There is no lack of suggestions on how to square this circle.

Quoted in Philadelphia Business Journal, Donald Drakeman, CEO of Princeton biotech company Medarex, proposed last month to encourage pharmaceutical companies to shed technologies they have chosen to shelve: "Just like you see little companies coming out of research being conducted at Harvard and MIT in Massachusetts and Stanford and Berkley in California, we could do it out of Johnson & Johnson and Merck."

This would be corporate equivalent of Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. The statute made both academic institutions and researchers owners of inventions or discoveries financed by government agencies. This unleashed a wave of unprecedented self-financing entrepreneurship.

In two decades that followed, number of patents registered to universities increased tenfold and they spun off more than 2200 firms to commercialize fruits of research. In process, they generated $40 billion in gross national product and created 260,000 jobs.

None of this was government financed - though, according to The Economist's Technology Quarterly, $1 in research usually requires up to $10,000 in capital to get to market. This suggests a clear and mutually profitable division of labor - governments should picks up tab for basic research, private capital should do rest, stimulated by transfer of intellectual property from state to entrepreneurs.

But this raises a host of contentious issues.

Such a scheme may condition industry to depend on state for advances in pure science, as a kind of hidden subsidy. Research priorities are bound to be politicized and lead to massive misallocation of scarce economic resources through pork barrel politics and imposition of "national goals". NASA, with its "let's put a man on moon (before Soviets do)" and inane International Space Station is a sad manifestation of such dangers.

Science is only public good that is produced by individuals rather than collectives. This inner conflict is difficult to resolve. On one hand, why should public purse enrich entrepreneurs? On other hand, profit-driven investors seek temporary monopolies in form of intellectual property rights. Why would they share this cornucopia with others, as pure scientists are compelled to do?

The partnership between basic research and applied science has always been an uneasy one. It has grown more so as monetary returns on scientific insight have soared and as capital available for commercialization multiplied. The future of science itself is at stake.

Were governments to exit field, basic research would likely crumble. Were they to micromanage it - applied science and entrepreneurship would suffer. It is a fine balancing act and, judging by state of both universities and startups, a precarious one as well.

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

There are literally hundreds of thousands of insurance agents and brokers advertising on Internet. Most of them will provide instant on-line quotes and even applications for potential insured. I highly discourage a layperson to purchase insurance in this fashion. A little knowledge can be dangerous.

The federal government has mandated to all states through legislation, standardized senior health insurance policy guidelines, which are governed and regulated by each state insurance department.

There are plans for almost every level of health. Some are designed and priced for a less than healthy individual. Others are for a person with minimal health concerns. . The whole concept of insurance is to provide protection for "unanticipated" sickness or injury, especially catastrophic expenses, which would devastate a person's net worth. The more small expenses a person is willing or able to pay (self-insure), lower rate. I recommend this strategy when evaluating your insurance options.

Another consideration when reviewing various insurance plans is to look at company itself. How long has company been selling this type of insurance? Do they have a lot of complaints filed with local department of insurance? Are rates stable? Does it pay claims on time? Service? Most agents talk about rating. These ratings are as follows: A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, or "not rated".

Do not be fooled by rating alone. It is good to have a high rating, but it is far better to have a company that has longevity, stability, innovation, service, and expertise. The problem is that some companies enter into a market and quickly leave without explanation. This does not give security to policyholder.

The most important consideration should be a review of profit/loss ratio for that product. This will establish stability, and longevity in market. An insurance company with a moderate profit in a particular line of business will remain in that market. On other hand, a company with losses will make changes and possibly even withdraw. This is information not normally available to Internet users.

Before entering into an insurance contract, senior person, family, and other advisors must be realistic, and a careful evaluation of entire picture must be examined. The age, health of senior, financial resources, personality and attitude of senior, and most importantly desires of senior, should all be considered.

Early planning is important, as qualification becomes increasingly more difficult as applicant's health declines. The senior health care market is complex. I will offer some words of advice to attempt to alleviate potential pitfalls. *Choose a well-informed, seasoned, and service oriented agent or broker to assist your decision making process. The professional can offer invaluable information, but do not be afraid to ask a lot of questions and even get a second opinion. *Do not wait until your parent or loved one is sick, or injured. Plan ahead and take time needed to cover all options. *Choose an experienced insurance company. A Company that has been in marketplace for a significant time and has maintained a balance of rates and benefits and sound risk selection with moderate rate increases over time is your best bet. *The plan should be flexible, with a broad range of options and benefit selections to insured. There should be no tricks, or complicated language for coverage. An incredibly low rate is a red flag for trouble in future. *Do not rush or be rushed by an over aggressive sales person.

This policy will not be inexpensive and will need to be read and reviewed for a clear understanding of contents. This is one advantage to Internet. You are allowed to read indefinitely before you act.

A long-term care program, with or without insurance coverage, will only work if senior has input into care selection process. If there are any questions about accreditation of a facility please call "Continuing Care Accreditation Commission at 202-783-7286.

As I have mentioned in my article, best way to avoid potential problems are to plan ahead. I have found a company, that I highly reccommend as they are professional senior care specialist's and offer sound, practicle, individualized, advice for caregivers, family members, seniors, and guardians. They will advise on tax, legal, financial, health care, and other family issues, and are available nationwide.

author: William H. Pritchett Jr.