Science and Tech Policy Final
Question One
For the past three to four decades, there has been much debate about the role of university entrepreneurship in America. The small business association was established in 1982 (Vonortas, 11/22/2022) in response to the stagflation of the 1970s. Looking for solutions, policy makers (hereafter PMs) believed that small companies were better equipped to kick start the economy and growth. Also in the 1980s, legislation came forward that gave intellectual property (hereafter IP) to researchers, even if they had originally accepted government funds. The debate circulates around the core role of a university, whether they should foster small businesses and entrepreneurship, or focus on university research and university-industry relations. Fully articulating the nature of this debate may lead us to form some conclusions about what the ideal balancing act is. Therefore, this is vital for both educational and economic concerns. In this paper, I go through the history of the development of this debate, delve into specific factors within it, and conclude with lessons to be learned and recommendations. This debate has never been more timely, as the current economy is set to slow in the near future, and universities have become increasingly profit-focused. Getting the articulation of the debate correct, and drawing good conclusions from that debate, is therefore of the highest importance, and what I will do here.
We can consult data ranging as far back as the 1970s. An Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report found that “universities and federal laboratories have become more important sources of the top 100 innovations over the last 35 years. In 1975, industry accounted for more than 70% of the 100 most significant R&D advances; by 2006, academia was responsible for more than 70% of the top 100 innovations.” (Vonortas, page 28). The Bayh-Dole Act facilitated innovation by making standard the IP ownership of inventions created with federally funded research. (Vonortas, page 29). It allows the inventor, whether they be non profits or universities, to “retain intellectual property ownership from federally sponsored research and development.” (Vonortas, page 30). Further, the incentives it creates for technology transfer are vital for institutions seeking innovation. “There are many reasons for this growth in commercialization stemming from the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act: universities have substantially increased investment in technology transfer programs, faculty have become aware of the commercial potential of their research results, and industry has realized the benefits of collaborating with universities.” (Vonortas, page 30). Indeed, university research not only merely plays a part in the creation of new products, but the start of entirely new industries. (Vonortas, page 28)
The passage of the Bayh-Dole Act was the result of years of opposition and emotional debate. Specifically, United States Senator Long was concerned that taxpayers would not receive a direct benefit of government-funded research (Baumel 2009). His opposition led to the inclusion of compromises, which, as explained by the preamble of the law, “ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights” and “protect(s) the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions”. (Vonortas, page 31). In general, the Bayh-Dole Act has served its purpose as a legal framework for technology commercialization. It created a stable, regulated environment for the arrangement of intellectual property rights proceeding from federally funded research activities (Vonortas, page 31)
Research universities are only a small portion of institutions, but they are vital to economic growth. Through the primary mission of research done by universities, basic issues are examined and new information is spawned. This is not the end of the story, however. Research is the starter of the fuel mix that leads to innovation that improves industry. (Vonortas, page 27). However, universities must at times consult what their core mission is, and conduct tests to examine what they are truly producing. “As U.S. universities expand their patenting, licensing, and commercializing of research, their potential to drive domestic innovation and economic growth increases. However, there is a balancing act to be achieved: creating new innovations while not decreasing the university’s primary role of education, research, and community outreach.” (Vonortas, page 27). Depending on the industry, spillover of research to the private sector can be high or little, but it is certainly the case that a number of industries have benefited from university research for application in the economy. These fields include, “agriculture, aerospace, biotechnology, medicine, software, computers, telecommunications, as well as social sciences industries such as network systems and communications, financial services, and transportation and logistical services.“ (Vonortas, pages 27-28). The development of university entrepreneurship can find its roots in industry’s call for technological innovation, as well as universities’ desire for new sources of funding, resulting from reduced federal funding for research. (Vonortas, page 29)
There are specific mechanisms by which research makes its way into the private sector. This can be through the employment of recent graduates, or more directly through university Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs). It is often argued that the American commercial success in high-technology sectors of the economy owes “an enormous debt to the entrepreneurial activities of American universities” (Vonortas, page 28). Technology transfer takes place in both directions, however. “These forms of technology transfer allow mutually beneficial relationships in which research findings and business information can be shared between and amongst universities, the government, and the private sector.” (Vonortas, page 29). The Bayh-Dole Act was passed in 1980. At that time, there were only 25 technology transfer offices. By the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Act, in 2005, there were 3300 such offices (Vonortas, page 35). The point of a TTO is to promote the utilization of inventions from university research. It allows universities and researchers to capitalize on the rights they gain through the Bayh-Dole Act while attempting to allay concerns regarding conflict of interest. Rather than relying on researchers to commercialize their inventions or implementing broad innovation strategies, many universities have channeled their innovation activities through a centralized TTO. TTOs are dedicated to identifying research that has potential commercial interest, providing legal and commercialization support to researchers, assisting with questions relating to marketability and funding sources, and serving as a liaison to industry partners, interested in commercializing university technologies. (Vonortas, page 35)
The effectiveness of a TTO is typically measured by its commercial output, including licensing (number of licenses, licensing revenue), equity positions, coordination capacity (number of shared clients), information processing capacity (invention disclosures, sponsored research), and royalties and patents (number of patents, efficiency in generating new patents) (page 36) The TTO is intended to facilitate the transition between academic research and commercialization. While some universities’ TTOs are effective in disseminating inventions, others have become hindrances to technology transfer with levels of administration and bureaucracy. (Vonortas, page 40) One possible idea to bridge the gaps in technology transfer, discussed by Litan and Mitchell (2010), is to create an open, competitive licensing system for university technology. (Vonortas, page 41)
Often from university research, comes the creation of new firms. “The attractions of using university-developed inventions to create new start-up companies (a new company created to commercialize a particular technology) have become widely recognized.” (Vonortas, page 37). Sometimes commercialization of the invention is best suited via the creation of a start-up company and TTOs are beginning to place more emphasis on creating new business start-ups as an optimal commercialization path. As evidence of this increase, the number of start-up firms for commercialization of university research grew from 241 in 1994 to 555 in 2007 (Vonortas, page 37). There are conflicting ideas on the role TTOs should play in promoting the launch of new firms, ranging from no role in start-ups to a very involved role in helping start-up firms succeed. (Vonortas, page 37). There is also much debate circulating around whether incentives to faculty actually result in the promulgation of new technology and business developments. Often, findings are that this is not the case. For a
Perhaps, one of the most pronounced conflicts surrounding a university’s governance is to support entrepreneurial activities without losing control of its primary education, research, and public service missions. (Vonortas, page 32). It is clear that should a university become too business oriented, it does so at the expense of its mission of higher education. Universities are increasingly moving towards the model of ‘the business of higher education,’ with tuition rising and faculty increasingly being limited to adjunct professors. This preoccupation with business concerns may also be a step in this direction, or the colonization of learning for profit at the expense of learning.
In sum, universities have a vital role to play in the development of business, particularly start ups. With the passage of various laws and the development in the education sector going increasingly towards business, this makes sense. However, we must ask ourselves, at what cost does these activities take place? If faculty are entirely focused on commercializing their discoveries, will they consider teaching students to simply be a requisite and lesser function of their job, instead of its primary focus? We must, then, balance the emphasis universities place on business development with what their core mission is; namely, teaching. It is all fine and good to encourage growth through universities, but it would be a poor trade off indeed if it also resulted in less education for the future workers of the economy. Universities owe a debt to students to create an environment fostering personal growth and exploration. Business concerns can be a part of this, but only if schools’ core missions are met. In the end, the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive; universities can have their cake and eat it too. However, as they grow and foster business, they must also at least equally encourage student growth. To do otherwise would be trading short term gains at the expense of long term development, in the economy.
Question Two
Initially, before the electrification of the economy, energy use was limited to burning biomass such as peat moss, sticks, or occasionally coal. This was supplemented by the use of wind and water power to turn mills. These activities had little to no environmental impact. Since the electrification of the economy, however, the developed world has relied on cheap and secure sources of energy to power society. Only within the last 40 years has it become readily apparent that the damage we are doing to our environment is unsustainable, and is significantly impacting not just our own health, but the very viability of every ecosystem on the planet. It is for this reason that it is vitally important that we examine the collection of energy sources available to us today, critique them, and offer insight into how and where government should intervene to improve the situation moving forward. This is what I will do in this paper. I will begin by describing each component of the energy system in the United States, their pros and cons, and then detail how, why, and where government should intervene to ameliorate things. There is nothing as vital as this, as not just our own future economy is impacted, but the very viability of all life on Earth.
The energy source that holds the lion’s share of energy provision for our economy is fossil fuels. These are fuels that were once living organic matter, but were pressured underground over thousands of years to create physical substances that are highly energy dense. That is to say, given their weight and size, they can be exploited for a great deal of energy. This category includes coal, oil and its derivatives, and natural gas. Historically, the US has relied on coal for power plants to create electricity for the country. This is done by burning the coal and heating water to the point that it turns the mechanism by which electricity is created, which is usually wires wrapped around a central magnet. This is then spread throughout the country through the grid of electricity provision. Gas operates in much a similar way, but is cleaner, relative to coal. Oil is refined for gasoline and other petroleum products, and primarily used by our transportation system, though there are some power plants that run on burning oil. The advantages of fossil fuels are that they are, as said above, very energy dense. This is what makes it possible to power a car or airplane, or have a power station work effectively. In addition, fossil fuels are historically easy to use in our power system; the system was initially designed to run on them. They are secure, and can be used throughout the day. Further, as said above, the infrastructure is in place to use them effectively. The negatives have only more recently in history become clear. Firstly, fossil fuels have historically been imported from autocratic countries. Second, burning fossil fuels emits a large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as well as sulfur dioxide in the case of coal, and particulate matter as well. Just considering carbon dioxide, the effect of using fossil fuels is such that the world is now heating, known as the global climate crisis. We have already heated the world by roughly one degree Celsius, and are now attempting to limit warming to at most two degrees. The effect of this warming is catastrophic. We are in a man made extinction event. Severe weather is increasing. Coastal regions flood, and will eventually be submerged. The cumulative effects of so much CO2 in the atmosphere simply can’t be ignored, which is why we must turn to alternative sources of power.
The next class of power source I will describe I consider to be the ‘medium impact’ ones, namely, hydro power and nuclear power. In more recent history, these power sources have become more readily available and practical. Again, both operate and create electricity by turning a central turbine that generates power. Hydro does this by setting up a dam and allowing the passing water to turn a generator. Nuclear does this by starting a reaction of radioactive decay that generates heat, which heats water, and turns a generator. Both are stable and reliable sources of energy that operate all day every day, and as such are good for baseload power. Both are completely carbon free in terms of their resulting environmental impact. The primary downside of each is the danger they pose to the greater environment. For dams, this means interruption of the watershed of the river, and killing off wildlife, as well as having to relocate towns and people that are on the riverside that will be flooded upstream of the dam. This is it, however. For nuclear, the impact is primarily with what to do with the radioactive waste created, which remains dangerous for thousands of years, and what to do if the plant breaks down and there is nuclear contamination, as seen with Fukushima in Japan, as well as others. These are the pros and cons of each.
Lastly, the final power source is the newest, and fastest growing, one available, namely, renewables. This includes solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal. Solar and wind are the fastest growing in the US, so I will begin with them. Solar photovoltaic systems operate by harnessing direct or indirect sunlight and, by virtue of its mechanism, turning that sunlight directly into electrical power. Wind, whether onshore or off, relies on the wind energy to turn a turbine and create electrical current. The advantages of these two sources are that they are entirely carbon free, and prices are falling fast compared with other sources. The disadvantages are that we are still scrambling to make the grid conducive to these sources, and they are intermittent. This means that they operate highly at some points, and minimally at others. As such, battery systems are needed to store energy when there is excess, and release it when there is a paucity. This is the primary negative. Geothermal relies on the Earth’s internal temperature to heat water and turn a generator, and tidal is essentially similar to hydroelectric but placed off the coast and relies on the changing tides to turn generators. Again, they are completely carbon free, but the grid still needs work to be able to manage them.
What can government do to level the playing field and encourage a zero carbon future? There are several tactics it could take, and I will explore them here. Firstly, the most straight forward, and most lauded by Economists, would be to place a price on carbon. This would impact every aspect of society and make the real costs of carbon heavy energy provision internalized into the system, rather than having them remain externalities. Europe has a system in place for this, as do regions of the US, but the entire country should have a federal system in place by which carbon pricing is put into effect. The results of the price could be fed into subsidies for renewables. This brings me to the second thing government could do. End subsidies for dirty energy, and redeploy them to carbon free sources. It makes little to no sense to encourage the continued use of fossil fuels just because this has historically been what has been easiest in terms of power sources for electricity generation. These subsidies should be used to encourage zero carbon source of energy. Another thing the government could do is develop more of the ‘medium impact’ sources I have described above, namely hydro and nuclear. These sources are great for baseload power, are completely carbon free, and can operate around the clock. France operates almost entirely on nuclear power, and as a result is not at the whim of fossil fuel producing countries that may have dubious motives concerning the West. It doesn’t make sense to have nuclear in earthquake prone regions, but for the vast majority of the country, this is not a concern.
Two other possible solutions would be electrification, and energy efficiency. We must entirely electrify the entire energy system, including not just cars but also aviation, end use electricity products, and so on. With the move of the grid to a zero carbon future, electrifying everything that currently runs on fossil fuels, whether that be stove tops or water heaters, would go a long way in terms of ending emissions. Energy efficiency would be another tool that could be utilized. This includes a broad array of activity, including not just changing light bulbs to LEDs, but also insulating homes, businesses, and industrial concerns, so that less energy is needed to heat and cool them. Lastly, another possibility is investing in future ‘moon shot’ energy sources, such as fusion. It was recently detailed that for the first time, a fusion reaction created more energy than it used. This would go a long way in ameliorating the grid’s reliance on fossil fuels. There are also other types of solar power used around the world, such as direct solar thermal heating of water, and solar heating of a central mineral by use of focusing mirrors. These could be developed and exploited as well. Battery power must also be encouraged in the grid, as it will be necessary to provide base load power from intermittent renewables.
The real impetus for a change to renewables and carbon free sources of electricity is to forestall the global climate crisis. There are other routes that government can take to also reach this goal. Emissions are concentrated, per capita and historically, in the Western industrialized countries. As such, the activities of citizens of these countries would go a long way in ameliorating the climate crisis. Most specifically, citizens can do three things, and government should encourage these. Namely, they are fly less, drive less, and eat less meat. (Nicholas). Should governments subsidize these activities and encourage responsible consumption, this would go a long way towards solving the climate crisis.
In brief, the future for a zero carbon emission economy is a bright one. There are many routes available to us for use. Fossil fuels that emit harmful emissions must be completely phased out as rapidly as possible, and replaced with both medium type providers, such as hydro and nuclear, as well as renewables and experimental sources. With a diverse portfolio of energy providing sources, we can be confident that we will be able to meet the growing energy needs of our economy, while not contributing to the global climate crisis. We must think further than our own borders. CO2 is a global pollutant, and, as such, we must convince other countries to follow our example if we are to make any headway in forestalling the worsening of the environmental catastrophe that is already taking place. We must act as leaders in the field, as President Biden has done by rejoining the Paris Agreement, and through his Green New Deal inspired legislation. We must show the world what American ingenuity can do when harnessed for the benefit of the world. As such, we must be willing not only to lead, but to share our knowledge and practices with the rest of the world. In doing such, America will regain not just its primacy as a high tech hub of development as well as recreate good manufacturing jobs, but we will lead the world again. Only then, will the bane of the climate crisis be put at bay. Only then, will the world be safe for future generations. Only then, will we have not just prosperity and growth, but regeneration of life on this planet. After all, we cannot all escape to new worlds. This is the only planet we have, and, as such, it is certainly worth saving.
Question Three
As COVID-19 has made the public aware, there are serious issues at stake when discussing the national health system of a country. Literal lives are on the line. Countries varied in their approaches, revealing good and bad aspects of their respective systems in comparison to one another. In this piece, I describe the core strengths and weaknesses of the US health system, and then the possible points for government intervention. I differentiate between research and development (hereafter R&D) of pharmaceuticals (hereafter pharma), drug pricing, and service delivery. For each issue I will spend one paragraph describing the situation in the USA, and then follow this with a second paragraph detailing possible government actions to intervene. I will then close with a summary conclusion of core take aways.
Firstly, regarding R&D of pharmaceuticals. The USA is in a unique position. “The Food and Drug Administration approves drugs if they are shown to be ‘safe and effective.’ It does not consider what the relative costs might be.” (Kliff, page 9). The NIH spends $40 billion a year on funding basic research that contributes to new medications. (Vonortas, 11/8/22). The results of this research goes to the private sector. Typically, drugs are more expensive in the US than other countries. I’ll fully delve into this later in this piece. Why is this the case? Primarily, to provide incentives for innovation. Profitability makes pharma more attractive to investors. “Economic research suggests that price regulation might mean less innovative drugs, too. Investors respond to economic incentives. When they see a market that will pay lots of money for their products, they’ll put more money toward developing the type of drugs that market wants.” (Kliff, page 15-16). In other countries, the decision to approve a drug is on the marginal benefit of that drug. Does it add value compared to existing treatments? If so, how much? In essence, these countries ask if it is worth it. There is a trade off between a higher price and more drugs, or a lower one and less. This can also be reframed as a trade off between innovation and access. This has a direct effect on the R&D of pharma. In essence, the USA is subsidizing the development of drugs that the rest of the world can then either choose to accept or reject. Patents and Intellectual Property protection are also an important aspect of the process. “Patent rights play an important role in the development and pricing of pharmaceutical products. Patent law seeks to encourage innovation by granting the holder of a valid patent a temporary monopoly on an invention, potentially enabling him to charge higher-than-competitive prices.” (CRS, page 1). Patents allow companies in the USA to make sure that they recoup their R&D costs, and make a profit. However, for more tailored drugs, “a lot of candidate drugs fail…because they aim for targets that are not actually relevant to the biology of the condition involved.” (The Economist, Page 12)
Policy makers ask, how much innovation do we need to pay for? Some of the biggest lobbying of lawmakers is around this issue. Marketing expenditure for product differentiation and general awareness is also exorbitantly high for drug manufacturers. One way that policy makers (hereafter PM) could intervene is by limiting the lobbying power of big pharma. Rather than appease special interests, PMs could seek to bust monopolies and promote competition. After all, a large part of pharma R&D is done with public money. Why shouldn’t pharma R&D be treated as a public good in the USA? Yes, we must keep a profit incentive for innovation, but perhaps it would make sense to follow the playbook of other advanced countries, and ask about the tradeoffs listed above before giving 20 year monopoly rights to large multinational corporations. There is some legislation that protects generic companies, and fast tracks their approval. This could be expanded upon, and more deeply encouraged.
The next issue I address is that of drug pricing, which I have already alluded to in the above portion on R&D of parma. To quote Kliff, “The United States is exceptional in that it does not regulate or negotiate the prices of new prescription drugs when they come onto market. Other countries will task a government agency to meet with pharmaceutical companies and haggle over an appropriate price. These agencies will typically make decisions about whether these new drugs represent any improvement over the old drugs — whether they’re even worth bringing onto the market in the first place. They’ll pore over reams of evidence about drugs’ risks and benefits.” (Kliff, page 3). In the US, drugmakers set their own prices. Other companies negotiate their prices, because health is seen as a public good. Since every drug comes to market, there are higher copays at the drugstore. However, it isn’t so clear cut that we should simply mandate slashed drug prices. “What’s harder to see is that if we did lower drug prices, we would be making a tradeoff. Lowering drug profits would make pharmaceuticals a less desirable industry for investors. And less investment in drugs would mean less research toward new and innovative cures.” (Kliff pages 3-4). However, just because we have more drugs, doesn’t mean that we are necessarily getting better treatment. “We get expensive drugs that offer little additional benefit but might be especially good at marketing.” (Kliff page 9).
The government could intervene in one simple manner, by unifying insurance companies and negotiating prices with pharma companines the same way that other countries do. What would happen? “We’d spend less on prescription drugs. If the United States set up an agency that negotiated drug prices on behalf of the country’s 319 million residents, it would likely be able to demand discounts similar to those of European countries. This would mean that health insurance premiums wouldn’t go up nearly as quickly — they might even go down.” (Kliff, page 14). There would be tradeoffs. We would lose access to certain drugs that are currently covered. However, simply having drugs available and on the market doesn’t by definition mean that Americans are benefiting more so than other people. To have a drug that is too expensive to buy is the same as not having it on the market at all. Another possible fix would be, as stated above in the R&D section, limiting lobbying power and marketing of pharmaceuticals. Again, with more regulation, pharam could still make a tidy profit, while not charging absurdly high amounts. Lastly, encouraging generics, either through fast tracking their approval or limiting the monopoly time of big pharma monopolies, would also go a long way in alleviating drug prices.
The final issue to be examined is that of service delivery. Increasingly, at least since the 1980s, the push in the field has been behind personalized medicine and treatments. This started with the sequencing of the human genome, completed in 2000. However, this created a huge expectation that essentially all diseases would correspond to a gene error, and treatments could be developed. This has not been the case. Environment, and its interplay with genetics, is at the root of what causes certain genes, and diseases, to be expressed. However, studies of rare and personalized diseases are “not just a worthwhile end in themselves. Understanding what goes wrong…can reveal basic information about the body’s workings that may be helpful for treating other ailments….That will help doctors personalize their interventions.” (Economist, Pg 4). Further, an outgrowth of this attempt at personalization has been the ‘data deluge.’ (Vonortas, 11/8/2022). “The increase in other forms of data about individuals, whether in other molecular information from medical tests, electronic health records, or digital data recorded by cheap, ubiquitous sensors, makes what goes on in those lives ever easier to capture. The rise of artificial intelligence and cloud computing is making it possible to analyse this torrent of data.” (Economist, Page 4). All of this data needs to be crunched, and increasingly it is information technology, whether AI or cloud computing, that is doing it. As this comes to maturity, we may be able to have a very clear portrait of the full health profile of an individual, and as such tailor treatment accordingly. However, there is still the issue of rare diseases that affect less than 200,000 people. This has still been an area where growth has been slow, as companies see less profits.
There are a number of ways government could step in and contribute to change. The first would be to encourage the sequencing of as many genomes as possible, and building ‘biobanks’ that have this information. This would allow for treatment of not just common disease, but rare ones as well. The second is to discourage the already present monopolistic tendencies of companies, that would otherwise just be encouraged by the move to big data. Health is a public good, and DMs should treat it as such. If we encourage entities that do not seek profit to help, such as charities and nonprofits or NGOs, then this could go a long way in the promulgation of life saving information and service. Another core issue is that the diseases we treat well are predominantly those of white straight cis males. Growing the genetic database allows not just for better treatment for those who find themselves outside of the majority, but all people, as we have more information to base treatment on.
Whether it be pharma R&D, drug pricing, or personal service provision of health care, there are some key take aways for PMs. First, stand up to the private sector. A huge amount of public money goes into the sector, and as such, government should ask for something in return. Breaking monopolies would go a long way towards better provision. Other countries do it, so why can’t we? Treat health like the public good that it is, instead of the latest forefront in which to make exorbitant profits. First, for pharma R&D, encourage profits but at a limited scale. This would allow for the provision of R&D that still innovates, while reducing the prices associated. Another idea would be allowing other countries to contribute money or other resources towards the R&D of pharma. We saw this recently with COVID-19 in terms of the vaccine when Pfizer partnered with German small business BioNTech, which was started by a Turkish-German husband and wife team. Another recommendation would be to do studies that are truly representative of the global population. An example of doing otherwise would be how Japan refused to mass vaccinate until there were studies done with only Japanese people. Finally, we should both democratize and personalize health care provision, by making good use of all the data available, and treating people with full access to their information as possible. However, we must be careful not to allow the sale of personal information without people’s consent. We have seen through the rise of social media just how problematic this can be. As such, we also must be wary of cyber attacks that could leave billions vulnerable as a result of sloppy data handling. This too must be accounted for, through the private and public sector cooperating on security and setting standards. In the end, there is a bright future for health in the future. As long as we can learn from the past.
References
Question One
Pascoe, Cherilyn E. and Nicholas S. Vonortas (2014) “University Entrepreneurship: A Survey of U.S. Experience”, in Nicholas S. Vonortas, Phoebe C. Rouge and Anwar Aridi (eds) Innovation Policy: A Practical Introduction, Springer. [Ch 3]
Question Two
International Energy Agency (2022) “World Energy Investment 2022”, IEA “Overview and Key Findings” “R&D and Technology Innovation”
Nicholas, Kimberly, “Under the Sky We Make; How to Be Human in a Warming World”, Putnam, New York, New York, 2021
Question Three
Kliff, Sarah (2016) “The True Story of America’s Sky-High Prescription Drug Prices”, Vox, November 30.
Congressional Research Service (2019) “Drug Pricing and the Law: Pharmaceutical Panel Disputes”, In Focus, Washington: CRS, May 17.
“Personalized Medicine”, The Economist, March 14, 2020
Vonortas, Nicholas. Class Lecture, 11/8/2022