http://hdl.handle.net/10023/651 2013-05-21T23:47:50Z 2013-05-21T23:47:50Z FitzRoy, Felix Smith, Ian http://hdl.handle.net/10023/659 2013-04-18T21:56:47Z 2002-01-01T00:00:00Z

Abstract: In his wide ranging attempt to review the literature on economic development and welfare in relation to the environment, Lomborg claims balance and objectivity, but actually presents a thoroughly misleading picture of environmental prospects and research, global economic development, and the real determinants of human welfare. Statistician Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy is unnecessary, while denying catastrophic risks such as prolonged drought in major food growing areas (though such events cannot be ruled out by climate models). In spite of its numerous errors and biases, "the Lomborg scam" (as leading biologist E.O.Wilson aptly calls it) has been welcomed by gullible or like-minded journalists and politicians. Description: Previously in the University eprints HAIRST pilot service at http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/archive/00000052/; March 2002. Forthcoming as a review article in the Scottish Journal of Political Economy

2002-01-01T00:00:00Z FitzRoy, Felix Smith, Ian In his wide ranging attempt to review the literature on economic development and welfare in relation to the environment, Lomborg claims balance and objectivity, but actually presents a thoroughly misleading picture of environmental prospects and research, global economic development, and the real determinants of human welfare. Statistician Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy is unnecessary, while denying catastrophic risks such as prolonged drought in major food growing areas (though such events cannot be ruled out by climate models). In spite of its numerous errors and biases, "the Lomborg scam" (as leading biologist E.O.Wilson aptly calls it) has been welcomed by gullible or like-minded journalists and politicians. Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna Beath, John Siegel, Donald S. http://hdl.handle.net/10023/658 2013-04-18T21:56:02Z 2002-01-01T00:00:00Z

Abstract: The recent rise in university-industry partnerships has stimulated an important public policy debate regarding how these relationships affect fundamental research. In this paper, we examine the antecedents and consequences of policies to promote university-industry alliances. Although the preliminary evidence appears to suggest that these partnerships have not had a deleterious effect on the quantity and quality of basic research, some legitimate concerns have been raised about these activities that require additional analysis. We conclude that additional research is needed to provide a more accurate assessment of the optimal level of commercialisation. Description: Previously in the University eprints HAIRST pilot service at http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/archive/00000053/; [Originally] November 2001. This version January 2002. Forthcoming in Oxford review of economic policy

2002-01-01T00:00:00Z Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna Beath, John Siegel, Donald S. The recent rise in university-industry partnerships has stimulated an important public policy debate regarding how these relationships affect fundamental research. In this paper, we examine the antecedents and consequences of policies to promote university-industry alliances. Although the preliminary evidence appears to suggest that these partnerships have not had a deleterious effect on the quantity and quality of basic research, some legitimate concerns have been raised about these activities that require additional analysis. We conclude that additional research is needed to provide a more accurate assessment of the optimal level of commercialisation.