January 2008

The Post-Dispatch had an article worth reading on Sunday describing a shift in the R&D focus of Creve Coeur ag-giant Monsanto. There has been a lot written recently about how, a few years back, the company decided to largely abandon its efforts in engineering crops you might find in a supermarket - wheat and produce. Instead, since about the turn of the century, Monsanto has focused mainly on agriculture for processed food and biofuels, especially corn. Not only are these crops are extremely prevalent in our consumption habits, but the shift away from fruits and vegetables has helped to reduce public outcry over "Franken-food".

Now it seems as though Monsanto may be shifting its research focus again. These days, the company's R&D pipeline is increasingly filled with soybean technologies - 12 projects, according to the Post-Dispatch, versus 9 for corn. The reasoning says a lot about CEO Hugh Grant's view of the future. The current emphasis on biofuels? Important, but not long lasting, according to Grant. Advances in cellulosic ethanol production, from weeds and plant husks, will eliminate the growing need to process corn. This, plus an exploding export market in China, means engineered soybeans are poised to become a major cash crop worldwide.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted by at 9:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week's news that MO Governor Matt Blunt would not seek a 2nd term caught a lot of observers by surprise. Many pundits were expecting Blunt to put up a tough fight with MO Attorney General Jay Nixon later this year - a debate that was sure to bring up life science issues related to entrepreneurship, stem cell research legality and public funding for research.

Although Blunt was the Republican governor of a generally conservative state, many of his policies were actually pretty favorable to the state life science sector. Kelly Gillespie of MOBIO, speaking in his January newsletter, had this to say regarding the news:

Governor Blunt has been accessible and supportive of MOBIO, at times setting the bar high for the life sciences community. The Governor has attended MOBIO board meetings, traveled out-of-state twice to attend the international BIO conference in Chicago and Boston, and keynoted the Life Sciences Summit in 2006. He has formed advisory councils focused on life sciences and plant biotechnology, and been recognized by BIO for his leadership. Blunt made an early commitment to preserving our researchers' ability to pursue the same stem cell advances being pursued at top biomedical research institutions across the country, endorsing Amendment 2 on the day it was announced. The governor has increased the pathways for higher education and economic development to be more fully integrated.

MOBIO will continue to work with the Governor and his administration during the final "fourth" of his term. We know Missouri will have a new governor in January 2009. The 2008 campaign season has been turned on its head, and we must recognize that open election cycles typically attract many more contenders than do election years when a challenger is taking on an incumbent.

As we prepare our to-do list for the year, MOBIO leadership must prepare, brief and empower the next administration to leverage and enhance our research climate and assets, improve our state's commitment to science education, and improve our business climate to continue to grow our own technology-based economic development successes.

It will be interesting to see who steps up to receive the Republican nomination, and if he or she displays the kind of attitude towards the MO life science sector as their predecessor. As the gubernatorial election draws closer, I'll try and work out the contrasts between each candidate's opinions towards biotechnology.

(...more from themaneater.com)

Posted by at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wash U and Pfizer announced a five-year, $25 million collaboration yesterday that will utilize resources and scientists from both organizations to study immuno-inflammatory disease. Such agreements are not uncommon between industry and academia, but this one is turning some heads because of Pfizer's level of involvement. Previously, the pharma giant has been content to rain money down on researchers, then step aside to wait for whatever science results. In this new arrangement, however, Pfizer and Wash U will work together to identify, plan and carry out promising research projects.

The immuno-inflammatory focus seems like a natural one for this partnership. Many of the scientists at Pfizer's Chesterfield facility have a long history with inflammatory drugs from their Monsanto / Pharmacia days, and Wash U has been long been intent on establishing an expertise in translational medicine through its Biomed21 program.

Speaking of Biomed21, how will this new agreement fit into the planned research center the school announced back in November? That building was supposed to house facilities for a number of large-scale translational medicine groups, none of which were to be focused on immuno-inflammatory disease. Could this be a new focus for that center? Or will the Pfizer collaboration exist within already-existing departments at the school.

(...more from mednews.wustl.edu)

Posted by at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SLU Coach Rick Majerus

Since SLU remains a Jesuit university, his comments caught the attention of Catholic leaders in the area, including Burke. Asked by KMOV about the impact of the statement on Majerus's career, Burke replied that, "I think that's something that has to be dealt with at the university, but certainly these positions have to be clarified."

Majerus has had a history of supporting Democratic candidates for office, including publicly campaigning for John Kerry in 2004.

(...more from kmov.com)

(12:19 Update)

Oh please...

Posted by at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, the leaders of several area entrepreneurship centers announced that they'd received a $600,000 grant from the NSF to help local researchers commercialize their technology. The "Innovation Acceleration Partnership", led by Ken Harrington at WashU's Skandalaris Center, will pair researchers with a specially trained cadre of postdoctoral fellows focused exclusively on tech transfer. Each fellow will focus on those aspects of the commercialization process that researchers may not have the time or expertise to focus on, all the while receiving mentoring from Harrington and others.

Besides Harrington, the other co-investigators named in the grant are Marcia Mellitz (CET), Michael Nichols (UMSL), William Peck (Innovate St Louis / WashU) and Samuel Wickline (Kereos / Wash U). The participating institutions include WashU, UM-Rolla, and SIUE, plus a number of local for-profit and non-profit organizations.

Cool idea, especially the regional focus, but is this something that could have been incorporated within the existing tech transfer offices already in place? Or are those still seen as needing reform? Also, there seems like these fellowships are pretty attractive for someone looking to gain experience in tech transfer (Hell, I'd do it), but are the more steady hands going to want more than a grant stipend? Plus, if the tech works its way out into a company, who gets the equity - The researcher? The fellow? Or the Partnership? Interested to see how this one turns out.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted by at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It looks like a long-sought wet lab development project in Creve Coeur may finally be getting the go ahead. Baltimore-based Wexford Science & Technology, LLC announced early last year that it was interested in developing an 8-acre tract adjacent to the Danforth Plant Science Center. Since then, the firm has been campaigning for a package of public incentives, the last of which should fall into place in the coming weeks.

If everything falls into place, Wexford expects to complete a $36.1 million, 118,000-square-foot building by summer 2009. The new facility could become a new home for the Nidus Center, as well as a St. Louis Community College biotech training program. More established startups, such as Nidus Center client Divergence, could also receive their own space.

If Wexford manages to lease 65% of the first building, they claim they could begin work on a second, or possibly third facility at the same location.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted by at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Do open hallways and glass walls = better science? The Post-Dispatch ran an interesting story at year's end describing how one architectural firm has started to test this assumption with some rigor.

Cannon Design, responsible for the new Doisy Research Center at SLU, has long been a proponant of designing scientific buildings with lots of open space. Knocking out the walls fosters collaborations between researchers, increasing creativity and minimizing the overlap of expensive resources. But do the finished facilities have the desired effect? To find out, Cannon just began a 3-year study to analyze how the outputs of research groups (publications, grants, etc.) have changed once they moved into one of these new structures. In the process, they hope to discover a new selling point for the open design (As well as not a little publicity for themselves).

What do you think? I know that I prefer working in the new green-glass buildings, but most of that can be chalked up to a combination of sunshine and bragging rights (ooh, green glass!). I've seen departments in brick basements share every resource they earn, and groups in newer facilities never leave their bench - it can really go either way.

By the way - I just got back from from vacation in Orlando, and I think that everyone with any interest in designing science buildings should visit the Land pavilion at EPCOT:

Maybe leave out the balloons, but everything else - gorgeous.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted by at 8:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)