|
|
| (17 intermediate revisions not shown.) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | <div style="padding: 10px; width: 670px; border: 5px solid #CC9999;"> | | <div style="padding: 10px; width: 670px; border: 5px solid #CC9999;"> |
| | =<center>Week 12 Tuesday </center>= | | =<center>Week 12 Tuesday </center>= |
| - | ==<font color = blue> </font color>== | + | ==<font color = blue>tips on giving talks </font color>== |
| - | ==<font color = blue>Why are we doing this?</font color>==
| + | Today we considered tip and tricks that you might use to construct and deliver even better presentations. Here is a link to the slides (with some notes): |
| | + | [[Media:20.20(S11) GivingTalks.pdf | PDF]] and here's a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyPckg8eNVM YouTube video] that illustrates a lot of powerpoint "do's" and "don'ts."<br> |
| | + | Happy Presenting! |
| | + | |
| | =<center>Week 12 Studio</center>= | | =<center>Week 12 Studio</center>= |
| | + | ==<font color = blue>Project Work Day + Consultations </font color>== |
| | + | *Team Chemistry |
| | + | **[http://www.bacteriology.ed.ac.uk/groups/french/ Chris French], skype or call 2PM sharp (or noon on Tuesday 4/26) |
| | + | *Team Green |
| | + | **[http://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/research/alisonsmith.html Prof. Alison Smith], 3PM skype? |
| | + | **[http://www.kent.ac.uk/bio/warren/ Prof. Martin Warren] ? |
| | + | **[http://www.stanford.edu/group/Palumbi/ Prof. Steve Palumbi] Tuesday? |
| | + | *TacklingTartar |
| | + | **[http://oeit.mit.edu/about/staff/stacie-bumgarner Stacie Bumgarner] 2PM, 26-152 |
| | + | **[http://www.linkedin.com/pub/lauren-kai/7/a5/163 Laurn Kai, Harvard School of Dental Medicine] 4:30 |
| | + | **[http://www.astratechdental.us/Main.aspx/Item/573586/navt/72677/navl/72800/nava/86738 AstraTech Dental] ? |
| | {| cellspacing="2" | | {| cellspacing="2" |
| | |- valign="top" | | |- valign="top" |
| Line 13: |
Line 27: |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| | |} | | |} |
| | + | |
| | =<center>Week 12 Thursday</center>= | | =<center>Week 12 Thursday</center>= |
| - | ==<font color = blue> Ownership and Sharing</font color>== | + | ==<font color = blue> Project Work Day + Consultations</font color>== |
| - | [[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/03/15/copyright-law-meets-synthetic-life-meets-james-joyce/ copyright infringement by "synthia"]]<br>[[http://www.synthesis.cc/2011/04/myriads-lawyers-want-to-patent-the-periodic-table.html copyright the periodic table]]<br>
| + | *Team Chemistry |
| - | [[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6362525n&tag=contentMain;contentBody| 60 minutes/myriad]]<br>
| + | **[http://cee.mit.edu/murcott Susan Murcott] 11:10 1-138 |
| - | <center>This challenge was originally developed and written by [[Drew Endy]], then modified with help from Scott Kuldell.</center> <br>
| + | **[http://www.biology.colostate.edu/faculty/medford June Medford] 12:15 skype |
| - | | + | *Team Green |
| - | Many useful genetic parts are currently protected by patents. For example, "uses of green fluorescent protein" is protected by [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5491084.PN.&s2=chalfie.INNM.&OS=PN/5491084+AND+IN/chalfie&RS=PN/5491084+AND+IN/chalfie United States Patent #5,491,084]. At least 200 more recent patents protect additional uses of various fluorescent proteins. Patents are a legislated form of "intellectual property" by which inventors are granted a limited-time monopoly (~17 years) during which they can control access to the patented technology (e.g., by selling exclusive or non-exclusive licenses). In establishing the U.S. patent system, the founders of our country wanted to balance the sharing of inventions (e.g., via the publishing of patent applications) while also encouraging the investment and profit needed to drive innovation.
| + | **[http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpage/238/new-technology-could-help-overcome-obstacles-to-hydrogen-production;jsessionid=22F30EFEA6E528D259463F0F290E218B.wyss1 Danny Ducat] 11 26-152 |
| - | | + | *Tackling Tartar |
| - | For today's challenge, you will act as EITHER the inventors and patent holders of various genetic parts or the investors hoping to assemble and earn $ off a completed system.
| + | **[http://www.wi.mit.edu/research/faculty/ploegh.html Hidde Ploegh] 11AM SHARP! 26-152 |
| - | | + | Next week you'll have all the class sessions to work on your project with your group. Think about any feedback you got from the consultations yesterday and how/if you'll include that in your planning. |
| - | ===If you are an <font color = purple> INVENTOR </font color>===
| + | |
| - | * Each inventor holds a patent or two that cost either $1, $5, or $20 to secure. You will have to "pay" this money up front and will be reimbursed at the end of the day, either by the investor who will want to license your technology or by the clients/teachers. | + | |
| - | * Patent holders may license the use of their patents for profit (exclusively or non-exclusively), or give away the rights for free | + | |
| - | * Patent holders will not know how much the final client/teachers are willing to pay for the complete Eau d'coli system | + | |
| - | * Be aware that there are 12 components needed to produce a full Eau d'coli system, namely:
| + | |
| - | #A genetically encoded "inverter"
| + | |
| - | #A "constitutive promoter"
| + | |
| - | #A "stationary phase promoter"
| + | |
| - | #A "transcription terminator"
| + | |
| - | #A "weak ribosome binding site"
| + | |
| - | #A "strong ribosome binding site"
| + | |
| - | #The gene encoding the "ATF1" enzyme
| + | |
| - | #The gene encoding the "BSMT" enzyme
| + | |
| - | #The gene encoding the "PCHA" enzyme
| + | |
| - | #The gene encoding the "PCHB" enzyme
| + | |
| - | #The gene encoding the "BAT2" enzyme
| + | |
| - | #The gene encoding the "THI3" enzyme
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===If you are an <font color = purple> INVESTOR </font color>===
| + | |
| - | *Each investor is seeking to license the complete set of genetic parts needed to encode the Eau d'coli system.
| + | |
| - | *The '''first''' investor who is able to acquire licenses for all the genetic parts needed to encode the full Eau d'coli system will earn '''real cash money'''!! The pay out will be told to the investor group but should '''not''' be shared with the inventors and patent holders.
| + | |
| - | *The winning investor (if any) will be required to pay all inventors whatever fees might have been negotiated in obtaining the rights to use various genetic parts.
| + | |
| - | *If the promised fees are less than the pay out then the investor can keep any additional cash (really).
| + | |
| - | *If the promised fees are greater than the pay out then the investor must pay all additional licensing fees out of their own cash reserves. (really, but it would be better to re-negotiate your licensing deals than to have this challenge cost you $$).
| + | |
| - | <center>
| + | |
| - | '''Good luck and, perhaps, great profits!'''
| + | |
| - | </center>
| + | |
| - | ==<font color = blue>'''Why are we doing this??'''==
| + | |
| - | After the challenge, we'll consider the following questions:<br>
| + | |
| - | </font color>
| + | |
| - | #Was it easy or difficult to license parts?
| + | |
| - | #*hard to license parts, wanted more $, limited # of patents to be had, competition for same parts,
| + | |
| - | #What determined the value of a part? Did inventors tend to overvalue parts? Did investors tend to undervalue parts?
| + | |
| - | #*cost of production
| + | |
| - | #*how much the investor wanted
| + | |
| - | #*knowing how much the completed system is worth would have helped value the parts
| + | |
| - | #*if there's no other competition
| + | |
| - | #Were any parts licensed for free? Why?
| + | |
| - | #*no...but for the good of the many
| + | |
| - | #Were any parts offered through exclusive licensing agreements?
| + | |
| - | #* yes but those investors re-licensed to another investor for less...and "went out of business"--where does that leave the patent holder?
| + | |
| - | #The challenge system in today's class contained 12 parts. Would it be easier or more difficult to license the parts for a system that contained fewer parts (e.g., 3 parts)? What about more parts (e.g., 100 parts)?
| + | |
| - | #*fewer parts easier...because it would drive down costs
| + | |
| - | #*or harder if more competitive
| + | |
| - | #*how many own enzymes or parts
| + | |
| - | #*net benefit
| + | |
| - | #In the "real world" deals are often brokered between the same parties more than once...this year you have a deal for Eau d'coli, next year for something else. How would the fact that you may have to deal with the investor/inventor again change the dynamic of today's challenge?
| + | |
| - | #* I told other investors about existing deals...
| + | |
| - | #* inventor set minimum price
| + | |
| - | #*
| + | |
