Beyond Darwin: Ways to Evolve New Functions – At a recent Kavli Futures Symposium, nineteen experts from a diverse range of fields discussed the promise of using the lab to understand and exploit the evolution of organisms — an advance that may one day be used to develop new vaccines or other biotechnology products. https://www.kavlifoundation.org/kavli-futures-symposium-evolution-new-functions-main

Share/Bookmark

High Technology, Not Low Taxes, May Drive US States’ Economic Growth http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623130751.htm

Share/Bookmark

“Txchnologist is an online magazine presented by GE. Every week, we offer an optimistic, but not utopian, take on the future and humanity’s ability to tackle the great challenges of our era through industry, technology and ingenuity.” http://www.txchnologist.com/

http://www.txchnologist.com/feed

Share/Bookmark

Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie? The Supply of New Recorded Music
Since Napster: “In the decade since Napster, file-sharing has undermined the
protection that copyright affords recorded music, reducing recorded
music sales. What matters for consumers, however, is not sellers’
revenue but the surplus they derive from new music. The legal
monopoly created by copyright is justified by its encouragement of
the creation of new works, but there is little evidence on this
relationship. The file-sharing era can be viewed as a large-scale
experiment allowing us to check whether events since Napster have
stemmed the flow of new works. We assemble a novel dataset on the
number of high quality works released annually, since 1960, derived
from retrospective critical assessments of music such
best-of-the-decade lists. This allows a comparison of the quantity
of new albums since Napster to 1) its pre-Napster level, 2)
pre-Napster trends, and 3) a possible control, the volume of new
songs since the iTunes Music Store’s revitalization of the single.
We find no evidence that changes since Napster have affected the
quantity of new recorded music or artists coming to market. We
reconcile stable quantities in the face of decreased demand with
reduced costs of bringing works to market and a growing role of
independent labels.” http://papers.nber.org/papers/W16882

Share/Bookmark

“[...] The problem with the U.S. government is that its allocation of resources is highly inefficient. We spend vast amounts of money on subsidies for housing, agriculture and health, many of which distort the economy and do little for long-term growth. We spend too little on science, technology, innovation and infrastructure, which will produce growth and jobs in the future. For the past few decades, we have been able to be wasteful and get by. But we will not be able to do it much longer. The money is running out, and we will have to marshal funds and target spending far more strategically. This is not a question of too much or too little government, too much or too little spending. We need more government and more spending in some places and less in others.

The tragedy is that Washington knows this. For all the partisan polarization there, most Republicans know that we have to invest in some key areas, and most Democrats know that we have to cut entitlement spending. But we have a political system that has become allergic to compromise and practical solutions. This may be our greatest blind spot. [...]” http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056610,00.html

Share/Bookmark

Alonzo Fyfe

Share/Bookmark

Statement by H.E. Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, Permanent Representative of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva at the 48th Series of Meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s General Assemblies, Geneva, 21 September 2010:

“Mr. President,

[...]

The adoption of stronger IPRs in developing countries is often defended by claims that this reform will attract significant new inflows of technology, a blossoming of local innovation and cultural industries, and a faster closing of the technology gap between developing and developed countries. It must be recognized, however, that improved IPRs by itself is highly unlikely to produce such benefits.

The increase of benefits deriving to countries from IPRs depends on their ability to absorb and develop technologies and new products. In this context, three issues are critical for development purposes. First, it is clear that the ability to adapt new technologies to local industrial uses is improved if it meets with high levels of education and an adequate qualified human capital. Thus, there are important payoffs in providing access to technical training and secondary or university education. Second, the absorption of foreign technologies to enhance productivity, in a critical way, depends on the Research and Development (R&D) performance of local enterprises. This observation points to the importance of developing an effective technology policy for promoting technical change in domestic enterprises. Such programs could include technology demonstration projects, information sharing through conferences, the encouragement of research, joint ventures, and improved linkages between public research institutes and enterprises.

Third, in many countries a relevant problem is the inability of research institutes to bring their inventions to market in a useful way. Stronger IPRs alone would help in this context, but so also would development contracts between institutes and enterprises with defined ownership shares and increased flexibility for researchers to form new business concerns. Last but not least, it is also important for countries to encourage the development of financial markets in such a way that they become capable of managing the significant risks involved in technology development.

Mr. President,

These few observations want to underline the conviction that the main goal of the international community in developing a fair regime of intellectual property rights should aim toward the good of all, the pursuit of more equitable international relations, especially with regard to poorer and more vulnerable people. Of this goal we are reminded by Pope Benedict’s latest Encyclical Letter [, 22.]: “…in the context of immaterial or cultural causes of development and underdevelopment, we find these same patterns of responsibility reproduced. On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development.””

http://nunzio-un.blogspot.com/2010/10/statement-by-h.html

Share/Bookmark