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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT