From an NSF-funded, cross-university campaign to [oil the gears of faculty profiteering](https://ptie.org/ptie-recommendations/):
> In order to gain broad support for the recognition of [Innovation & Entrepreneurship] within [Promotion and Tenure] guidelines and processes, it is critical that I&E supporters on university campuses use language and terminology which is relatable across their institution. For example, PTIE organizers and many others have found that use of the “societal” or “public” phraseology (e.g. societal / public impact, societal need, Public Impact Research) to be an effective mechanism to inclusively engage with faculty around the topics of I&E.
Translation: Bathe the proposal to promote profiteering in the misleading language of "public impact." As if the point isn't clear—*don't dare call the proposal for what it is*—the [statement](https://ptie.org/ptie-recommendations/) continues:
> Use of alternate terms such as “economic impact” or “market impact” can create a misperception of an overweighting of importance on the financial aspects of the faculty member’s work in I&E. Additionally, not all I&E-related impact has an immediate and/or overt linkage to a financial transaction. This approach allows the topic to be viewed more broadly across campus and support a wider cross-section of faculty.
If these are indeed ["recommendations"](https://ptie.org/ptie-recommendations/), the main one is to lie to fellow faculty.