Spin-out fever: Spinning out a University of Oxford company and comments on the process in other universities

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Savage
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Technology Transfer Office ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University ◽  
External Equity

University spin-out companies are increasing seen as a favoured route for commercialisation of university intellectual property. There has been criticism in the Lambert Review of Business–University Collaboration in 2003, commissioned by the UK Government in 2003, that there have been too many spin-outs of low quality and that a measure of quality is the amount of external equity they attract. This has been refuted by Dr Williams of the University of Warwick technology transfer office. Oxford University has created 42 companies with no failures. The rigorous process involved in the creation of an Oxford spin-out is given in some detail. The author then goes on to discuss his experiences of other university spin-out models. Finally, some of the tax problems that caused universities across the UK to stop spinning-out companies recently are discussed. In conclusion despite the criticisms, the author believes the process of creating companies to commercialise university R & D is critical to the overall success of UK plc in the long term.

Centre of IT Excellence for SMEs in the West Midlands, UK

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 385-391
Author(s):  
Diana Thompson ◽  
Garry Homer
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
The West ◽  
West Midlands ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University ◽  
European Technology

This paper presents an analysis of the IT Futures Centre, a European technology transfer project based at the University of Wolverhampton in the UK. After reviewing UK government policy in technology transfer, the authors highlight the project's two key elements – a new state-of-the-art building and an IT consultancy team – both of which are dedicated to providing advice, consultancy, training and demonstration facilities for small and medium-sized companies in the West Midlands region of England. The paper addresses the systems and methodology used for delivery and the quantitative data available which indicate the progress companies have made as a result of this intervention. Finally, issues that have arisen during the operation of the project to date are discussed, especially the problems that academics face in the delivery process.

scholarly journals Who funded the research behind the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e007321
Author(s):  
Samuel Cross ◽  
Yeanuk Rho ◽  
Henna Reddy ◽  
Toby Pepperrell ◽  
Florence Rodgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
Publication History ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
History Analysis ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Vectored Vaccine ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University

ObjectivesThe Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D.ResultsWe identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search.ConclusionOur study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%–99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

scholarly journals ‘Independent Experts’ and Immigration Policies in the UK

2019 ◽  
pp. 69-83
Author(s):  
Martin Ruhs
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Advisory Body ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Independent Analysis ◽  
Expert Advisory ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University

This chapter discusses the experiences of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Migration Observatory (MigObs) in providing independent analysis to inform immigration debates and policy‐making in the UK. The MAC was established by the UK government in 2007 and MigObs was launched as an ‘impact project’ by the University of Oxford in 2009. The chapter includes critical reflections and personal assessments based on the author’s role as one of five members of the MAC during 2007–2014 and as the first Director of MigObs during 2009–2012. The chapter shows how the institutional design of an impact initiative such as MigObs, or of an expert advisory body such as the MAC, can have important implications for its credibility and political acceptability, and thus long-term impacts on debates and policy-making.

Reform and Revisionism in the Study of Henrician England - Edward Stafford, Third Duke of Buckingham. By Barbara J. Harris. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1986. Pp. viii + 334. $37.50. - The Power of the Tudor Nobility. By G. W. Bernard. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble Books, 1985. Pp. 228. - Rome ou l'Angleterre? Les reactions politiques des Catholiques Anglais au moment du schisme. By Jean-Pierre Moreau. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1984. Pp. 377. - Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII. By Maria Dowling. London: Croom Helm, 1986. Pp. 283. $43.00. - Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics, and Reform, 1500–1550. Edited by Alistair Fox and John Guy. Oxford: Basil Black well, 1986. Pp. vi + 242. - The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 3: The Collegiate University. Edited by James McConica. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. $125.00. - Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the History of Tudor Government and Administration. Edited by Christopher Coleman and David Starkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Pp. viii + 219. - Treason in Tudor England: Politics and Paranoia. By Lacey Baldwin Smith. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986. Pp. 342. $25.00. - Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance. By Margaret King. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986. Pp. xxi + 524.

1988 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-197
Author(s):  
Thomas F. Mayer
Keyword(s):  
Henry Viii ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Tudor England ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of The University ◽  
The University ◽  
Oxford University Press

The impact of publications in core public choice journals: an analysis of institution rankings

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franklin G. Mixon ◽  
Kamal P. Upadhyaya
Keyword(s):  
Public Choice ◽  
University Of Illinois ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
Emory University ◽  
University Of Göttingen ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Published Research

This study examines the impact of research published in the two core public choice journals – Public Choice and the Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice – during the five-year period from 2010 through 2014. Scholars representing almost 400 universities contributed impactful research to these journals over this period, allowing us to rank institutions on the basis of citations to this published research. Our work indicates that public choice scholarship emanating from non-US colleges and universities has surged, with the University of Göttingen, University of Linz, Heidelburg University, University of Oxford, University of Konstanz, Aarhus University, University of Groningen, Paderborn University, University of Minho and University of Cambridge occupying ten of the top 15 positions in our worldwide ranking. Even so, US-based institutions still maintain a lofty presence, with Georgetown University, Emory University, the University of Illinois and George Mason University each holding positions among the top five institutions worldwide.

UK government plans to ‘unleash’ nation’s space sector

Physics World ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 11ii-11ii
Author(s):  
Michael Banks
Keyword(s):  
National Space ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk

The UK government has released a National Space Strategy to provide a long-term vision for the country’s space sector.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine and dexamethasone in COVID-19: who won and who lost?

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Ortolani ◽  
Elide A. Pastorello
Keyword(s):  
Lung Damage ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Pharmacologic Therapy ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University

Abstract Background On June 30, 2020, the WHO reported over 10 millions of COVID-19 cases worldwide with over half a million deaths. In severe cases the disease progresses into an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), which in turn depends on an overproduction of cytokines (IL-6, TNFα, IL-12, IL-8, CCL-2 and IL1) that causes alveolar and vascular lung damage. Clearly, it is essential to find an immunological treatment that controls the “cytokine storm”. In the meantime, however, it is essential to have effective antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs available immediately. Pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine have been widely adopted worldwide for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. However, the choice of this treatment was based on low quality of evidence, i.e. retrospective, non-randomized controlled studies. Recently, four large Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been performed in record time delivering reliable data: (1) the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RCT included 60 hospitals participating all over the world and showed the efficacy of remdesivir in reducing the recovery time in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia; (2) three large RCTs already completed, for hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone and Lopinavir and Ritonavir respectively. These trials were done under the umbrella of the 'Recovery' project, headed by the University of Oxford. The project includes 176 participating hospitals in the UK and was set up to verify the efficacy of some of the treatments used for COVID-19. These three ‘Recovery’ RCTs concluded definitely: (a) that treatment with hydroxychloroquine provides no benefits in patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (b) that treatment with dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in COVID-19 patients that were mechanically ventilated, and by one-fifth in patients receiving oxygen only; (c) that the combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir is not effective in reducing mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Conclusions The results of these four large RCTs have provided sound indications to doctors for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and prompted the correction of many institutional provisions and guidelines on COVID-19 treatments (i.e. FDA, NIH, UK Health Service, etc.). Even though a definitive treatment for COVID-19 has not yet been found, large RCTs stand as the Gold Standards for COVID-19 therapy and offer a solid scientific base on which to base treatment decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document