There's high youth unemployment around the world, despite a multitude of job vacancies. Blame the skills shortage, which 39 percent of employers say is preventing them from filling entry level jobs, according to a McKinsey report. Meanwhile in most of the world, less than half of students think their educations prepare them for employment.  Employers know what we're doing isn't working. Students know it as well. But educational institutions apparently don't, which may be preventing them from making needed changes, as this chart from a McKinsey survey indicates: 

Want the key to making more money? Stop being so damn nice.

I’ve worked on saying “No” for way too long, and I’m still not good enough. For me, it’s nature and nurture. I’m pretty sure I was born nice… On top of that, I was nurtured by the nicest woman alive—my mother.

Why isn’t my business more profitable and more streamlined? Because all too often I let other people have their way.

The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), a nonprofit association of academic technology transfer professionals surveys North American universities, hospitals and research institutions each year on a host of data points that reveal licensing activity. Examples of the type of information gathered include the number of patents, the number of invention disclosures, the number of startups created and the amount of licensing income received. The results are available in the AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY2011, and the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey: FY2011, published Dec. 10. This year AUTM included additional questions to better ascertain the economic impact of technology transfer. In the case of product sales, 58 institutions (31 percent of the 186 respondents) reported that 2,821 of their licenses paid $662 million in running royalties based on $37 billion in product sales, implying an average royalty rate of 1.8 percent. Only 65 of these licenses yielded more than $1 million in royalty income.

It is a common perception that privately-owned biotech firms seeking funding in the United States receive more money per round than their European counterparts. However, when comparing and analyzing the financing rounds of biotech companies working in the field of diagnostics and therapeutics for both geographies, it is clear that this is not the case. We looked at 156 financing rounds in Europe and 265 in the US over the past five years for biotech therapeutic and diagnostic companies, all of which are listed in the Life Science Nation database. For each data point, we had at least nine financing rounds.

The table below shows the average value by financing round in both the US and Europe over the last five years. In later financing rounds – especially series B, C, D and above – the average value is nearly identical in both the US and EU. We can see, from the table below that the largest variances in financing rounds come right at the beginning of the biotech’s life; in seed financing (61% higher in Europe) and Series A financing (46% lower in Europe).

Increasingly, over the past few years, large pharmaceutical and biotech companies have been slashing in-house basic R&D budgets at a fast clip. But at a time when the industry is performing remarkably well and basic R&D is more critical than ever, this trend may appear confusing to many observers. However, what many do not recognize is that this is not a cost-cutting trend (though it is saving considerable money for many firms). Rather, it is reflective of a novel means by which the R&D pipeline is being approached from the ground up, reflecting major changes in the industry over the past decade. In the past, pipeline gaps were filled with the intent of maintaining market share, and in order for a biotech to be a fit, the product needed to be relatively far down the pipeline. Now, all of that is changing.

The reason is a massive paradigm shift in the collective “big pharma” psyche. The nature of the marketplace has changed in that the best researchers with the best ideas are no longer seeking out positions within big pharma, but are starting their own companies, largely due to the fact that CRO’s and other outsourcing partners in the space have made it possible to do groundbreaking research with minimal investment in infrastructure. Some might see this is a problem, as big pharma seems to be starved of innovation and desperately needs to refill dry pipelines. However, this isn’t necessarily bad news – the opportunity for pharma to selectively buy into independently developed projects on a global basis allows for a geared ROI on the R&D budget and introduces an enormous amount of fresh capital to the marketplace at the early stage (an area that many VC’s have all but abandoned).

There is not enough capital to fund all of the good ideas from life science companies, which is a major challenge for life science CEOs today. To identify the next not-so-obvious investors, fundraising executives should look to the capital-raising practices of start-ups in other industries. If they do, they will learn that the basic premises include thinking outside the box and being flexible and more creative.

The economic turbulence of 2008 and 2011 has forced institutional investors and family offices to reevaluate how they fundamentally invest. The poor performance of some of VC and PE fund managers have concentrated fewer dollars in the hands of fewer managers, and the increased competition for those scarce dollars have slowed the life science market at a time when the number of potential technologies and products are surging. The banks, pensions, endowments, and insurance funds that made up a large portion of new VC and PE funds have become risk averse.

In the dynamic world in which we live, staying focused can be one of the biggest challenges.  I see it in my kids, the people I coach, entrepreneurs and achievers everywhere, and I see it in my own activities.  There’s a lot to get done, not much time, and a massive number of (quite interesting) potential distractions.

With all of this going on, how do you stay focused so you can reach your goals and dreams? Here are five quick tips.  This is by no means a comprehensive list; if you have other ideas, please share them in the comments.

Google is running an experiment in Kansas City called, "Google Fiber." It wired up the town with high-speed internet and cable television. Two analysts from BTIG went to Kansas City to get it out and had their minds blown. Here's a sample of what blew their mind from our report on it last month:

Global efforts to reform product development for neglected diseases are failing, a launch of a five-year review of funding of research and development for these diseases, heard today.

The report shows that overall funding has stagnated since 2007, at a time when increases are needed, the launch heard. In addition, a recent trend of higher industry funding for commercially viable diseases may lead to a two-tier, two-speed system, in which products for some diseases get left behind, according to Mary Moran, director of the Policy Cures think-tank and the report's lead author.

She presented findings showing that, while up to 70 per cent of global R&D funding for 'semi-commercial' diseases such as dengue and tuberculosis goes towards product development, only 45 per cent of such funding for diseases reliant on public funding goes on product development.

I used to be a firm believer of this mantra:

“When you love your job, you’ll never work again.”

Today, I’m not convinced that I believe it as much any more. See, in terms of that mantra I guess I’d be considered to be living the dream. I co-founded my own business, get to work with an awesome team on awesome products, we make good money, I get to travel often and I have loads of flexibility. It’s a privileged life.

And all of this has been fuelled by my passion for business, my passion to create, my passion for a challenge, my passion to start something.

Startup work environments are always chaos, but they can still be great environments to work in, or they can be terrible. Whether yours is terrible or great, that same tone flows out to your customers, and regulates your productivity inside. You as the founder are the starting point and definer, so you need to get it right.

What does it take to create a positive workplace culture? I did some research on this, and compared it with my own experience. I’ve concluded and the experts agree that it’s all about understanding people, and overtly optimizing the factors that drive them at work.

Filmmaker Brady Haran and chemist Martyn Poliakoff go inside the vaults of the Bank of England, where $315 billion worth of gold bars currently sit. Each shelf consists of one ton of gold, which equates to $56 million of gold. Take a look at the Bank of England's enormous supply of gold below (video via Reddit):

On Friday, the UN General Assembly passed a resoution proposed by Israel to encourage private and public sector entrepreneurship as the best way to deal with the challenges of poverty and job creation. Despite heavy Arab pressure, which continued right up to the vote, 129 countries voted in favor of the resolution. Only 31 countries voted against, and nine countries abstained. Passage of the Israeli resolution, just two weeks after Israel's defeat in the General Assembly vote to give the Palestinian Authority non-member observer status, is considered an important Israeli diplomatic victory.

The vote was preceded by an intensive diplomatic campaign over several months by the Israeli Mission to the UN, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the ministry's Mashav - Center for International Cooperation.

We all know that Justin Bieber is the Midas of social media. But he doesn't work alone -- he has a stellar team behind him, including a certain filmmaker. If you've seen Never Say Never or the Biebs' newest music video, Beauty and a Beat, you've probably admired the creative handiwork of director Jon M. Chu. He's also the brains behind dance films Step Up 2: The Streets and Step Up 3D, which have grossed more than $300 million, and he's currently in post production on his next film, G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Chu does more than feature films and music videos -- he's also the writer and creator of The Legion of Extraordinary Dancers, an original web series that was described as "the most beautifully filmed, elaborately staged web series in the history of the medium."

If you’ve made the decision that patents are a good strategic element for your business, the next step in the process is to determine how you should structure the patent applications to best leverage the patents in your business. Selecting a non-optimal method could cost you significantly in lost opportunity. In this article, I will discuss a patent application strategy that may be beneficial for many startups and small businesses.

As discussed in part 1 of this series, the time from filing a non-provisional utility application to final disposition of the application is typically 3-4 years using the standard examination process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). With this process, the standard USPTO application fees apply, which may include, but are not limited to, the filing fee, search fee, examination fee, and processing fee. Three to four years is a long time in “startup years.” There are a multitude of startup strategies, but generally obtaining patent protection sooner rather than later is preferential. To illustrate this, I detail two typical invention/startup strategies at opposite ends of the spectrum.

“A vibrant United States that opens its doors to skilled immigrants will provide a greater benefit to the rest of the world than a closed, shriveling United States because the rules by which the US practices the game of economic development, job formation, and intellectual capital formation grow the global economic pie.”

So says Vivek Wadhwa (@wadhwa), author of the book The Immigrant Exodus: Why America Is Losing The Global Race to Capture Entrepreneurial Talent.  I discovered the Wharton Press book via a mention in the author’s Twitter feed and I reached out to ask for a review copy.

Wadhwa’s bio reads exactly as a pinnacle of venture research would be imagined.  He holds multiple distinguished university roles – Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford University;  Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering,  Duke University; and distinguished visiting scholar, Halle Institute of Global Learning, Emory University.

Regardless of the legislation and regulations surrounding the U. S. Postal Service, there are business lessons we can learn from its experiences.

1. Plan for Change

Nothing in business remains constant. Business owners need to keep an eye on changes occurring in their industry, as well as opportunities for change. It seem like the Postal Service either wasn’t paying attention to, or didn’t notice the rise of UPS and Federal Express. It seems they were looking the other way when email and online invitation and card services arose.

Many firms tend to mix the terms and concepts of creativity and innovation. There is a view that catering for creativity automatically makes innovation happen. In this post Susanna Bill compares the works from three different authors about the factors influencing a creative and innovative climate. What can be learned?

WASHINGTON — A set of new initiatives put forward in further detail Friday by the National Institutes of Health could have far-reaching implications for faculty members, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers conducting biomedical research.

The plans, first proposed in June by three working groups, are intended to strengthen and shape the biomedical research work force in the coming decades, focusing especially on diversity issues and on training for rising postdoctoral researchers and graduate students.

Many details of how the goals would be pursued are still unclear, although the NIH on Friday approved a rough implementation plan. The plans, likely to be enforced through grant guidelines, will encourage institutions to adopt individual development plans for all research trainees, and require them to track outcomes for all research trainees, from undergraduates through postdoctoral researchers. They would also create a new grant program for innovative approaches to research training, increase stipends for postdoctoral students, and provide more funding for grants to encourage research independence sooner.