Houston Methodist is the first academic hospital in the country to use a new plasma infusion treatment against COVID-19. Photo by Getty Images

A major Houston hospital is spearheading a crucial treatment in the ongoing battle against COVID-19.

Houston Methodist is the first academic medical center in the nation to be approved by the FDA to transfuse donated plasma from a recovered COVID-19 patient into a critically ill patient.

The experimental treatment was fast-tracked as the death toll in the coronavirus pandemic soared to more than 2,000 people across the United States and more than 100,000 Americans sick from the virus, according to a statement.

The concept of the treatment centers around the idea that plasma from someone who has recovered from COVID-19 contains antibodies made by the immune system and used to kill the virus. Transfusing antibody-rich plasma into a COVID-19 patient who is still fighting the virus may transfer the power of the antibodies into a healing, possibly life-saving therapy, per the hospital.

Donating plasma is similar to donating blood and takes about an hour, according to Methodist. Plasma donors are hooked up to a small device that removes plasma while simultaneously returning red blood cells to their bodies. Unlike regular blood donation in which donors have to wait for red blood cells to replenish between donations, plasma can be donated more frequently, as often as twice a week.

Known as convalescent serum therapy, the concept dates back more than a century, when similar treatments were used during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, a diphtheria outbreak in the 1920s, a flesh-eating bacteria epidemic in the 1930s, and during other outbreaks of infectious diseases.

Most recently, a description of the treatment of five patients in China was published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggesting that the treatment was beneficial.

According to Methodist, scientists there recruited blood plasma donors from among approximately 250 patients who have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus at Houston Methodist hospitals. Willing donors were immediately identified; each gave a quart of blood plasma in a procedure much like donating whole blood.

The first recovered COVID-19 patient to donate plasma was an individual from the Houston metropolitan area who has been in good health for more than two weeks, according to the hospital. The plasma was then transfused into a COVID-19 patient at Houston Methodist.

Houston Methodist's convalescent serum therapy treatment is classified as an "emergency investigational new drug protocol" that requires FDA approval for each patient infused with donated convalescent serum, according to the hospital. Houston Methodist physician scientists will continue to seek additional FDA approval for follow-up studies, as time is of the essence.

"Convalescent serum therapy could be a vital treatment route, because unfortunately there is relatively little to offer many patients except supportive care, and the ongoing clinical trials are going to take a while," says Dr. Eric Salazar, principal investigator and a physician scientist in the Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine at the Houston Methodist Hospital and Research Institute, in a statement. "We don't have that much time."

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston innovator on how health tech’s rise offers roadmap for climatetech growth

guest column

Over the past several decades, climate tech has faced numerous challenges, ranging from inconsistent public support to a lack of funding from cautious investors. While grassroots organizations and climate innovators have made notable efforts to address urgent environmental issues, we have yet to see large-scale, lasting impact.

A common tendency is to compare climate tech to the rapid advancements made in digital and software technology, but perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the health tech sector, which encountered many of the same struggles in its early days.

Observing the rise of health tech and the economic and political support it received, we can uncover strategies that could stabilize and propel climate tech forward.

Health tech's slow but steady rise

Health tech’s slow upward trajectory began in the mid-20th century, with World War II serving as a critical turning point for medical research and development. Scientists working on wartime projects recognized the broader benefits of increased research funding for the general public, and soon after, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 was passed. This landmark legislation directed resources toward eradicating widespread diseases, viewing them as a national economic threat. By acknowledging diseases as a danger to both public health and the economy, the government laid the groundwork for significant policy changes.

This serves as an essential lesson for climate tech: if the federal government were to officially recognize climate change as a direct threat to the nation’s economy and security, it could lead to similar shifts in policy and resource allocation.

The role of public advocacy and federal support

The growth of health tech wasn’t solely reliant on government intervention. Public advocacy played a key role in securing ongoing support. Voluntary health agencies, such as the American Cancer Society, lobbied for increased funding and spread awareness, helping to attract public interest and investment. But even with this advocacy, early health tech startups struggled to secure venture capital. VCs were hesitant to invest in areas they didn’t fully understand, and without sustained government funding and public backing, it’s unlikely that health tech would have grown as quickly as it has.

The lesson here for climate tech is clear: strong public advocacy and education are crucial. However, unlike health tech, climate tech faces a unique obstacle — there is still a significant portion of the population that either denies the existence of climate change or doesn’t view it as an immediate concern. This lack of urgency makes it difficult to galvanize the public and attract the necessary long-term investment.

Government support: A mixed bag

There have been legislative efforts to support climate tech, though they haven’t yet led to the explosive growth seen in health tech. For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 gave universities and small businesses the rights to profit from their innovations, including climate-related research. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has been instrumental in advancing climate tech by creating opportunities to build projects, lower household energy costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this federal support, many climate tech companies are still struggling to scale. A primary concern for investors is the longer time horizon required for climate startups to yield returns. Scalability is crucial — companies must demonstrate how they will grow profitably over time, but many climate tech startups lack practical long-term business models.

As climate investor Yao Huang put it, “At the end of the day, a climate tech company needs to demonstrate how it will make money. We can apply political pressure and implement governmental policies, but if it is not profitable, it won’t scale or create meaningful impact.”

The public’s role in scaling climate tech

Health tech’s success can largely be attributed to a combination of federal funding, public advocacy, and long-term investment from knowledgeable VCs. Climate tech has federal support in place, thanks to the IRA, but is still lacking the same level of public backing. Health tech overcame its hurdles when public awareness about the importance of medical advancements grew, and voluntary health agencies helped channel donations toward research and innovation.

In contrast, climate nonprofits like Cool Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, and Clean Air Task Force face a severe funding shortfall. A 2020 study revealed that climate nonprofits aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only received $2 billion in donations, representing just 0.4% of all philanthropic funding. Without greater public awareness/sense of urgency and financial support, these groups cannot effectively advocate for climate tech startups or lobby for necessary policy changes. This type of philanthropic funding is also known as ‘catalytic capital’ or ‘impact-first-capital’. Prime Impact Fund is one such fund that does not ‘view investments as concessionary on return’. Rather their patient and flexible capital allows support of high risk, high-reward ventures.

A path forward for climate tech

The most valuable insight from health tech’s growth is that government intervention, while critical, is not enough to guarantee the success of an emerging sector. Climate tech needs a stronger support system, including informed investors, widespread public backing, and nonprofits with the financial resources to advocate for industry-wide growth.

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles.The future of climate tech depends not just on government policies, but on educating the public, rallying financial support, and building a robust infrastructure for long-term growth.

———

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus, a startup hub for the energy transition.

This article originally ran on EnergyCapital.

Houston schools lead rankings for best entrepreneurship programs for 6th consecutive year

top of class

Rice University and the University of Houston have once again topped The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s lists of the best graduate and undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies.

Rice ranks first in the graduate category for the sixth consecutive year, and UH ranks first in the undergraduate category for the sixth consecutive year.

“At Rice Business, our students learn both inside and outside the classroom, drawing on our strong industry and community connections in Houston and beyond,” says Peter Rodriguez, dean of Rice’s Jones Graduate School of Business. “With small class sizes and tailored programs, we aim to equip our students with the skills to create new ventures and excel in a fast-changing business landscape.”

UH President Renu Khator praises the ranking as recognition for the impact of the Cyvia and Melvyn Wolff Center for Entrepreneurship at the C.T. Bauer College of Business.

“This program is a tremendous asset not only to the University of Houston and the Bauer College of Business, but also to the city of Houston, where entrepreneurship fuels both socioeconomic mobility and economic growth,” Khator says. “We are proud to see the impact of this program reverberate throughout our community.”

Rankings for The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s 2025 lists were based on a survey of administrators at nearly 300 schools in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Europe that offer entrepreneurship studies. Among the more than 40 factors used for the rankings were academic programs, faculty credentials, mentorship opportunities, and alumni entrepreneurship ventures.

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

  1. University of Houston
  2. University of Texas at Austin
  3. Babson College
  4. University of Washington
  5. Washington University in St. Louis
  6. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
  7. University of Maryland-College Park
  8. Miami University of Ohio
  9. Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico
  10. Northeastern University

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best graduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

  1. Rice University
  2. University of California-Los Angeles
  3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
  4. Washington University in St. Louis
  5. Babson College
  6. University of Washington
  7. University of Texas at Austin
  8. University of Virginia
  9. Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands
  10. University of South Florida

2 Houston suburbs rank among top 10 US cities for population growth in 2023

by the numbers

Two burgeoning Houston suburbs – Atascocita and Conroe – are among the top 10 U.S. cities that have experienced the biggest population booms nationwide from 2022 to 2023.

A new population growth analysis by SmartAsset examined U.S. Census population estimates for 2023, 2022, and 2018 to determine one-year and five-year population changes for 610 U.S. cities with populations of at least 65,000 residents in 2023 (where the most recent data was available).

Silver Spring, Maryland had the No. 1 biggest population boom from 2022 to 2023, SmartAsset found. The Washington, D.C. suburb grew 12.86 percent year-over-year, bringing the city's total population from 75,313 to 84,996 residents in 2023.

Atascocita trailed close behind with a 11.03 percent increase in population from 2022 to 2023, which landed it the No. 5 spot in the one-year population change analysis. The city gained 11,876 new residents in that time, adding up to a total population of 119,502 residents in 2023.

This should come as no surprise to those who already live in Atascocita, who may know their hometown was ranked one of the most livable small cities in America in 2022, and earned a top-30 spot in a recent ranking of best U.S. suburbs for house renters in 2024.

According to SmartAsset's five-year population comparison, Atascocita had the second highest growth rate in the country, at 38.56 percent. There were only 86,243 residents living in the far-flung Houston suburb in 2018, showing an increase of 33,259 residents within the five-year period.

The report also examined the changes within Atascocita's working-age population:

  • Number of working-age residents in 2022 – 54,095
  • Number of working-age residents in 2023 – 58,297
  • Percent of population of working age in 2022 – 50.26 percent
  • Percent of population of working age in 2023 – 48.78 percent
  • One-year change in the number of working-age residents from 2022 to 2023 – 7.77 percent increase
Meanwhile, Conroe ranked No. 9 nationally with a 6.73 percent one-year change in total population. Conroe gained over 6,800 residents from 2022 to 2023, bringing the city's total population to 108,244 residents. The city had a far more dramatic five-year growth rate, at 23.49 percent.Conroe has also earned some well-deserved time in the spotlight as one of the best small cities in America in 2024, and the fifth best city for renters in Texas.

The report suggested major population shifts in communities like Atascocita and Conroe can result in "a variety of interwoven economic and social impacts."

"The magnitude of the population change can affect demand for businesses and services, which in turn may impact costs – or even the availability of such amenities," the report's author wrote. "Similarly, the relative age of the population can determine the strength or weakness of the local job market, as well as have an impact on local culture, economic trajectory, tax base and more."

Fast-growing cities elsewhere in Texas
Texas cities dominated the top 10 list of cities where population grew the most from 2022 to 2023.

New Braunfels, a San Antonio suburb, ranked No. 2 nationally with an 12.49 percent one-year population boom, and a 29.68 percent growth rate from 2018 to 2023. The city gained 12,318 new residents in that time, adding up to a total population of 110,961 residents in 2023.

The North Austin suburb of Georgetown (No. 4) ranked one spot above Atascocita with an 11.34 percent one-year population boom, and a 29.85 percent growth rate from 2018 to 2023.

The top 10 U.S. cities where population grew the most from 2022 to 2023 are:

  • No. 1 – Silver Spring, Maryland
  • No. 2 – New Braunfels, Texas
  • No. 3 – Glen Burnie, Maryland
  • No. 4 – Georgetown, Texas
  • No. 5 – Atascocita, Texas
  • No. 6 – Pine Hills, Florida
  • No. 7 – Elgin, Illinois
  • No. 8 – Lehi, Utah
  • No. 9 – Conroe, Texas
  • No. 10 – Dale City, Virginia

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.