Jump to content

102IAHexpress

Full Member
  • Content Count

    587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

241 Excellent

About 102IAHexpress

  • Rank

  • Birthday 03/22/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago

Recent Profile Visitors

6907 profile views
  1. Please elaborate on these lavish funds that the UT system has sent to its research campuses. Again you guys just need to educate yourself more on how research works. The Health Science Center, or the Umbrella system funds very little if anything of the actual research. Yes, there are some (very very few) endowed professors that are being funded by the department. But most, instead are self funded. It takes many years, perhaps decades to be an endowed professor, if they even offer it all. Instead what most professors do is apply for grants, from say National Institutes of Heath or the DoD. If awarded, those grants are awarded to the professor. That's how you earn your salary and conduct research in America. Even the pipets and medical supplies are funded with grant money. Heck, even the administrative staff is paid from the research funds. If you're not self-funded, then you're out of a job. The Health Science center helps with the facilities, I guess. Also, the university does help with intellectual property. So, the patents my wife has were processed with IP attorneys from Methodist. But, even then the institute is getting a cut of the assets. I would rather the universities awarded more research grants to the scientists and professors directly, instead of investing yoga lawns. That would attract more talent (in my opinion).
  2. That's true the Health Science Center in Houston did merge with College Station in 2013. Forgot about that. Actually, Buzbee was a regent then, so i'm not sure why I forgot. Also in 2012 Texas Wesleyan University School of Law in Ft. Worth became the Texas A&M University School of Law. College Station was in expansion mode then.
  3. Tell that to a bio tech startup or investor. Yeah, invest in a biotech hub in the Rio Grande Valley! UT Rio Grande Valley is just as good as UT Austin. It's the same institution! It's always amusing watching you guys tie yourselves into knots.
  4. You are misquoting me. And you are flat out making false statements for some reason. Rice has not made any plans of yet to be at TMC3. UT and TAMU are also not there, and were never at the original TMC. The Health Science centers are different universities within the UT and TAMU system. Like UH central and UH Downtown. If, TAMU UT and Rice and Baylor College of Medicine were at TMC3, that could be a game changer. Lets stick with facts.
  5. That's not what I said. You are clearly misquoting me. I think you are the one who is trolling. Also the ad hominem attacks by @Luminare show his true colors, I am sorry to say. TSU, HCC and SanJac is a hypothetical example I made. It is an extreme example, I know. That was the point. Because the "proof" that clustering "works" was also extreme, Harvard and MIT et al in Boston. Stanford, UC et al in SF. Clustering works there, so it must work in Houston too! I think you guys can come up with better counter arguments than that. Or maybe not. Any updates on the yoga lawns?
  6. Just because you don't like the critiques, does not make them invalid ones. Look, If Buzbee wins, I will be working in the mayors office. I want to make Houston a world class city. But I would be doing a disservice if I sugar coated my critiques to you, this forum or to a potential mayor Buzbee. Research is not world class at the TMC. Okay. fine. How can we improve it? How can we maybe one day land some outside bio tech investment? I gave a suggestion a few posts above. You, well, your worthwhile insight is .. Animal House.
  7. There's no need for you guys to get so defensive and upset. We're just having a conversation. In typical HAIF fashion, @blackjacks100 made the wild claim about clustering without any evidence to support it. I refuted his wild claim. It was as simple as that. But I must say this inferiority complex and defense mechanism Houston has, is really off putting. They way Chicagoans handle valid critiques of their city versus how Houstonians handle critiques, is night and day. Chicagoans don't get so defensive and upset at even the national and presidential onslaughts of criticisms that come their city's way (murder capital, corruption, taxes, etc). Yet, someone makes a valid critique of the TMC and the response, is "oh he must be trolling." lol. Yeah, Houston is just not on the world stage level yet, I am sorry to say.
  8. Well, the Boston area has a little something called MIT and Harvard. SF area is less prestigious because it only has Stanford and UC Berkeley. So yeah, that might play a little role too. In fact there's no evidence that clustering is a major factor by itself. TMC3 could be "clustered" with TSU, HCC and San Jac, and the end result would by some pretty architecture. The biggest link between private bio tech investment and a municipality that has been evidenced to work, is whether that city is home to premier research institutions that were already "clustered" there to begin with.
  9. All fair points. It's also a fair point to mention that the research institutions at TMC have had almost as long to develop too. That the hospitals are so great yet the research institutions are so average and therefore has brought almost no bio tech investment is one of the greatest missed opportunities in the history of Houston.
  10. Clustering has benefits for sure. But keep in mind Houston does not need to cluster like Boston and San Fran do. A lot of successful academic - bio-tech hubs are clustered across several counties and even states. See, NYC-NJ, DC-Maryland-Va, Research Triangle in NC, and Chicagoland, etc. Actually, Boston and San Fran are the only major hubs clustered so closely.
  11. To be fair, TMC’s -primary care hospitals- are some of the best in the country if not the world. The research institutions at TMC are a different story. Well, Not the best in the country, to put it mildly. But i agree, TMC can only go up from here.
  12. Asperations are great. But an asperation without a plan is just a wish. And by plan, TMC will need to do more than just "architecture" their way to the national stage.
  13. I would call those lateral moves. UPenn and NU are in the same league (in my opinion). For example, If the Head Coach of LSU leaves LSU and accepts the position at Ohio State, that is more of a lateral move (obviously different conferences but more or less equal programs in size, weight and reputation). If instead, the Head Coach of UH leaves UH for Texas or Baylor then I would call -that- move a step up. That the Head Coach of UH leaves for a step up is not a failure of the football program in itself, but that almost all UH Head Coaches leave for a step up elsewhere is a big warning sign for future recruits. Scientists are going to leave the TMC. Fair enough. But why do -so- many leave. Fix -that- and Houston will see bio tech investment pour in. But like I said. It was just my two cents. If you are happy with the design and you think the design will spur "collaboration" and innovation and cause bio tech companies to move to Houston, then I am happy for you. Really, I am.
  14. FWIW, the green space is the only concrete proposal in this evolving "design." I am all for top professors and bio tech investors moving to Houston. The question is, what's the best way to do that. My wife and I moved from the TMC to pursue better opportunities else where. As some of you might of heard, Dr. Ferrari left as CEO and President of Methodist to lead up the European Research Consul instead. The reality is the TMC, for most scientists is a stepping stone to better opportunities elsewhere. Like being the football coach of the Cougars. Top bio tech companies are not going to invest capital in Houston, just like top recruits are not going sign with the Cougars. Houston's reputation needs to improve first. My two cents. The feedback I have heard from other scientists who chose a lab in Houston over one in Boston or NYC of San Fran, is cost of living advantage in Houston. In the end they still ended up leaving, but at least the low cost of living gave them some interest. Many will chose the best opportunity regardless of cost, so can't do anything about them. However, for those on the fence about Houston, I would pool up the money and give a special TMC "grant" to all scientists that chose Houston. That will lead to better talent, which will lead to better research, which will lead to better national reputation, which will lead to national bio tech investment in Houston. Or, we can just build yoga lawns! Or maybe a light rail through the center of it! Surly bio tech investment will pour in then.
  15. I can see why you think that. That's how scientific breakthroughs are portrayed in pop culture. But in real world science, beneficial encounters are much more intentional, planned and calculated. The best place for the kind of "collision" encounters you guys are thinking about happen at medical conferences. There you have a gathering of physicians, scientists and industry, sharing knowledge in a specified field. I wish it were more like in the movies. Maybe we would have more cures and discoveries if it were. But unfortunately, science is very secretive. There's not a lot of collaboration research and development even within your own university, much less with a rival one. There are collaborations, but they are very very calculated.
×
×
  • Create New...