You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'biotech' category.
Nature Publishing Group has created a science aggregator called Scintilla. The goal of Scintilla is to bring personalization to science.
Here’s a description from Nature’s blog Nascent-
Scintilla is an aggregator—of science weblogs, news stories and publication databases—but it works in a slightly different way from the existing online RSS readers that cover the whole internet. For a start, the sources are manually selected, and only related to science, so there shouldn’t be any trouble with spam when searching for stories. Also there’s no ‘unread items’ count, so you don’t have to feel like you have lots of reading to catch up on. Browse the site, add sources to your collection, and visit your ‘Read’ page on Scintilla whenever you’re looking for some juicy science stories to read. Read the rest of this entry »
A recent Science article highlights the impact increasing the number of H1-B visas could have on US scientists. Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and more recently Genentech have advocated for increasing the H1-B visa cap. Bill Gates has proposed that the cap be abolished. Increasing the cap is, of course, in the corporation’s best interests as such action will increase the prospective employment pool, and likely depress wages.
I don’t have a problem with companies lobbying for increases in the H1-B visa cap (that currently stands at 65,000.) Incredibly, the cap was reached on the very first day that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting visa applications for 2007. Read the rest of this entry »
Not surprisingly (especially to those of you that are scientists), the gap between R&D investment and return on investment (in the form of approved therapeutics) continues to grow.
I am well aware of the difficulties inherent in drug discovery and development, but I remain amazed that the massive efforts and resources put forth by thousands of very intelligent people continue to yield subpar results. Is it possible that expectations are too high? Perhaps the much more favorable ratio of investment to approved NME’s in the 90’s was a result of “low hanging fruit”? Is the current return on investment (or lack thereof) sustainable? If not, what is the breaking point?
I suppose this is good news if you own equity in a small biotech and hope to cash out by acquisition!
BIO’s report on the the biotech sector Growing The Nation’s Biotech Sector: State Bioscience Initiatives 2006 identifies “mixed-use” campus expansions (i.e. research parks) as a trend to stimulate regional innovation. A sampling of current projects include: a 38 acre Utah State University’s Innovation Campus, a 160-acre Bioscience Park Center in Aurora, CO, a 7,800-acre UAB Research Park at Oxmoor, AL, the University of Southern Alabama’s 35-acre USA Research and Technology Park and the 156-acre Auburn Research Park, and a 22,000-square-foot South Carolina Biotechnology Incubation Facility in Greenwood, SC.
I am not an expert in economic development, but I question the sustainability of these initiatives. Regions, states and nations appear to be riding the biotech wave assuming that it will lead to economic prosperity for their respective locale. I certainly applaud the increased efforts and investment in science, but why is everyone jumping on the biotech bandwagon? I suspect some of it is due to political pressure to capitalize on the “The Biotech Century”. I’m sure there are opportunities for some regions to find a niche and achieve relative success, but what happens to those that are unsuccessful? Read the rest of this entry »
In January of this year Venezuela enacted the The Organic Law of Science, Technology and Innovation that requires all private and public companies with gross revenues of US $1.5 million to contribute between 0.5 and 2% of their annual income to science, technology, and innovation programs.
The amount contributed depends on the type of company — two per cent for hydrocarbon operations, one per cent for mining and electricity firms and 0.5 per cent for other sectors.
Funds may go toward science and technology programmes at universities, research centres and public or private institutions. Organisations run directly by the Venezuelan Ministry of Science and Technology may benefit as well.
Contributions can also be funnelled through a company’s in-house programmes, if they provide services or goods for science, technology and innovation projects. This includes funding scholarships, patent applications and even training programmes for their own workers.
To date the program has been successful in increasing the amount of funding for science and innovation (from 0.45 per cent of GDP in 2005 to 2.11 this year), but the true measure of success lies in the ability of Venezuela’s scientists to turn this investment into innovative commercial products. Looks like a good time to be a scientist in Venezuela if anyone is looking for a change of scenery!
I wonder what the numbers would look like if this policy were extrapolated to the US?
Recent Comments