56,346 research outputs found
"Closing the R&D Gap, Evaluating the Sources of R&D Spending"
No full textBoth spending and tax policies have been implemented in the United States with the goal of stimulating private sector research and development (R&D). Karier questions whether current R&D policy, especially the research and experimentation tax credit, can contribute to closing the gap between nondefense expenditures on R&D in the United States and such expenditures in other countries, such as Japan and Germany. He also explores possible changes to our current R&D policy to make it more effective.
The 1952 Bulldog
No full textPages from Bentley High School 1952 yearbook including the following staff and students: Shirley Allen, Barbara Baucus, Dennis Beam, Lee Berridge, Jamees Blackhurst, Lenis Bond, Billie Booth, Jerry Brigance, Kay Collins, Everill Craze, John Eddy, Betty Jean Gallaway, Ernest Gifford, William Gusie, Peggy Ann Hall, Bernard Hansen, Kenneth Harrison, Shirley Heiser, Robert Howell, Patricia Keyes, Gerald Miley, Mansfield Park, Charles Roat, Joanne Robinson, Nina Sanborn, Donna Lee Shaum, Delores Sprague, Joan Sweet, Donald Travis, Grace Williams, Harry Williamson, J. Barnett, J. Berridge, J. Bostator, F. Burton, R. Callesen, B. Christle, A. Coates, P. Curry, E. Day, R. Galant, M. Gallaway, D. Glasco, J. Herod, E. Ives, E. Jackson, M. Kirbyson, P. Kruse, G. Langley, B. Lannon, Mary Miller, M. Miller, K. Moore, R. Richardson, L. Roat, T. Tessner, D. Wightman, R. Wiselogle, L. Anderson, L. Avery, C. Blackhurst, T. Blanchard, C. Coates, N. Dechman,J. Dickerson, E. Draper, R. Draper, J. Dyer, J. Edmonson, G. Fallis, Jon Grahn, F. Grooms, C. Gusie, D. Hansen, P. Harmon, L. Hill, B. Hixenbaugh, T. Hockins, J. Horne, A. Ives, B. Katona, G. Kerr, R. Kline, M. Kovacs, D. LaDuke, W. Lakey, M. LeClaire, G. Lukomen, L. McClure, B. Meeks, G. Mitchell, R. Mumford, D. Neil, R. Page, C. Penrod, O. Pickard, R. Pugmire, C. Smith, B. Swanson, W. Tarno, G. Thomas, J. Vickerman, C. Viers, J. Walton, A. Wesson, W. Aldred, L. Anderson, J. Armstrong, W. Atherton, Sh. Barnett, R. Beldin, R. Bolinger, P. Bond, C. Brown, J. Budd, A. Burdick, R. Callesen, E. Eddy, W. Fairchild, B. Finch, A. Garwold, B. Gill, R. Hamilton, P. Hoffman, M. Horne, T. Howay, J. Katona, L. Kutzur, R. Kissinger, M. LaDuke, C, Lawrence, D. Love, R. Martin, F. McClure, N. McGaughey, J. Meder, R. Mitchell, C. Modine, Ch. Monroe, J. Qualls, B. Redburn, D. Roat, M. Roat, B. Slinglend, I. Smith, H. Stagg, D. Stowers, G. Streeter, C. Swanson, J. Swatzel, W. Sweet, N. Tear, G. Vickerman, C. Wallace, S. Wells, N. Wooley
The R&D Tax Incentives
No full textThis article sets out some background information and reflections of the author on the R&D tax incentive schemes included in the Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) Proposal. In particular the author analyzes the stimulus to private R&D through ad hoc tax incentives included in the CCTB Proposal and dives into the actual provisions included in the Proposal highlighting the most relevant issues connected with their design and interpretation. Moreover, the author explores the interaction between the CCTB Proposal and the granting by Member States of domestic R&D tax incentives
The relationship among peak power output, lactate threshold, and short-distance cycling performance: effects of incremental exercise test design
No full textMcNaughton Lars R., Roberts Simon and Bentley David J
Will Reducing Drug Prices Slow Innovation?
No full textThe pharmaceutical industry has long argued that high drug prices reflect the high cost of innovation and that reducing drug prices would necessarily slow the pipeline of new drugs. These arguments have been bolstered by studies of large pharmaceutical companies showing statistical associations between the projected market size or revenue for pharmaceutical products and research & development (R&D) activity. Our analysis recognizes the increasingly important role of small biopharmaceuticals in drug development , companies that typically have little revenue and negative earnings, but are now responsible for more than 40% of new drug approvals. We examine the relationship between changes in revenue and R&D for companies of different size from 2000-2018.While changes in R&D expense correlate with changes in revenue for the largest biopharmaceutical companies (\u3e$7B market cap), no such relationship is found for smaller companies. Modeling the impact of different al cost reductions on the pipeline of new products, we find that any negative impact of drug price reductions may be mitigated through strategic allocation of cost reductions by large companies to different stages of clinical development.This analysis suggests that any negative impact of drug price reductions on the pipeline of pharmaceutical innovation may be mitigated through strategic allocation of spending reductions in large pharmaceutical companies. Policy makers do not need to make a false choice between reducing prices to ensure the affordability of pharmaceutical products currently on the market and the innovation required to bring new products to market in the future
Using strategic ambiguity as management practice in academic R&D : An ethnographic study of MIT SENSEable City Lab
No full textThis article explores the role of strategic ambiguity (Eisenberg, 2007; March & Olsen, 1976) as a management practice, as used in SENSEable City Lab - a R&D-oriented lab located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, MA.
Although literature has already explored strategic ambiguity in various organizational settings, studies focusing on how academic institutions use strategic ambiguity in the context of R&D are quite sparse.
The article aims at filling this gap by reporting on a study conducted by the author across 2011 and 2014 in a R&D-oriented academic lab and reflecting on the potential of strategic ambiguity as an effective dialogic strategy to appreciate differences among internal organization members and with external partners. The article also examines some shortcomings of strategic ambiguity, such as the level of anxiety reported by some members of the lab
Board of Director Composition: An Examination of How Director Age and Board Innovation Committees Impact Corporate Social and Financial Performance
No full textThis dissertation explores how director age affects a firm’s social domain, and how board-level oversight of firms’ innovation activities affects financial performance. Specifically, the dissertation points to board configurations that can potentially improve social and financial performance. The first chapter reviews the literature by examining two research streams linking board composition to corporate social performance (CSP) and innovation. The chapter presents the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of these two streams. It details the descriptive and thematic findings and offers an understanding of the different contexts in which board composition relates to both CSP and innovation. This chapter also discusses inconsistencies between conceptual thinking and empirical verification and proposes several research avenues to advance knowledge in these areas. The second chapter builds on the research opportunities suggested in the first chapter, using quantile regression analysis to examine the differential effect of director age on CSP at distinct parts of the social performance distribution. This chapter finds that the effect of director age on CSP is not constant across the social performance distribution. The findings show that the quantitative effect is greater in magnitude for high-socially performing firms relative to low-socially performing firms. The findings suggest that younger board members are not correlated to significantly better social performance. The study further highlights the importance of moving beyond conditional mean regressions to using methods that uncover discrete board effects in order to ensure that (slope) parameter heterogeneity is not masked. The first chapter indicates that research on optional board committees is limited and suggests that these committees can be effective governance mechanisms that oversee a firm’s activities in specific and narrowly defined functions. Accordingly, the third chapter, co-authored with Dr. Michael Quinn, examines the efficacy of the research and development (R&D) committee, an optional board committee not studied in the literature, and tests whether its presence is important for effective oversight of R&D-related activities. The chapter empirically explores the effect of R&D committee presence on firm financial performance. Using an instrumental variable GMM approach, the findings show a positive and statistically significant relationship between R&D committee presence and firm financial performance. Additionally, the study finds that R&D committee presence positively moderates the relationship between a firm’s R&D intensity and its financial performance. These findings suggest that board R&D committee presence helps firms make more of their R&D investments. The findings also underscore the importance of voluntarily setting up these board committees since they may be essential for improved decision-making on innovation-related strategic decisions
Preemptive Search and R&D Clustering Revisited
No full textThe results obtained by Cardon and Sasaki (1998) on R&D clustering are derived under the specific assumption that firms only can own one patent. When multiple patents are allowed, R&D clustering will come about more frequently if search costs are substantial.R&D clustering; persistence of monopoly
Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program Draft Guidance
No full textThis comment focuses on Section 50.1, provisions 1 & 3 of the draft guidance regarding the negotiation of a “maximum fair price” under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), research and development (R&D) costs of the primary manufacturer, and prior federal financial support for novel therapeutic discovery and development. Specifically, we argue that a negotiated, “maximum fair price” must consider both public sector (federal) and private sector (manufacturer) investments and provide returns to both commensurate with the scale and risk of their investments. This comment addresses three issues and makes specific recommendations regarding each: In negotiating a “maximum fair price,” both parties may be expected to consider their investment and returns. Prior federal financial support for R&D may be estimated from the NIH investment in basic and applied research related to each product. The return on federal investment in discovery and development should be estimated as a social return on investment (SROI) based on elements of social value created by new drugs
Rewarding Innovation: Improving Federal Tax Support for Business R&D in Canada
No full textBusiness innovation is viewed by many as a solution to Canada’s ailing productivity performance. One of the more troubling aspects of Canada’s innovation track record is that businesses spend relatively little on research and development (R&D) despite having access to some of the world’s most generous R&D tax incentives. Canada’s low levels of business R&D have called into question the effectiveness of Canada’s generous R&D tax incentives, particularly the flagship federal Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program. A deeper analysis, however, reveals that tax incentives are effective in stimulating more R&D – that is, Canada would have lower levels of business R&D in the absence of these inducements. Instead, the root cause of Canada’s business R&D deficit appears to stem from structural aspects of the economy and, more importantly, a lack of demand-related pressure to pursue innovation.Fiscal and Tax Competitiveness, Canada, research and development (R&D) incentives, Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program
- …
