View source for Non-profit versus For-profit Medical Institutions and the Commercialization of Invention

{{AcademicPaper
|Has title=Non-profit versus For-profit Medical Institutions and the Commercialization of Invention
|Has author=Catherine Kirby, Ed Egan,
|Has paper status=Tabled
}}
==Data==
*Grant Data
*Clinical Trial Data
*Our data on Medical Centers
*Core Patent Data
*Patent Assignment Data
*VentureXpert

==General Idea==

Clinical trials are crucial for many biotech/life-science innovations. They generally can not take place at the same institution that conceived the invention. Clinical trials can take place at non-profit or for-profit institutions. Invention can take place in for-profit/non-profit incumbents, startups, academia, etc. Invention may be funded by grants and may result (perhaps post phase 2 trial) in patents. For-profit institutions that conduct clinical trials have market-based incentives to align the innovation paths of those they work with, non-profits do not. We should therefore expect to see startups and for-profit incumbents engage more with for-profit clinical trial institutions. We could identify causality on the for/non-profit effect if some clinical trial institutions switch status.

==Measures of the relationship==

*Patents can (and frequently do) have more than one assignee at a time. Assignment also changes as patents are sold or exclusively licensed (as well as for other reason). Patents with joint assignment or sequential assignment are relevant.
*Clinical trials have one or more sponsors and one or more locations. Clinical trials jointly sponsored by a startup and a medical center facility or sponsored by a startup and then located at a medical center facility are relevant.
*NIH grants have one or more recipients as well as associated patents and trials

==Status==

Catherine matched patents, grants, and clinical trials to Medical Centers. She's going to prototype this as a report for the [[Medical Centers and Grants]] project.