IBJNews

Purdue ends $100M deal with research foundation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Purdue University has ended its dealings with a foundation that pledged a $100 million donation five years ago to help the school find commercial uses for its research.

Purdue officials announced that the university's research foundation was taking over the nonprofit group that the school created with the Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Biomedical Engineering.

The foundation has given $15.5 million to the Alfred Mann Institute for Biomedical Development at Purdue, also known as AMIPurdue, but Purdue and foundation leaders aren't explaining why they're parting ways, the Journal & Courier of Lafayette reported Friday.

"We are not down about it. We got $15 million in donations (from Mann), we own all the patents and have our own nonprofit," said John Hertig, executive director of AMIPurdue. "We are very excited. These changes will make it easier for us to work within the Purdue environment."

Purdue accepted the California-based foundation's offer in 2007 after other universities — including University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University — turned down similar proposals amid questions over the control of intellectual property rights to university inventions.

Among those issues was the Mann Foundation's insistence on deciding which of the schools' inventions were most ripe for commercialization, something the universities feared would conflict with their other research agreements.

Hertig said the foundation's donations to Purdue helped with development of 11 technologies in electrical, mechanical and biomedical engineering, pharmacy and other areas. Purdue said four startup companies have taken those technologies into the commercial marketplace.

Details of the 2007 agreement aren't public because the contract was between two private groups — the Purdue Research Foundation and Mann Foundation.

David Hankin, the foundation's president, said in a statement that Purdue had been an exceptional partner.

"It's been five years, and there have been many changes in the world as well as in our foundation's focus," Hankin said.

Josh Powers, a professor of higher education leadership at Indiana State University, said frictions can arise in such agreements as university researchers might be concerned that a funding partner is influencing research, while a foundation or corporation may worry about seeing a return on its financial investment.

"There is generally this cultural tension of this incentive structure between privates and the colleges," Powers said.

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT