Commentary: The biotechnology landscape: I. The U. S. Biotechnology centers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This is the first of six articles that provides for the academic molecular life scientist a glimpse of the biotechnology landscape in the North and South America, the European Union, and the Far East. Each article will focus on various organizations and their national and regional roles in the dynamic interface that exists between academia and industry. All of these organizations have interests and involvement in education, research training, training, and workforce development. This article focuses upon the U. S. biotechnology centers that are clustered under the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)1 in a body called the Council of Biotechnology Centers. The U. S. Council of Biotechnology Centers (CBC) was organized in 1988 under what was then called the Association of Biotechnology Centers (ABC). At that time the ABC represented largely the small and emerging biotechnology companies, in particular the 400+ privately held and NASDAQ listed companies (most of which were research boutiques with large burn rates), in essence conducting basic research and developing products but not making a profit. The CBC was then comprised of about 60 members, academically based centers officially designated as biotechnology centers, biotechnology research parks, biotechnology incubators, and technology transfer operations of universities and research institutes. All of these entities were, by the designated nature of the CBC, non-profit organizations committed to biotechnology research and development and ultimately the movement of intellectual property to the commercial sector. The CBC under the ABC also served as the academic arm of the ABC, which also addressed academic biotechnology education issues on the ABC Education Committee. The other side of the U. S. biotechnology industrial coin was provided by another organization, the Industrial Biotechnology Association, which in contrast to the ABC was composed of the profitable large companies including companies such as Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Merck, Parke-Davis, etc. Importantly, in 1993, the Industrial Biotechnology Association and ABC merged to form the BIO, whose leadership was then turned over to the extremely talented Washington, D. C., Beltway player, Carl C. Feldbaum. It was during this merge of the two corporate entities that the CBC was carried over into BIO as the CBC/BIO. Since that time the CBC/BIO has represented the academic arm of biotechnology on a national level in the U. S. Its raison d'etre has been 2-fold: serving as 1) a representative body capturing the earliest stages of the innovation, ingenuity and creativity cycle involving technology transfer, translational research, pre-commercialization, university-based business incubation, etc., and 2) as the official agent under BIO addressing national biotechnology workforce development and education matters from the community college level up into the graduate and post-graduate levels. Currently, there are more than 120 members of the CBC/BIO (Table I). The membership is 80% U. S.- and Canadian-based and 20% international. 50% of the members are university-based research centers or institutes, 20% are university- or institute-based technology transfer operations, 10% are biotechnology research parks, 10% are economic development agencies, and 10% are university or college biotechnology education and training programs. In 2001, 95% of all U. S. centers labeled as biotechnology centers were members of the CBC/BIO. Since 1993, the CBC/BIO has maintained all of BIO's higher educational and training activities, involving the U. S. Department of Labor, the U. S. Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Science Foundation, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the Government Accounting Office, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, and various House and Senate committees. It has studied the best practices in biotechnology workforce development in the U. S. biotechnology clusters, the effects of mergers and acquisitions upon the workforce, the role of foreign nationals in the industry, the need for new Standard Occupational Classification Codes, and other aspects of the education and workforce development engine. The CBC/BIO is now involved in creating the first validated workforce assessment survey instrument, designed to meet a long standing critical need of the federal agencies and universities and colleges regarding the distribution of resources for biotechnology education and training. Importantly, on the research side of the CBC/BIO, in 2003 the CBC/BIO member institutions in the U. S. accounted for more than 30% of the $13 billion extramural research budget. Additionally, in 2004, with regard to all sciences and technologies (not just biotechnology), CBC/BIO member institutions produced more than 35% of all the following: invention disclosures, university/research institute patents applied for, patents issued to universities/research institutes, licensing income produced by universities/research institutes, and companies spun out by universities and research institutes. The CBC/BIO has also held two international conferences, one in Munich and another in Brussels, involving the U. S. and European Union/UK biotechnology centers and their multiple research, education, technology transfer, and related activities. In summary, the CBC/BIO has represented the academic arm of biotechnology in the world's largest biotechnology interest group/trade organization. Its members represent institutions at the cutting education of biotechnology education and research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».