:  R H Hammerstedt; P G Cramer; G F Barbato; R P Amann; J S O'Brien; M D Griswold
Journal:  J Androl       Date:  2001 May-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.