IBJNews

Indiana universities offer cash incentives for technology transfer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

A collaboration among Indiana universities that helps translate research in the lab into patient treatments has awarded $750,000 to 10 teams of researchers.

The Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute was funded in 2008 through a $25 million grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Among research funded in the latest round was $75,000 to a Purdue University team headed by Graham Cooks developing a way to monitor prostate cancer using cholesterol sulfate in biofluids.

A team led by Melissa Kacena at the Indiana University School of Medicine landed a grant to further research healing long-bone-segment defects. University of Notre Dame researchers also received funding.

The awards go toward early-stage research that build collaborations within the three partner universities.

“These projects are expected to test novel ideas which lead to the development of new treatments or products, and would also be expected to generate significant grants and investments from external sources,” said Anantha Shekhar, director of CTSI.

A previous round of grants resulted in more than two dozen new grant applications, according to CTSI.

The CTSI “is the perfect example” of efforts to tie various university assets together to advance life sciences in Indiana, Tony Armstrong, president and CEO of the IU Research and Technology Corp., told the audience at IBJ’s July 23 Life Sciences Power Breakfast.

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT