For every $100 million of funding, NIH-supported research generates 76 patents. These patents create opportunities for an estimated $598 million in further research and development.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
That's the problem. Way too many created opportunities and zero results equals deserved cuts. They need to find a new line of work like becoming an influencer on youtube.
None. The money provided in existing grants isn’t returned because it has already been spent on costs so far. Even if it were returned to the treasury the money is spent elsewhere (such as tax cuts for the rich). Average American taxpayers won’t have their taxes reduced as a result of these cuts.
I am a patent attorney and regularly work with inventors doing research supported by NIH grants. Those grants are critical to getting projects off the ground and to the stage where industry partners can take the inventions into commercial development. A lot of downstream economic activity.
Each of the patents likely will be licensed or result in spin off companies that attract private investment, creating tens of thousands of jobs that generate economic growth. The biotech industry in US will just die without nih fund and move elsewhere.
I went to NIH for a 2nd opinion with the loss of vision in my left eye. I received a more detailed analysis of how my vision was affected at a time when my provider at the time didn’t offer 2nd opinions. When I had breast cancer I was able to participate in a clinical trial that provided more
targeted treatment with fewer sessions that ultimately saved lives at a lower cost for health care. I have a different cancer now that may require me to be in a clinical trial because this time my cancer is very very rare. I may die if traditional treatment ultimately doesn’t work.
I first used this when I called the Texass Dept. Of Health and think it can be used when calling any GOP in Congress: "So, have you set your quota for how many people you will kill yet?" I am not joking.
Depends on how and where the patent was filed. Usually the inventor is the owner, but what if they didn’t file the patent? Then no. Sometimes another entity is included, like if a grad student at a uni files a patent often the uni owns it in part. NIH funding is from taxpayers, we own our research.
Patent attorney here. Inventors own patent rights in the U.S., until they assign the rights (typically) to their employer. Unless an inventor is a government employee or has some other obligation to assign to the government, it does not own the patent. But government gets a royalty free license.
So the Govt could, if it wished, specify that any patents created as a result of a research grant should be transferred to the government? Would that work in practice?
The inventors or their assignees would have to be compensated for the transfer. The 5th Amendment requires fair compensation to take private property for public use. I think this would be difficult to implement and would likely result in the inventions never being commercialized.
Comments
Clearly there are no competent Legislative Republicans to educate him or heaven forbid, challenge him - all ignorant fools or cowards
Well, yup. People voted for stupid, so stupid is what they will get.
They're only interested in revenge for imagined slights.