Read the manufacturer's guidelines before ____ the box. A: draining B: discarding C: disposing D: distorting
Read the manufacturer's guidelines before ____ the box. A: draining B: discarding C: disposing D: distorting
中国大学MOOC: When a body is caused to change its shape, the distorting force is proportional to the amount of the change, __________ the elastic limit is not exceeded.
中国大学MOOC: When a body is caused to change its shape, the distorting force is proportional to the amount of the change, __________ the elastic limit is not exceeded.
I don't remember saying anything like that. You are purposely ______ my words to prove your point. A: contradicting B: revising C: distracting D: distorting
I don't remember saying anything like that. You are purposely ______ my words to prove your point. A: contradicting B: revising C: distracting D: distorting
Chinese American literature was sometime criticized for its ________. A: prejudices towards other ethnic groups B: prejudices towards WASPs C: relatively poor literary skills D: distorting Chinese image
Chinese American literature was sometime criticized for its ________. A: prejudices towards other ethnic groups B: prejudices towards WASPs C: relatively poor literary skills D: distorting Chinese image
Chinese American literature was sometimes criticized for its ________. A: relatively poor literary skills B: prejudices towards WASPs C: distorting Chinese image D: prejudices towards other ethnic groups
Chinese American literature was sometimes criticized for its ________. A: relatively poor literary skills B: prejudices towards WASPs C: distorting Chinese image D: prejudices towards other ethnic groups
I don't remember saying anything like that. You are purposely ______ my words to prove your point. A: contradicting B: B. revising C: C. distracting D: D. distorting
I don't remember saying anything like that. You are purposely ______ my words to prove your point. A: contradicting B: B. revising C: C. distracting D: D. distorting
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.