Issues in proposal & new sources

Issues raised in proposal:

-- commons-based strategies for (i) developing and (ii) managing technology-based innovation

-- the economics of infrastructure resources

-- the economics and dynamics of university-based research and technology transfer

-- application of each of the above to a specific example: development of AETs

-- contrasts with strategies for developing and distributing new pharmaceuticals to developing countries (it's not clear to me what this has to do with the research proposal; you might consider dropping it altogether, since you already have a lot on your plate)

Read some core existing research in each of the top three areas above
- commons -- read Benkler's book The Wealth of Networks, and familiarize yourself with the work of Elinor Ostrom;
- infrastructure -- read a law review article in the Minnesota Law Review by Brett Frischmann
- on university-based tech transfer, take a look at a recent article in the Berkeley Technology Law Review by Sean O'Connor. Mark Lemley has also written something about this recently, online at ssrn.com rather than in print.

Revise the proposal to take out some of the rhetorical introduction about the environmental problems;
- the AET idea is best presented as a proof-of-concept application of the underlying theoretical framework.
- Describe what tech transfer does today, why it fails for certain kinds of research, what a better policy and strategy would be for that kind of research, and why AET is a good example of the kind of research for which that new policy and stratey is suited.

Duke & BIOS

a better analogy than the generic drug analogy may be to a commons-based licensing approach that has been proposed in the biotech area (a/k/a "open source biotech").

Prof. Arti Rai at Duke Law has written about this. http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/rai/

Some Austrailian academics are also working on this under the acronym "BIOS".