don't know where or how you might obtain than kind of notion.
perhaps a pattern modeled after gatoraid might present a better model as to what could go down. in that case the research took off with the products idea after using state funds (and kids on track scholarships at the u of f) to do the research and then sold what he had developed (I think to coca cola???). eventually they (the lawyers and the court system) brought all the parties together and everyone came out ahead.
here (in texas) we do it a bit different. anything that looks promising we shank the reseacher, the institution and the state and GIVE the process or information to some politically connected crony. thereby the very standards of that way of thinking (ie crony capitalism) has been maintain.... ie socialize the cost and privatize the profits. the 'crony'then gets the added benefit of being able to strut about and tell everyone what a self made person they are at each and every social gathering and his fellow cronys can marvel at how such a maginal C- student went so far.
given that this research has been preformed at the federal level (ars) then quite likely a better and simplier model would be the law of supply and demand (ps... it ain't exactly a law as some might believe, but what the heck the lauguage is imperfect). that is to say that if the concept works as suggested and if there is suffient demand for the product (one basic concept you can typically make bet on is that in the supply/demand economic model, the system is demand driven so this must be inplace before supply materializes) someone will built or produce the item. to cut to the chase.... if there is a buck to be made with the product or service??? then someone will build it and someone will buy it.
I have been following this from the reports in the Science weekly and here is just a snipit from the publication;
Preliminary tests of the attractant have been promising. â€œFor example, we are able to induce 35 to 50 percent of mites to drop off of bees when we present them with either of the two attractants, and more than 60 percent of free mites are attracted to these chemicals in biological tests,â€ Teal reports. Moreover, it doesnâ€™t appear that the extra dose of semiochemicals wafting through the hive interferes with the honey beesâ€™ normal behavior or activity to any significant degree, adds Teal, who, along with postdoctoral associate Adrian Duehl and University of Florida collaborator Mark J. Carroll, reported the results this past January at the 2009 North American Beekeeping Conference in Reno, Nevada.
Lets hope there is some foundation to these reports.