HighlightsThe circadian behaviour of two models of lysosomal storage disorders were examined.Npc1 mutant mice show no core circadian defects.Hexb knockouts show potential circadian activity disturbances.Contrasting pathology in LSDs may differentially contribute to circadian regulation.

No abstract

This paper takes issue with a growing myth: that university technology transfer is creating too many spin-out companies of poor quality, and giving insufficient attention to licensing.1 This myth originates from imperfect comparisons between the UK and the US, and misunderstandings of both the licensing and spin-out processes. As practitioner of technology transfer of 14 years standing, I have come to understand both licensing and spin-out companies have their proper place, and bias for or against either will only damage the technology transfer process and the ultimate economic benefit. First, the FactsThe myth that there are too many spin-outs originates from these simple facts This table shows the UK performing well in several areas, with the UK universities achieving more invention disclosures, more licenses signed and more spin-outs created per $1 billion of research grants and contracts. These are results to be proud of. Not enough licence income?We know that the UK universities have fewer licences that are yielding income and less total royalties earned from these. However, this difference can be entirely explained on the basis of time-lags, rather than insufficient attention to licensing. 3Royalty income from licences only comes in once the product is launched onto the market. The time lag between the first invention disclosure and the product launch is normally at least 5 years, and in the case of new pharmaceuticals, over 10 years. Licence income thus tends to build up over a very long time. Take, for example, the data published by the University of California, the second largest royalty earner in the US (after Columbia). They publish details on their top thirty highest earning licenses 4 , with the date of first disclosure and royalty income for 2002. This data shows an interesting result (though not a surprising one to those with in-depth experience of licensing).