Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

UW startups for FY2013 four years later, 2

Now let’s look at ID Genomics, the one company that was actually correctly reported by UW as a FY2013 startup. As of June 2017, IDGenomics is still in operation, reporting 10 employees. According to Crunchbase, it has received $50K in … Continue reading

Posted in History, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Vice presidents for research beg for Directive 10-289.

Here’s a bit from the APLU/AAU fakographic on university technology transfer: And here’s a bit from “‘Miracle machine of U.S. innovation is in danger,” a new op/ed by Kelvin Droegemeier and Daniel Reed. Droegemeier is the vice president for research at … Continue reading

Posted in Bad Science, Metrics, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

UW startups for FY2013 four years later, 1

In 2014, Research Enterprise ran a series of articles on the fake startup metrics at the University of Washington: Only 1 University of Washington Startup for FY 2014 4 Not 17 University of Washington Startups in FY13 Faked Metrics in … Continue reading

Posted in Metrics, Sponsored Research, Startups | Leave a comment

The NIH’s complicity in faux Bayh-Dole and high drug prices

Here’s “A ’20-20′ View of Invention Reporting to the National Institutes of Health”–published by the NIH in 1995. 2. WHAT IS THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? The Bayh-Dole Act encourages researchers to patent and market their inventions … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Stanford v Roche | Leave a comment

The banal myth of the necessary institutional monopoly

Louis Rosenfeld wrote an insightful article in Clinical Chemistry on the discovery of insulin “Insulin: Discovery and Controversy.” Three collaborators in the research had a disagreement over inventive contributions to various portions of the work and to settle their disputes gave … Continue reading

Posted in Innovation, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh

Last year (March 2016), Joe Allen gave a talk at the University of Pittsburgh, “Patent Ownership Under Bayh-Dole, reported in the University Times. Called “a key architect of the Bayh-Dole Act,” Allen manages to fill a talk summary with mostly … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

The Special Special Case

Of all the university research findings possible, inventions–because of patents–attract the attention. Everything else about research–data, findings, experimental setups, reports, how to do things–is pretty much ignored. No one spent time worrying about whether data or findings would be “made … Continue reading

Posted in Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 3

This third form of mixing–intentional–created the problem for the PHS and universities in the area of medicinal chemistry. It was not mixing in the abstract; not mixing in an open university environment, but rather intentional mixing. The drug industry had … Continue reading

Posted in History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Leave a comment

The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 2

We can distinguish three forms of “mixing” of funding. (1) Two or more projects, each funded on different terms, in which their participants, having the freedom of the university, talk with one another, learn things, and apply what they learn … Continue reading

Posted in History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Leave a comment

There are no Bayh-Doles in Canada

In a recent hearing held by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, made some valuable remarks, which he has published at his blog. Geist … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, Innovation, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment