MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2009445213 · doi:10.1002/bmb.2005.494033032474

Commentary: The biotechnology landscape: I. The U. S. Biotechnology centers

2005· article· en· W2009445213 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Stephen Dahms

Notice bibliographique

RevueBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Education · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBiotechnology and Related Fields
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of North TexasUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of MissouriUniversity of WyomingWashington State UniversityUniversity of PittsburghWake Forest UniversityWeizmann Institute of ScienceUniversity of RochesterCollege of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of Texas at San AntonioSan Diego State UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of MiamiUtah State UniversityUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
Mots-clésBiotechnologyIntellectual propertyNot for profitPolitical scienceManagementPublic relationsBiologyLawEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,095
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,097

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,053
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,011
Communication savante0,0070,012
Science ouverte0,0080,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0950,084
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,007

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBiochemistry and Molecular Biology EducationMême sujetBiotechnology and Related FieldsTravaux en français237 207