<p>NJ_mother, that's a good point. However, there's also the fact that universities often hire "professors," who teach 1 class a semester at most and devote the rest of their time to research. Plus they have very high-tech facilities that are rivaled by few outside laboratories.</p>
<p>An example of a public good developed by universities would be the internet.</p>
<p>CollectivSynergy, internet was developed through a DARPA grant from DoD. Not through endowment money. If professors teach more than 1 class per semester, research suffers. There's more to teaching than just the face time in the lecture hall. I myself spend about 6 hours preparing each 1 1/2 hour lecture in immunology I deliver, to be sure I am giving students the best presentation on the most current information. I could not lecture full-time and fulfill my grants. Not to brag, but I'm a sort of known cancer researcher designing experimental drugs for cancer. Lecture or cure cancer? My husband runs a lab course twice a year; it really cuts down on his research time and his chair slams him for it, yet teaching is his primary function (mine is research, as spelled out in our offer letters). State of the art labs get that way through extra-mural grants from agencies like the NIH, DoD, etc. Not usually through endowment funds!!</p>
<p>I wish you could visit my state medical school, where the bathrooms resemble those in bus depots (cleanliness), the elevators don't work about 40% of the time, the air conditioning system is primitive (ruins our equipment and experiments). For this we pay a 56% overhead off our grants. That is, for every $10,000 in Federal grant money we receive, the university receives $5,600 to pay for "infrastructure." Yet our state U has a "foundation" worth 10s of millions of bucks. Why isn't some of the money plowed back to make repairs to our 40 year old building? I'd love the IRS to come and force them to invest in our infrastructure!</p>
<p>NJ_mother,</p>
<p>Can you (or anyone else) clarify something for me? If federal dollars are used to fund a grant for curing cancer, wouldn't that make the government the owner of any cures/patents that resulted from the grant? If the govt were to require those receiving grants to pay for their own infrastructure, i.e., to jointly fund the research, could the academy claim partial ownership of the cures/patents?</p>
<p>The Feds decided long ago that all patents, etc developed using Fed Funds are the property of the school. Many schools share it with the researcher. It was to encourage further development of such discoveries as the Feds are not in that business and eventualy benefit through taxes, etc.</p>
<p>Standrews, yes, the patents resulting from Federally-funded grants may be filed; the Federal government allows us to do so. The Constitution established the patent office to make discoveries profitable. I do it through my university patent office (not privately through a patent attorney) and my university sells the technology to interested parties, such as drug companies. I'm the inventor, but the university is the patent holder.<br>
I don't know how or when the system of overhead charges to the Federal government got started (certainly it's been around for a long time; I recall discussion of it when I was in college) but the logic is this: grants fund the research at universities, and universities supply the physical space, electric light, heat, air conditioning, elevators, bathrooms, photcopying machines, secretarial staff, and much more so universities need to be reimbursed for what they shell out. Our rate of 56% is actually pretty low; there are places were the rate is over 100%: meaning every $10,000 in grant funds brings in at least $10,000 in overhead funds to the university or research foundation.</p>
<p>Barrons posted when I did and is correct. My university may choose to share any revenues with me, in fact, the revenue sharing plan is in our contract.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering the degree to which the universities can potentially benefit from federally funded research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering the degree to which the universities can potentially benefit from federally funded research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ask Emory University. I think they just sold a drug patent for 4 billion, yes, billion with a b, dollars. The bigger question is whether some of these institutions are primarily schools or pharmaceutical R&D companies.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, can you post a link or PM me with one?<br>
We are encouraged to do research that benefits the common good, but we are not manufacturers or have sales reps, hence the reason to sell technology to pharma. My real research interest is more theoretical, but a lot of taxpayers would ask why their tax dollars go to fund what genes are active in cancer rather than what kills cancer. Wouldn't want to be in the running for a Golden Fleece award.</p>
<p>And if the colleges weren't developing promising new drugs, you'd all be shrieking about big pharma charging too much to recoup their R&D expenses...</p>
<p>It's always easier when it comes out of someone else's pocket, no?</p>
<p>Emory got $540 Million. Still lots of $$$$. Others have done likewise</p>
<p>The</a> Daily Northwestern - Drug money: Making sense of NU's biggest deal</p>
<p>Big pharma does develop/discover/invent new drugs independently of the U's (I used to work for Big Pharma before I came to academe). Most anti-cancer regimens around today (drug ones) were developed by both academics and companies (Gleevec, for example). Pharma is sometimes better at exploiting the basic discovery and making a product out of it.</p>
<p>Thanks for that link, Barrons. If only! I'm waiting for the US Patent Office to issue the patent on my latest filing, and our patent office has been trying to peddle it for a while. No takers but then our patent office is a bit lame. Understaffed, overworked. Guess we should charge 57% overhead?</p>
<p>The legislation that allow U's to patent Federally-funded inventions is the Bayh-Dole act: The</a> Bayh-Dole Act</p>
<p>If anyone knows a millionaire looking to invest money in a future anti-cancer therapy, send the person my way please.</p>
<p>You should be working at the UW. WARF is the one of the big mean dogs for patents and such. They are independent so they can pay enough to hire the best people. They just took California to school over their stem cell patents.</p>
<p>Remaining</a> WARF stem cell patents upheld - East Bay Business Times:</p>