Commentary: The biotechnology landscape: I. The U. S. Biotechnology centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".