Which one is not the objectives of the TPR? A: read and translate its literature B: oral proficiency at the beginning level C: basic speaking skills D: uninhibited communication intelligible to native speakers
Which one is not the objectives of the TPR? A: read and translate its literature B: oral proficiency at the beginning level C: basic speaking skills D: uninhibited communication intelligible to native speakers
In "How to Encourage Creativity", which one is not mentioned about the definition of creativity? A: It is the process of having ideas that have value and it is about fresh thinking. B: It is a dynamic process and sometimes what you end up with is not what you had in mind when you started. C: It is just about the arts and it is all to do with uninhibited "self-expression". D: It involves making critical judgments about whether what you're working on is any good.
In "How to Encourage Creativity", which one is not mentioned about the definition of creativity? A: It is the process of having ideas that have value and it is about fresh thinking. B: It is a dynamic process and sometimes what you end up with is not what you had in mind when you started. C: It is just about the arts and it is all to do with uninhibited "self-expression". D: It involves making critical judgments about whether what you're working on is any good.
It’s been 30 years since Congress revised US patent laws to encourage universities to embrace the world of commerce. Critics predicted that the integrity of academic research would be compromised by patent-grubbing and attempts to build companies around the latest laboratory findings. But such fears did not come true, says a new report from the National Academics released Monday. The panel—chaired by Mark Wrighton. Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis—examined a vast file of scholarly work on how universities have managed intellectual property in the wake of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act and concluded that things are pretty much hunky-dory (极好的) right now. Or, as the report says: The Bayh-Dole legal framework and the practices of universities have not seriously undermined academic norms of uninhibited inquiry, open communication, or faculty advancement based on scholarly merit. There is little evidence that intellectual property considerations interfere with other important avenues of transferring research results to development and commercial use. At the same time, however, the Academies’ panel warns universities not to go overboard hunting for patents. While some universities have made millions of dollars by licensing discoveries from their labs, raising money should not be the main goal. Instead, the report says, universities should aim to disseminate (传播) technology as widely as possible for the public good. This may mean passing up the best-paying licensing deal and taking one that allows for broader use of the technology. For most schools, it adds, the likelihood of “raising significant revenue, from patents is small, the probability of disappointment is high, and the risk of “distorting and narrowing” the use of new knowledge is great It’s important not to get carried away with racking up patents at the expense of the university’s primary obligation to disseminate new knowledge and technologies, says panel member David Korn assistant provost (教务长) for research at Harvard University. A former dean of the Stanford University Medical School, Korn was involved in reviewing a set of high-minded guidelines for universities that were largely adopted by the panel. These “Nine Points to Consider in Licensing” were previously endorsed by the Association of University Technology Managers. The phrase “racking up” (Line 1, Para. 4) means.
It’s been 30 years since Congress revised US patent laws to encourage universities to embrace the world of commerce. Critics predicted that the integrity of academic research would be compromised by patent-grubbing and attempts to build companies around the latest laboratory findings. But such fears did not come true, says a new report from the National Academics released Monday. The panel—chaired by Mark Wrighton. Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis—examined a vast file of scholarly work on how universities have managed intellectual property in the wake of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act and concluded that things are pretty much hunky-dory (极好的) right now. Or, as the report says: The Bayh-Dole legal framework and the practices of universities have not seriously undermined academic norms of uninhibited inquiry, open communication, or faculty advancement based on scholarly merit. There is little evidence that intellectual property considerations interfere with other important avenues of transferring research results to development and commercial use. At the same time, however, the Academies’ panel warns universities not to go overboard hunting for patents. While some universities have made millions of dollars by licensing discoveries from their labs, raising money should not be the main goal. Instead, the report says, universities should aim to disseminate (传播) technology as widely as possible for the public good. This may mean passing up the best-paying licensing deal and taking one that allows for broader use of the technology. For most schools, it adds, the likelihood of “raising significant revenue, from patents is small, the probability of disappointment is high, and the risk of “distorting and narrowing” the use of new knowledge is great It’s important not to get carried away with racking up patents at the expense of the university’s primary obligation to disseminate new knowledge and technologies, says panel member David Korn assistant provost (教务长) for research at Harvard University. A former dean of the Stanford University Medical School, Korn was involved in reviewing a set of high-minded guidelines for universities that were largely adopted by the panel. These “Nine Points to Consider in Licensing” were previously endorsed by the Association of University Technology Managers. The phrase “racking up” (Line 1, Para. 4) means.