IBJNews

Dow Agro to become Purdue research tenant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

Officials of Purdue University and Dow AgroSciences unveiled a collaboration Wednesday in which the Indianapolis-based company will become one of the largest tenants at the Purdue Research Park in West Lafayette.
 
Dow Agro will occupy 15,000 square feet of research and office space in the newly built Herman and Heddy Kurz Purdue Technology Center.
 
The company, a division of Michigan-based Dow Chemical Co., also will be the exclusive tenant of a 6,000-square-foot greenhouse complex to be constructed on the south side of Ross Enterprise Center.
 
The Indiana Economic Development Corp. will provide a $2.2 million grant to the Purdue Research Foundation to cover construction of the greenhouse research center.

 
Dow Agro expects to hire up to 30 scientists and 18 contract researchers, who will have the opportunity to collaborate with Purdue faculty and will have access to some campus research facilities.
 
“The power of collaboration with Purdue is immense, and the many elements of this project will bring great advancement to our biotechnology efforts,” Antonio Galindez, president and CEO of Dow AgroSciences, said in a prepared statement. “Purdue Research Park is the perfect setting to unleash the creativity of our scientists and advance science and technology.”
 
Dow Agro will join more than 160 companies already at the research park.
 
The company has ramped up its research efforts in recent months. In July, Dow Agro signed a 15-year lease for an 80,000-square-foot research-and-development building, to be erected adjacent to its headquarters on the northwest side of Indianapolis.
 
Dow Agro plans to hire dozens of additional researchers there as well. The company currently employs 1,200 in Indianapolis.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT