Engineering at San Jose State University, Spring 2015

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/engr_news/1013/thumbnail.jp

Engineering at San Jose State University, Winter 2014

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/engr_news/1012/thumbnail.jp

The Workforce Needs of New Jersey's Pharmaceutical and Medical Technology Industry

This report is based on an online survey conducted in spring 2006 of pharmaceutical and medical technology companies in New Jersey. It identifies the current and future workforce needs of the pharmaceutical and medical technology industry in New Jersey

Organising for Effective Academic Entrepreneurship

The contribution has three parts. In the first part the concept of academic entrepreneurship is explained, defined and put into the context of the entrepreneurial university. In the second part four cases are described: - (1) The Nikos case at the University of Twente: In Nikos teaching, research and spin-off activities are combined into one research institute. - (2) The NICENT case at the University of Ulster: NICENT is set up under the Science and Enterprise Centre activities in the UK. It focuses on education and training of students (undergraduates, graduates and post-graduates) and the stimulation of academic entrepreneurship in the academic constituency. - (3) The S-CIO case at Saxion Universities for Applied Sciences: In 2004 Saxion set up this Centre to have a one-stop shop for all entrepreneurial activities at the University. - (4) The Chair in Technological Entrepreneurship at Tshwane University: The focus of the Chair is on education of (under)graduate students in (technological) entrepreneurship and on the stimulation of entrepreneurship in the wider community. Each case has its own specific angle on academic entrepreneurship and in the thrid part the four cases are compared and analysed according to the model presented in the first part. Finally, some conclusions are formulated regarding the organisation of effective academic entrepreneurship

The Price of Progress: Funding and Financing Alzheimer\u27s Disease Drug Development

Introduction Advancing research and treatment for Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD) and the search for effective treatments depend on a complex financial ecosystem involving federal, state, industry, advocacy, venture capital, and philanthropy funding approaches. Methods We conducted an expert review of the literature pertaining to funding and financing of translational research and drug development for AD. Results The federal government is the largest public funder of research in AD. The National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and National Center for Advancing Translational Science all fund aspects of research in AD drug development. Non-National Institutes of Health federal funding comes from the National Science Foundation, Veterans Administration, Food and Drug Administration, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Academic Medical Centers host much of the federally funded basic science research and are increasingly involved in drug development. Funding of the “Valley of Death” involves philanthropy and federal funding through small business programs and private equity from seed capital, angel investors, and venture capital companies. Advocacy groups fund both basic science and clinical trials. The Alzheimer Association is the advocacy organization with the largest research support portfolio relevant to AD drug development. Pharmaceutical companies are the largest supporters of biomedical research worldwide; companies are most interested in late stage de-risked drugs. Drugs progressing into phase II and III are candidates for pharmaceutical industry support through licensing, mergers and acquisitions, and co-development collaborations. Discussion Together, the funding and financing entities involved in supporting AD drug development comprise a complex, interactive, dynamic financial ecosystem. Funding source interaction is largely unstructured and available funding is insufficient to meet all demands for new therapies. Novel approaches to funding such as mega-funds have been proposed and more integration of component parts would assist in accelerating drug development

Dissecting the Workforce and Workplace for Clinical Endocrinology, and the Work of Endocrinologists Early in Their Careers

[Excerpt] No national mechanism is in place for an informed, penetrating, and systematic assessment of the physician workforce such as that achieved by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the periodic evaluation of the nation’s scientists and engineers. Likewise, knowledge of the workforce for clinical research is enigmatic and fragmentary despite the serial recommendations of “blue-ribbon” panels to establish a protocol for the recurrent assessment of clinical investigators early in their careers. Failure to adopt a national system for producing timely, high-quality data on the professional activities of physicians limits the application of improvement tools for advancing clinical investigation and ultimately improving clinical practice. The present study was designed as a pilot project to test the feasibility of using Web-based surveys to estimate the administrative, clinical, didactic, and research work of subspecialty physicians employed in academic, clinical, federal, and pharmaceutical workplaces. Physician members of The Endocrine Society (TES) were used as surrogate prototypes of a subspecialty workforce because of their manageable number and investigative tradition. The results establish that Web-based surveys provide a tool to assess the activities of a decentralized workforce employed in disparate workplaces and underscore the value of focusing on physician work within the context of particular workplaces within a subspecialty. Our report also provides a new and timely snapshot of the amount and types of research performed by clinically trained endocrinologists and offers an evidenced-based framework for improving the investigative workforce in this medical subspecialty

Making a difference in Massachusetts fiscal year 2008: Boston University's economic and social impact sourcebook

This is the archive of an economic and social impact sourcebook for Boston University for fiscal year 2008