DOCSLIB.ORG

Pursuit of Profit Poisons Collaboration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pursuit of Profit Poisons Collaboration digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Other Publications 2016 Pursuit of Profit oiP sons Collaboration Jacob S. Sherkow New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Nature, vol. 532, pp. 172-173 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. COMMENT dozen more in the subsequent 12 months. Meanwhile, the application made by Doudna and her colleagues languished. Last April, Doudna’s lawyers requested that the USPTO conduct a specialized legal trial, known as a patent interference, to determine the ownership of the US patents that cover the CRISPR–Cas9 system. This January, the FROM HONG LI/GETTY ADAPTED USPTO formally agreed to carry out the pro- ceeding. One conspicuous aspect of this case, in my opinion, is the degree to which UC Berkeley and the Broad Institute have weighed in on what is essentially a dispute over scientific priority. The Broad Institute has produced press releases, videos and a slick feature on its website that stress the importance of Zhang’s contributions to the development of the CRISPR–Cas9 technology. And earlier this year, the central positioning of Zhang’s work in a historical perspective of CRISPR pub- lished in Cell2 by the president and director of the Broad Institute, Eric Lander, prompted a storm of angry responses from scientists, including Doudna and Charpentier. Mean- while, at UC Berkeley, a press release that discussed the potential of CRISPR described Doudna as “the inventor of the CRISPR–Cas9 technology” (see go.nature.com/cm2gvx). The financial stakes are high. The CRISPR–Cas9 patents are widely viewed to be worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. Both organizations have invested directly in spin-off companies that were co- founded by their researchers — the Broad Pursuit of profit Institute in Editas Medicine, co-founded by Zhang, and UC Berkeley in Caribou Bio- sciences, co-founded by Doudna. A report poisons collaboration submitted by Editas in January to the US Securities and Exchange Commission lists The CRISPR–Cas9 patent battle demonstrates how the Broad Institute and other Harvard-affil- iated institutions as owning a major equity overzealous efforts to commercialize technology can stake in the company: about 4.2% of its com- damage science, writes Jacob S. Sherkow. mon shares (see go.nature.com/45c1ey). DIFFERENT TIMES ast month, in an extraordinary dispute involvement in the commercialization Efforts to commercialize the research output before the US Patent and Trademark of research1, it is worth considering the from universities played out differently in Office (USPTO), university lawyers potential consequences for science if more the past. Since 1980, US universities have Llaid out their clients’ legal strategies for institutions follow the path of UC Berkeley been able to patent the inventions of their claiming patents that cover the celebrated and the Broad Institute. researchers, thanks to the Bayh–Dole Act — gene-editing technology CRISPR–Cas9. legislation that determines the ownership of Over the next year, the USPTO will receive HIGH STAKES intellectual property arising from federally volumes of evidence centred on who first In May 2012, researchers at UC Berkeley, funded research. But for the most part, insti- invented the technology. led by Jennifer Doudna and her collabora- tutions have kept their Battles over scientific priority are as old as tor, Emmanuelle Charpentier (then located distance from disputes science itself. But the CRISPR–Cas9 patent at the University of Vienna in Austria) filed over scientific priority. dispute is unusual because it pits two lead- a patent application in the United States for In fact, after factoring ing research institutions against one another CRISPR–Cas9. Seven months later, Feng in the costs of filing for the control and industrial development Zhang, a researcher at the Broad Institute, patents and staffing, of a foundational technology: the University filed a competing application that covered NATURE.COM university technology- of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), and similar uses of the technology. After Zhang’s For more of Nature’s transfer offices have the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in lawyers requested that his application be coverage on generally been money Cambridge, Massachusetts. fast-tracked, the USPTO awarded one pat- CRISPR, see: losers for their institu- As scientific institutions increase their ent to Zhang in April 2014, followed by a nature.com/crispr tions3. 172 | NATURE | VOL 532 | 14 APRIL 2016 © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved COMMENT Even in the case of lucrative patents, commercial development has frequently been left to venture capitalists and the researchers themselves. Take the Cohen–Boyer patents, which covered early gene-splicing technology and netted Stanford University and the Uni- versity of California, San Francisco (UCSF), both in California, hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing fees during the 1980s and 1990s. In this instance, Genentech, the company in South San Francisco, California, that was formed to commercialize the under- lying technology, sprung from the efforts of Herbert Boyer, one of the founding research- ers, and the financier Robert Swanson. The L: RICK FRIEDMAN/CORBIS; R: JOHN ELK III/LONELY PLANET/GETTY L: RICK FRIEDMAN/CORBIS; R: JOHN ELK III/LONELY company was neither owned by, nor an exclu- sive licensee of, Stanford or UCSF. Research institutions in general are start- ing to play a bigger part in shepherding their researchers’ projects through the commer- cialization process. A 2014 report from the Association of University Technology Manag- The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (left) and the University of California, Berkeley (right). ers in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois — an organi- zation that supports managers of intellectual its state funding cut by $48 million in 2012 Doudna were both co-founders of Editas. property at academic research institutions, — holds a substantial number of patents that And UC Berkeley and the Broad Institute non-profit organizations and government have not yet been licensed and has a famously could have filed patent applications that listed agencies worldwide — documented that low ratio of patent-licence revenue to research the research teams from both institutions as universities are increasing equity investments expenditure7. If its financial situation were to co-inventors. Any resulting patents could in their researchers’ start-up companies. Of deteriorate further, the university might be then have been freely or cheaply licensed to the patent licences granted by universities compelled to extract licence fees from other other research institutions, or used to fund in 2014, 10% were tied to such investments1, research institutions for those patents. a joint academic organization dedicated to compared with 6.7% in 1999 (ref. 4). studying the technology. The patents could I am concerned that such involvement in PATH TO PROFIT also have been widely, but not exclusively, commercialization has the potential to clash It would be wrong to suggest that patents, writ licensed to a variety of industry competitors with the broader, educational mission of large, are failing educational research institu- — promoting a robust, competitive market research institutions. tions. In the cases of gene splicing, RNA inter- for commercial CRISPR–Cas9 applications Universities worldwide have long strived ference and human embryonic stem cells, and creating a funding stream for further to foster a culture of scientific collaboration. patents have been major earners for institu- academic research. Even when universities have obtained broad tions and researchers Biomedical research in educational insti- patents, as the Carnegie Institute of Wash- without damaging the “Efforts to tutions has long prided itself on a culture of ington in Washington DC did in the early scientific enterprise5. commercialize openness and sharing — one that both Zhang 2000s for a gene-expression control technol- But an obvious the research and Doudna have exercised by donating vari- ogy known as RNA interference, licences danger of increasing output from ous components of the CRISPR–Cas9 system have been cheap and easy for researchers to the focus on commer- universities to the open-science consortium Addgene in obtain5. In other cases, scientists have sim- cialization is that edu- played out Cambridge, Massachusetts. The incentives ply ignored patents that cover fundamental cational institutions differently in that patents create for educational institu- technologies6. will view scientific the past.” tions should not be allowed to erode scientific Academic research institutions now seem research as a path to collaboration. ■ less shy about taking each other to court for profit, above all else. It is not hard to imagine patent infringement. In 2011, the Univer- that patent disputes might lead to university Jacob S. Sherkow is associate professor sity of Utah in Salt Lake City sued the Max administrators pushing certain views on their of law, Innovation Center for Law and Planck Society for the Advancement of Sci- scientists, denigrating collaboration with Technology,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • And Should Not, Change Toxic Tort Causation Doctrine
    THE MORE WE KNOW, THE LESS INTELLIGENT WE ARE? - HOW GENOMIC INFORMATION SHOULD, AND SHOULD NOT, CHANGE TOXIC TORT CAUSATION DOCTRINE Steve C. Gold* Advances in genomic science are rapidly increasing our understanding of dis- ease and toxicity at the most fundamental biological level. Some say this heralds a new era of certainty in linking toxic substances to human illness in the courtroom. Others are skeptical. In this Article I argue that the new sciences of molecular epidemiology and toxicogenomics will evince both remarkable explanatory power and intractable complexity. Therefore, even when these sciences are brought to bear, toxic tort claims will continue to present their familiar jurisprudential problems. Nevertheless, as genomic information is used in toxic tort cases, the sci- entific developments will offer courts an opportunity to correct mistakes of the past. Courts will miss those opportunities, however, if they simply transfer attitudesfrom classical epidemiology and toxicology to molecular and genomic knowledge. Using the possible link between trichloroethyleneand a type of kidney cancer as an exam- ple, I describe several causation issues where courts can, if they choose, improve doctrine by properly understanding and utilizing genomic information. L Introduction ............................................... 370 II. Causation in Toxic Torts Before Genomics ................... 371 A. The Problem .......................................... 371 B. Classical Sources of Causation Evidence ................ 372 C. The Courts Embrace Epidemiology - Perhaps Too Tightly ................................................ 374 D. Evidence Meets Substance: Keepers of the Gate ......... 379 E. The Opposing Tendency ................................ 382 III. Genomics, Toxicogenomics, and Molecular Epidemiology: The M ore We Know ........................................ 383 A. Genetic Variability and "Background" Risk .............. 384 B. Genetic Variability and Exposure Risk ................... 389 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Dean, School of Science
    Dean, School of Science School of Science faculty members seek to answer fundamental questions about nature ranging in scope from the microscopic—where a neuroscientist might isolate the electrical activity of a single neuron—to the telescopic—where an astrophysicist might scan hundreds of thousands of stars to find Earth-like planets in their orbits. Their research will bring us a better understanding of the nature of our universe, and will help us address major challenges to improving and sustaining our quality of life, such as developing viable resources of renewable energy or unravelling the complex mechanics of Alzheimer’s and other diseases of the aging brain. These profound and important questions often require collaborations across departments or schools. At the School of Science, such boundaries do not prevent people from working together; our faculty cross such boundaries as easily as they walk across the invisible boundary between one building and another in our campus’s interconnected buildings. Collaborations across School and department lines are facilitated by affiliations with MIT’s numerous laboratories, centers, and institutes, such as the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, as well as through participation in interdisciplinary initiatives, such as the Aging Brain Initiative or the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite. Our faculty’s commitment to teaching and mentorship, like their research, is not constrained by lines between schools or departments. School of Science faculty teach General Institute Requirement subjects in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics that provide the conceptual foundation of every undergraduate student’s education at MIT. The School faculty solidify cross-disciplinary connections through participation in graduate programs established in collaboration with School of Engineering, such as the programs in biophysics, microbiology, or molecular and cellular neuroscience.
    [Show full text]
  • Precision Medicine Initiative: Building a Large US Research Cohort
    Precision Medicine Initiative: Building a Large U.S. Research Cohort February 11-12, 2015 PARTICIPANT LIST Goncalo Abecasis, D. Phil. Philip Bourne, Ph.D. Professor of Biostatistics Associate Director for Data Science University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Office of the Director National Institutes of Health Christopher Austin, M.D. Director Murray Brilliant, Ph.D. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Director National Institutes of Health Center for Human Genetics Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation Vikram Bajaj, Ph.D. Chief Scientist Greg Burke, M.D., M.Sc. Google Life Sciences Professor and Director Wake Forest School of Medicine Dixie Baker, Ph.D. Wake Forest University Senior Partner Martin, Blanck and Associates Antonia Calafat, Ph.D. Chief Dana Boyd Barr, Ph.D. Organic Analytical Toxicology Branch Professor, Exposure Science and Environmental Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Rollins School of Public Health Emory University Robert Califf, M.D. Vice Chancellor for Clinical and Translational Research Jonathan Bingham, M.B.A. Duke University Medical Center Product Manager, Genomics Google, Inc. Rex Chisholm, Ph.D. Adam and Richard T. Lind Professor of Medical Eric Boerwinkle, Ph.D. Genetics Professor and Chair Vice Dean for Scientific Affairs and Graduate Studies Human Genetics Center Associate Vice President for Research University of Texas Health Science Center Northwestern University Associate Director Human Genome Sequencing Center Rick Cnossen, M.S. Baylor College of Medicine Director Global Healthcare Solutions Erwin Bottinger, M.D. HIMSS Board of Directors Professor PCHA/Continua Health Alliance Board of Directors The Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Intel Corporation Medicine Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai - 1 - Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Count Down: Six Kids Vie for Glory at the World's Toughest Math
    Count Down Six Kids Vie for Glory | at the World's TOUGHEST MATH COMPETITION STEVE OLSON author of MAPPING HUMAN HISTORY, National Book Award finalist $Z4- 00 ACH SUMMER SIX MATH WHIZZES selected from nearly a half million EAmerican teens compete against the world's best problem solvers at the Interna• tional Mathematical Olympiad. Steve Olson, whose Mapping Human History was a Na• tional Book Award finalist, follows the members of a U.S. team from their intense tryouts to the Olympiad's nail-biting final rounds to discover not only what drives these extraordinary kids but what makes them both unique and typical. In the process he provides fascinating insights into the creative process, human intelligence and learning, and the nature of genius. Brilliant, but defying all the math-nerd stereotypes, these athletes of the mind want to excel at whatever piques their cu• riosity, and they are curious about almost everything — music, games, politics, sports, literature. One team member is ardent about water polo and creative writing. An• other plays four musical instruments. For fun and entertainment during breaks, the Olympians invent games of mind-boggling difficulty. Though driven by the glory of winning this ultimate math contest, in many ways these kids are not so different from other teenagers, finding pure joy in indulging their personal passions. Beyond the Olympiad, Steve Olson sheds light on such questions as why Americans feel so queasy about math, why so few girls compete in the subject, and whether or not talent is innate. Inside the cavernous gym where the competition takes place, Count Down reveals a fascinating subculture and its engaging, driven inhabitants.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Melvin I. Simon
    MELVIN I. SIMON (b. 1937) INTERVIEWED BY SHIRLEY K. COHEN May 24 and June 5, 2005 Melvin I. Simon ARCHIVES CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Pasadena, California Subject area Biology Abstract Interview in two sessions, May 24 and June 5, 2005, with Melvin I. Simon, Anne P. and Benjamin F. Biaggini Professor of Biological Sciences, emeritus, in the Division of Biology. Dr. Simon received his BS from City College of New York in 1959 and his PhD in biochemistry from Brandeis in 1963. After receiving his degree, he was a postdoctoral fellow with Arthur Pardee at Princeton for a year and a half and then joined the faculty of the University of California at San Diego. In 1978, Dr. Simon and his UCSD colleague John Abelson established the Agouron Institute in San Diego, focusing on problems in molecular biology. He (along with Abelson) joined the faculty of Caltech as a full professor in 1982, and he served as chair of the Biology Division from 1995 to 2000. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Simon_M In this interview, he discusses his education in Manhattan’s Yeshiva High School (where science courses were taught by teachers from the Bronx High School of Science), at CCNY, and as a Brandeis graduate student working working with Helen Van Vunakis on bacteriophage. Recalls his unsatisfactory postdoc experience at Princeton and his delight at arriving at UC San Diego, where molecular biology was just getting started. Discusses his work on bacterial organelles; recalls his and Abelson’s vain efforts to get UCSD to back a full-scale initiative in molecular biology and their subsequent founding of their own institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston, Cambridge Are Ground Zero for Life Sciences
    OPINION | JUAN ENRIQUEZ Boston, Cambridge are ground zero for life sciences BOYDEN PHOTO BY DOMINICK REUTER; LINDQUIST BY JOHN SOARES/WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE; GLOBE STAFF PHOTOS Top row: Robert Langer, Jack Szostak, and George Church. Bottom: Susan Lindquist and Edward S. Boyden. MARCH 16, 2015 BOSTON­CAMBRIDGE is ground zero for the development and deployment of many of the bleeding edge life science discoveries and technologies. One corner alone, Vassar and Main Street in Cambridge, will likely generate 1 to 2 percent of the future world GDP. On a per capitSah baraesis, nowhere else coTmweese tclose in terms o3f Creomsemaerncths grants, patents, and publications that drive new gene code, which in turn alters the evolution of bacteria, plants, animals, and ourselves. CONTINUE READING BELOW ▼ At MIT, Bob Langer is generating the equivalent of a small country’s economy out of a single lab; his more than 1,080 patents have helped launch or enabled more than 300 pharma, chemical, biotech, and medical device companies. At Harvard, George Whitesides’ 12 companies have generated a market capitalization of over $20 billion. Harvard Med’s resident genius­enfant terrible, George Church, is the brains behind dozens and dozens of successful startups. (All this of course in addition to these folks being at the very top of their academic fields). In terms of the most basic questions about life itself, Ting Wu takes billions of lines of gene code across all organisms and meticulously compares each and every gene, looking for highly conserved gene code. She is narrowing in on exactly what DNA sequences are essential to all life forms, from bacteria through plants, animals, and even politicians.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy
    REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL: PROTECTING SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY Executive Office of the President President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology JULY 2011 REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL: PROTECTING SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY Executive Office of the President President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology JULY 2011 About the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and tech­ nology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies. PCAST is consulted about and often makes policy recommendations concerning the full range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation may bear on the policy choices before the President. PCAST is administered by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). For more information about PCAST, see www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Co-Chairs John P. Holdren Eric Lander Assistant to the President for President Science and Technology Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Vice-Chairs William Press Maxine Savitz Raymer Professor in Computer Science and Vice President Integrative Biology National Academy of Engineering University of Texas at Austin Members Rosina Bierbaum Shirley Ann Jackson Dean, School of Natural Resources and President Environment Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of Michigan Richard C.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Cross-Disciplinary Cycles in Co-Authorship Graphs
    How small is the center of science? Short cross-disciplinary cycles in co-authorship graphs Chris Fields 528 Zinnia Court Sonoma, CA 95476 USA fi[email protected] October 17, 2014 Abstract Cycles that cross two or more boundaries between disciplines in the co-authorship graph for all of science are used to set upper limits on the number of co-authored pa- pers required to cross 15 disciplines or subdisciplines ranging from macroeconomics to neurology. The upper limits obtained range from one (discrete mathematics, macroe- conomics and nuclear physics) to six (neuroscience). The 15 disciplines or subdis- ciplines examined form a “small world” with an average separation of only 2.0 co- authorship links. It is conjectured that the high-productivity, high average degree centers of all scientific disciplines form a small world, and therefore that the diameter of the co-authorship graph of all of science is only slightly larger than the average diameter of the co-authorship graphs of its subdisciplines. Keywords: Cross-displinary brokers; Field mobility; Graph centrality; Graph diameter; Nobel laureates; Preferential attachment; Small-world networks 1 Introduction Numerous studies have now confirmed the finding of Newman (2001, 2004) that the co- authorship graphs of many scientific disciplines can be characterized as “small worlds” comprising many dense clusters of researchers separated by relatively short (mean length 1 l ≤ 10) minimum paths (reviewed by Mali, Kronegger, Doreian and Ferligoj, 2012). Despite over two decades of efforts to make the world of science as a whole more interconnected by encouraging inter-, multi- or trans-disciplinary collaborations, however, the research enterprise remains organized into disciplines (Jacobs and Frickel, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Eric S. Lander
    Chancellor's Distinguished Fellows Program 2004-2005 Selective Bibliography UC Irvine Libraries Eric S. Lander February 25, 2005 Prepared by: John E. Sisson Biological Sciences Librarian [email protected] Journal Articles (Selected from over 220 articles he has authored or co-authored) Poirier, C., Y. J. Qin, C.P. Adams, Y. Anaya, J. B. Singer, A. E. Hill, Eric S. Lander, J.H. Nadeau, and C. E. Bishop. "A complex interaction of imprinted and maternal-effect genes modifies sex determination in odd sex (Ods) mice." Genetics 168, no. 3 (2004): 1557-1562. Skuse, D. H., S. Purcell, M. J. Daly, R. J. Dolan, J. S. Morris, K. Lawrence, Eric S. Lander, and P. Sklar. "What can studies on Turner syndrome tell us about the role of X- linked genes in social cognition?." American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B- Neuropsychiatric Genetics 130B, no. 1 (2004): 8-9. Rioux, J. D., H. Karinen, K. Kocher, S. G. McMahon, P. Karkkainen, E. Janatuinen, M. Heikkinen, R. Julkunen, J. Pihlajamaki, A. Naukkarinen, V. M. Kosma, M. J. Daly, Eric S. Lander, and M. Laakso. "Genomewide search and association studies in a Finnish celiac disease population: Identification of a novel locus and replication of the HLA and CTLA4 loci." American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 130A, no. 4 (2004): 345- 350. Michalkiewicz, M., T. Michalkiewicz, R. A. Ettinger, E. A. Rutledge, J. M. Fuller, D. H. Moralejo, B. Van Yserloo, A. J. MacMurray, A. E. Kwitek, H. J. Jacob, Eric S. Lander, and A. Lernmark. "Transgenic rescue demonstrates involvement of the Ian5 gene in T cell development in the rat." Physiological Genomics 19, no.
    [Show full text]
  • Whitehead Institute, Pfizer and MIT: the Innovation Intersection In
    b (/) Vassar and Main: the world's most innovative intersection MAGAZINE (/MAGAZINE) / 02 NOVEMBER 15 / by JUAN ENRIQUEZ (/SEARCH/AUTHOR/JUAN+ENRIQUEZ) 137 shares ! " # $ % & 0 comments This article was first published in the November 2015 issue of WIRED magazine. Be the first to read WIRED's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online (http://www.wired.co.uk /subscriptions?utm_source=wired&utm_medium=Editorial& utm_campaign=article00&utm_source=wired& utm_medium=Editorial&utm_campaign=Editorial& utm_source=wired&utm_medium=Editorial& utm_campaign=Editorial). If one had to pick a single corner, anywhere on the planet, as the U most innovative and productive crossroads in history, the Juan Enriquez is managing director of Excel Venture Management. He intersection of Vassar Street and Main Street, in the new world's also co-wrote 'Evolving Ourselves' (Oneworld) Cambridge, Massachusetts, would be a leading candidate. A couple of decades ago, much of the area was a ragtag collection of warehouses, parking lots and old barracks. Now this one corner may generate one per cent to two per cent of the future global economy (http://www.wired.co.uk/economy) and may be a model for creating jobs, (http://www.wired.co.uk/jobs) knowledge and power in other cities. Begin a short tour with the corner's dumpiest building, a thin, seven-storey sliver of dark brown with a mediocre plaza in front, the Whitehead Institute (http://wi.mit.edu/). Most of the seventeen core faculty don't teach much, but during the first decade of this century, their research had the greatest citation impact among the world's top 15 life-science and genetics departments.
    [Show full text]
  • NOVA[R] Spring 2001 Teacher's Guide
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 466 952 SE 065 999 TITLE NOVA[R] Spring 2001 Teacher's Guide. INSTITUTION WGBH-TV, Boston, MA. PUB DATE 2001-00-00 NOTE 55p.; Funded by Northwestern Mutual Financial Network, Park Foundation, and Sprint PCS. AVAILABLE FROM WGBH Educational Foundation, NOVA Teacher's Guide, 125 Western Avenue, Boston, MA 02134. Web site: http://www.pbs.org/nova/teachers/guidesubscribe.html. PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Teacher (052) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Archaeology; Elementary Secondary Education;-*Genetics; Medicine; *Science Activities; *Science Instruction; Science Interests; Teaching Guides IDENTIFIERS NOVA (Television Series) ABSTRACT This teacher's guide is designed to accompany the PBS television program "NOVA" and features six activities. "Sultan's Lost Treasure" presents the attempts of an archaeologist and his team to salvage an ancient ship wreck. "Vanished!" investigates what happened to the Stardust airliner in 1947 which disappeared during a flight. "Lost King of the Maya" explores a Mayan burial site. "Survivor MD" explains the progress of medical students becoming doctors. "Cracking the Code of Life" discusses the human genome. "Genetically Modified Foods" presents debates on genetically engineered foods. (YDS) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. n NOVA Spring 2001 Teacher's Guide U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRANTED BY o This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization S. Latimore originating it. o Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Scientific Advisors Meeting Minutes of June 23-24, 2008
    NCIDEA: Board of Scientific Advisors Meeting Minutes of June 23-24, 2008 Site map Division of Extramural Activities Contact us Home | Funding | Advisory | NCI Research Priorities | Funded Awards | Research Resources | Events | NCI News Board of Scientific Advisors Meeting Minutes June 23-24, 2008 Building 31C, Conference Room 10 Bethesda, Maryland Quick Links The Board of Scientific Advisors (BSA), National Cancer Institute Members (NCI), convened for its 40th meeting on Monday, 23 June 2008, at Agenda & Future Meetings 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room 10, Building 31C, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD. Dr. Robert C. Young, Meeting Minutes Chancellor, Fox Chase Cancer Center, presided as Chair. The BSA: Page 1 meeting was open to the public from 8:00 a.m. until 5:55 p.m. on 23 June for the NCI Director's report; report on NCI Congressional relations; ongoing and new business; recognition of departing members; a status report on nanotechnology; a report on linked investigator research in cancer biology; and consideration of request for applications (RFA) new and reissuance concepts and request for proposal (RFP) reissuance concepts presented by NCI Program staff. The meeting was open to the public from 8:30 a.m. on 24 June until adjournment at 11:40 a.m. for reports on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Integrative Cancer Biology Program (ICBP). Board Members Present: Board Members Present: Dr. Robert C. Young (Chair) Dr. Edith A. Perez Dr. Paul M. Allen Dr. Richard L. Schilsk1y Dr. Christine Ambrosone Dr. Robert D. Schreiber Dr. Hoda Anton-Culver Dr. Stuart L.
    [Show full text]