I am pleased to highlight the agreements reached as a result of Jud's summary statement, adding what I have heard in the various discussion groups. I'd also like to make some comments as I go along and perhaps add a bit of context.

A few years ago, this type of conference probably would not have been as fruitful. If you go back three or three-and-a-half years, there was great controversy in the University of California about technology transfer and intellectual property, and in fact about the direction in which the University appeared to be going concerning these two areas. As a result of a lot of debate and hard work by the Technology Transfer Advisory Council, and discussion on the campuses that was fed back into the Council, I believe we came up with a new direction and developed a new paradigm for the transfer of intellectual property in the University. It's a work in progress. While clearly we have changed the direction of our efforts, we have not completed that turn and have much more work to do before full implementation of the new technology transfer program. However, if you compare where we are today with where we were three or four years ago, I think you would have to say that the University of California has made significant progress.

As we look inwardly at ourselves to define our problems and seek solutions, I can tell you that other universities are going through the same stresses and strains in the intellectual property area. And in fact, the University of California is viewed by many as being out in front, ahead of the curve. I get phone calls and requests for information on a regular basis from my colleagues from some very prestigious and influential universities who believe we are ahead of them. I think we have to consider the findings of this conference within that context as we further refine our policies.

I would like to remind you that the Technology Transfer Advisory Committee approach emphasized that our program be faculty-centered. This is different than the concept four or five years ago where it was to be more focused on revenue generation. The TTAC report emphasized that the purpose of our relationship with industry is not simply to generate royalty revenue, but rather to create a stimulus for the expansion of the economy in California, to create relationships with industry that will help the faculty in pursuing their research activities, and to develop a channel for getting our technology out into the marketplace. The report also acknowledges our responsibility as a public institution. The preponderance of our support comes from the federal government and we operate under the Bayh-Dole Act which emphasizes timely transfer of technology to the market place.

So with that, let me summarize the agreements that I've heard from the various discussions over the last day-and-a-half, and add a comment or two as I go along.

First, UC should encourage industrial relationships. I think everyone agrees we should encourage and facilitate entrepreneurship, and help faculty members develop relationships with industry including the formation of new companies. Clearly there are some programs in the University that attempt to do that. CONNECT at UCSD is an example. I think the environment is in place to extend these types of programs across the University.

There was agreement that our policies need to be reviewed, revised, and become more user friendly. I think we all agree with that. The subgroup that I was in spent a great deal of time talking about Regulation Number 4, which was written in 1958. Probably half the people in this room do not know what Regulation Number 4 is. In any event, policies written a long time ago and rationalized over the years are probably no longer operable. In fact, many aspects of Regulation Number 4 have been superseded by new policies.

For example, we have a new policy on faculty consultation covering how many days the faculty can consult. This does not appear anywhere in Regulation Number 4, although Regulation Number 4 does speak to a faculty member's involvement in an outside activity. So, clearly, an effort to review all of the policies that surround intellectual property and technology transfer is probably in order and an area in which the Office of the President can provide leadership.

Another area in which there was agreement was the need to define more clearly the division of labor between the campuses and the Office of the President. This is an ongoing activity in the President's Office. In the technology transfer area, one of the hallmarks of the Ad Hoc Technology Transfer Advisory Committee report was to define the relationship between the campuses and the Office of the President. Perhaps that focus is too narrow and it may need to be expanded into the general intellectual property area.

Another recommendation is that the University needs to take more risks. If you listened to Dick Atkinson yesterday morning you know we have a President who is willing to take the necessary risks to move the University forward in new areas of endeavor. However, when we take a risk, we must also assume the responsibility for appropriate accountability. We need to better define who is responsible, who is accountable and develop the standards against which we will measure success or failure at the campuses and in the Office of the President.

I believe there is general agreement that we must integrate responsibilities that impact intellectual property and technology transfer. We spoke of silos, meaning the separate management of contract and grant offices from technology transfer offices. How do we bring those functions together? Either by organizational change or perhaps a facilitator at each campus could provide an industrial sponsor with "one-stop shopping," i.e., a contact point on the campus in dealing with campus administration. This is an issue for the campuses rather than for the Office of the President, but certainly there are ways in which the Office of the President might be able to help in integrating those sets of responsibilities.

We must also provide the faculty with the information to better understand their responsibilities in dealing with external sponsors. This need should be fulfilled primarily at the department level. However, the administrative staff can help to provide the necessary tools, whether it is a Web site, or a handbook, etc. In the final analysis, however, the academic departments are going to play the key role in informing the faculty.

And finally, as we progress with our technology transfer and industrial relations programs, we all agree that the University of California's number one priority must continue to be the education of our students.