Technology & Innovation 17(3) Abstracts

Return to Technology & Innovation>

Technology and Innovation, Vol. 17, pp. 87-92
1929-8241/15 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982415X14483045339201
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2015 Cognizant, LLC.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

Recognizing Humanitarian Vision: 2015 Patents for Humanity Awards

Edward Elliott* and Alex Camarota

*Office of Policy and International Affairs, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, USA
†Office of Innovation Development, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, USA

The 2015 winners of the Patents for Humanity prize competition include several universityaffiliated entities and inventors. The competition, administered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), recognizes innovators that have used their patented technologies to improve the world’s living conditions. Applicants submit in multiple technological fields comprising medicine, energy, sanitation, nutrition, and living standards. The program seeks to show the compatibility of strong patent rights and business practices with humanitarian engagement.

Key words: Patents for Humanity; Innovation; Humanitarian; Patents; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Address correspondence to Edward Elliott, Office of Policy and International Affairs, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA. E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 17, pp. 93-112
1929-8241/15 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982415X14483045339247
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2015 Cognizant, LLC.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

Asbestos Exposures Associated With Motorcycle Riding and Hiking on Asbestos-Containing Soils: Risk of Asbestos-Related Cancer

Richard Wilson,* John Kelse,† G. L. Nord,† R. P. Nolan,†‡ and A. M. Langer‡

*Department of Physics, Jefferson Physical Laboratory 257, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
†International Environmental Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA
‡Center for Applied Studies of the Environment, PhD Programs in Earth and Environmental Sciences and Chemistry, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

The risk of asbestos-related cancer was calculated using the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) models. The increased risk was then compared to other voluntary and generally accepted recreational activities. From limited motorcycle riding on asbestos-containing soils, the maximum lifetime excess risk is approximately 0.18 asbestos-related cancers per million people exposed. Other recreational activities are more than 100-fold more life threatening. This asbestos exposure is associated with an insignificant increase in the background risk of mesothelioma death in the general population that never goes to Clear Creek. The risk assessment clearly indicates there is at least a limited opportunity for recreational use of the area when conditions are similar to those reported here. Moreover, some voluntary recreational activities that do not include mineral dust exposure are associated with risk of death of far greater magnitude.

Key words: Risk assessment; Asbestos-related cancer; Exposure assessment

Address correspondence to R. P. Nolan, International Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 3459, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163-3459, USA. Tel: +1-212-817-8248; Fax: 1-800-709-0028; E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 17, pp. 113-126
1929-8241/15 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982415X
14483045339283
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2015 Cognizant, LLC.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

Prevalence of Serial Inventors Within Academia

Richard Kordal,* Dexter Cahoy,† Beatrix Koev,‡ and Eric A. Sherer§

*Office of Intellectual Property and Commercialization, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA
†Mathematics and Statistics Department, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA
‡Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA
§Chemical Engineering Department, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA

Much has been written about serial entrepreneurs, those innovative individuals who continuously come up with fresh ideas to start new businesses. Often, these business ideas and new products are based on technology invented by others. Similarly, within the research community, there are scientists and engineers who are particularly inventive and produce patents at a high level or are serial inventors. Though they are key players in the innovation process, less is known about these individuals. It was the aim of this study to determine how prevalent these individuals are among all university faculty inventors. A detailed study of the inventors listed on all the US patents issued to five major research universities over a 23-year period highlights the outsized contributions of serial inventors. Particularly striking is how similar these contributions were among the five universities studied. In each case, the frequency of serial inventors is nearly identical, with approximately 10% of faculty inventors accounting for 50% of the patents at each university.

Key words: Serial inventors; Patents; Inventions; Technology; Innovation

Address correspondence to Director Richard Kordal, OIPC, Louisiana Tech University, Office of Intellectual Property, and Commercialization, Railroad Avenue, Wyly Tower 1528, Ruston, LA 71272, USA. E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 17, pp. 127-133
1929-8241/15 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982415X
14483045339364
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2015 Cognizant, LLC.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

The Critical Role of Review Criteria in Independent Peer Review

A. Alan Moghissi,*†‡ Dennis McBride,*†‡§ Lauren Amangero,‡ Matthew Amin,‡ Daliha Aqbal,‡ Malerie Briseno,‡ Nicole Carloni,‡ Hannah Choi,‡ Ruby Dehkharghani,‡ Brianne Farmer,‡Kasra Khamooshi,‡ Anna Pavy,‡ Patricia Rivera-Aquino,‡ Joseph Varco,‡ and Charisse Winston‡

*Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, VA, USA
†Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Arlington, VA, USA
‡Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
§National Defense University, Washington, DC, USA

Independent peer review is one of the primary tools of regulatory science. Key elements of peer review include the qualifications of peer reviewers, their independence, implying that they lack conflicts of interest, the review criteria (questions) provided to the reviewers, and the role of the editor of the journal. This article includes a detailed description of a survey of more than 300 key scientific journals on the application of review criteria during the peer review process. The results of the survey indicate a lack of consideration of review criteria as a potential cause of the alleged shortcomings of peer review. The article provides the details of the survey and concludes that consideration of review criteria is likely to reduce the number of poor quality papers. A second survey dealt with a search for review criteria using the internet. Although several detailed review criteria were identified, our study identifies potential problems associated with the application of these review criteria. It is likely that identified problems are at least partially the cause of the alleged shortcomings of peer review, leading to an increasing number of withdrawals of papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

Key words: Peer review; Generic review criteria; Other review criteria

Address correspondence to A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D., President, Institute for Regulatory Science, P. O. Box 7166, Alexandria, VA 22307, USA. Tel: +1-703-765-3546; Fax: +1-703-765-3143; E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 17, pp. 135-143
1929-8241/15 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982415X
14483045339328
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2015 Cognizant, LLC.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

Assessment of Organic Versus Conventional Food Using Best Available Science Concept and Metrics Derived From It

A. Alan Moghissi,*†‡§ Dennis K. McBride,*†§ Paige Mariko Garcia,†¶ Ching-Wei Chen,*† and Samantha Das*†

*Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
†Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Arlington, VA, USA
‡Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, VA, USA
§National Defense University, Washington, DC, USA
¶University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

There has been disagreement concerning the safety of conventional food compared to organic food. In this article, we use the concept of Best Available Science (BAS) and Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims (MESC) to compare the risk of pesticides in conventional food with the occurrence of microorganisms in organic food. The results of the study indicate that the occurrence of pesticides in conventional food falls in the Borderline Science group (Judgment or Speculation). In contrast, the consequences of the occurrence of microorganisms fall in Reproducible Evolving Science. Therefore, there is no scientific reason to support a preference for organic food. The article concludes that a preference for organic food is similar to a preference for kosher or halal food.

Key words: Organic food; Best Available Science (BAS); Risk of organic versus conventional food

Address correspondence to A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D., President, Institute for Regulatory Science, P. O. Box 7166, Alexandria, VA 22307, USA. Tel: +1-703-765-3546; Fax: +1-703-765-3143; E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it