44c thank you, page-48

daveironore,

is CYP a con? definitely NO. The problem with CYP is that they don't own the research (and neither does Thomson or Slukvin), it's owned by the WARF (Wisconsin uni) who have funded the research and it requires their goodwill to license that research to CYP... the next question is why should they do that? it's big business. The reason I liked CDI was because they had already secured ownership of the methods and research and hence why that company became attractive to outsiders. In terms of leadership in the field of iPSCs, the Riken institute is number 1; followed by the WARF.

Why does CYP keep banging on about commercial deals? because Ross and co are hopeful that the WARF will assign or license a lot of the patents (covering the production of MSCs from point A to B, in a way that would appease a regulatory body). My position is, why would the WARF do that?

"Why would Harvard, UWA and a leading heart doctor put their names anywhere near it?"
That's a good question. You'll find that most scientists are funded through external agencies (eg Federal grants, Corporate sponsors) and not by the universities they work at (who provide facilities/laboratories/students). Thus, having the Harvard name associated with CYP means jack all. It all boils down to $$, something which researchers lack in bundles.