In conclusion

This paper will consider ‘the purpose and relevance, process and method, audience and effect of contemporary architectural research in Ireland’ through the lens of one ongoing project, first presented in the paper ‘Vinegar and Chips, Concrete and Linen’ at AIARG Conference in 2012.
The paper however will not reopen the subject of last year’s paper; rather it will deliver the conclusion that the author failed to deliver within the given time. The paper will thus cover ‘a discussion of the contexts of this research i.e. academic, practice-based, craft and commercial’, placing particular emphasis on how these contexts relate to one another and more particularly ‘architectural research’. It will briefly relate the academic discussions that have evolved from the work (digital crafting; feminist forms of practice and technology; design methodology), but will chiefly focus on the meaning and purpose of research; the development of a practice based research methodology; the myth, mist and missed opportunities of peer review and dissemination (including the disclosure of intellectual property); and the significance of funding.

Novel GlyT1 inhibitor chemotypes by scaffold hopping. Part 2: Development of a [3.3.0]-based series and other piperidine bioisosteres

This Letter describes the development and SAR of a novel series of GlyT1 inhibitors derived from a scaffold hopping approach, in lieu of an HTS campaign, which provided intellectual property position. Members within this new [3.3.0]​-​based series, e.g. I, displayed excellent GlyT1 potency, selectivity, free fraction, and modest CNS penetration. Moreover, enantioselective GlyT1 inhibition was obsd., within this novel series and a no. of other piperidine bioisosteric cores.

Novel GlyT1 inhibitor chemotypes by scaffold hopping. Part 1: Development of a potent and CNS penetrant [3.1.0]-based lead

This Letter describes the development and SAR of a novel series of GlyT1 inhibitors derived from a scaffold hopping approach that provided a robust intellectual property position, in lieu of a traditional, expensive HTS campaign. Members within this new [3.1.0]​-​based series displayed excellent GlyT1 potency, selectivity, free fraction, CNS penetration and efficacy in a preclin. model of schizophrenia (prepulse inhibition)​.

Regulating Services Trade Agreements - A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Disciplines Included in EU and US Free Trade Agreements

Developed countries, led by the EU and the US, have consistently called for ‘deeper integration’ over the course of the past three decades i.e., the convergence of ‘behind-the-border’ or domestic polices and rules such as services, competition, public procurement, intellectual property (“IP”) and so forth. Following the collapse of the Doha Development Round, the EU and the US have pursued this push for deeper integration by entering into deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (“DCFTAs”) that are comprehensive insofar as they are not limited to tariffs but extend to regulatory trade barriers. More recently, the EU and the US launched negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”) and a Trade in Services Agreement (“TISA”), which put tackling barriers resulting from divergences in domestic regulation in the area of services at the very top of the agenda. Should these agreements come to pass, they may well set the template for the rules of international trade and define the core features of domestic services market regulation. This article examines the regulatory disciplines in the area of services included in existing EU and US DCFTAs from a comparative perspective in order to delineate possible similarities and divergences and assess the extent to which these DCFTAs can shed some light into the possible outcome and limitations of future trade negotiations in services. It also discusses the potential impact of such negotiations on developing countries and, more generally, on the multilateral process.

Open for Business: Universities, Entrepreneurial Academics and Open Innovation

The emergence of open innovation theory and practice, alongside the evolution to a quadruple helix system of innovation, has led to a need for universities to rethink their models of engagement with industry and wider society. One important element in this system is the entrepreneurial academics; however there is a lack of research considering the motivations of entrepreneurial academics, who differ from academic entrepreneurs, to engage in knowledge transfer in line with open innovation policy. This research offers practical insights on whether new models of engagement, increasingly offered by universities, really address the policy drivers for open innovation. Furthermore, this research explores whether these activities might motivate entrepreneurial academics to participate. Preliminary findings identify that many supposedly new collaboration activities do not really motivate entrepreneurial academics. This may have important implications on the ability of universities to become truly open and to encourage their academics to become engaged in collaboration and impact.