As a chemical engineer knows, the action that is needed here is distillation. The product of a distillation is a small amount of very pure material that comes out the top and that's what's about to happen during the next hour. Those of you familiar with the process may know that there are also side streams and bottom products. The side streams will take the form of the reports from each of the Advisory Groups and they will indeed find their way into a report from this conference. And there is a process and a schedule for that. The bottoms, of course, as always, we discard.

What we will try to do here is as follows: During the last hour at lunch, a group of us meeting with the group chairs came up with a few generalizations that came out of the discussions of many different groups. I will try to mention those just in summary. And then, with my having done that, each group chair will be asked to come out with the one thing of most importance that hasn't been included in that overall summary. They all know that this can be done if they wish, like a patent is written, so that the claim can have many clauses and commas and semi-colons and what-not. But, nonetheless, that's where they're headed.

Following that, Wayne Kennedy, who is co-chair of this hour, will sum things up for us. And following that there will be an hour of discussion, or the better part of an hour. With an eye towards that, I've been asked to say that the buses running to the airport will be downstairs at 3:30, not before and not after. So let me run down what are about nine different things that seem to be rather common themes from the various groups as reported.

The first of these is that our message to California and its citizens should be a very big picture. That is, we are in all of this as a University in large measure because we relate strongly to the economic and social development of California. That's why we are doing all of this. It has been mentioned that it would be very good if we developed some metrics of our progress towards that goal. And, of course, there is an example which is the analysis that has been done by Susanne Huttner and her group called the Critical Linkages Project that shows how the biotech industry has grown out of university research and the strong relationship there. We need other metrics of that sort and in that way be able to cover a broader range of business areas and social areas where UC has had an impact. And indeed, this vision should also guide our technology transfer policy. At the top of the list should be that our research should be used as efficiently as possible for the betterment of the State and its inhabitants. Another major goal is helping to facilitate the research relationship of the faculty with industry. And, after those two, come the economic or revenue enhancing aspects of technology transfer.

A second common theme is that we should make it very clear that the University of California is encouraging industry-University relationships, not discouraging them, not hampering them. We are encouraging them and we are trying to do what we can to make them work well and better. And that message, we think, needs to be gotten out much more strongly.

We also see a need for communication with the faculty -- students and staff as well -- but the faculty in particular, so that they have an awareness of what the situation is with regard to working with industry and technology transfer, the guidelines, the regulations, and so forth. A suggestion is that there be a Web-mounted handbook for this. The suggestion was also made that we have easily identified and reachable information sources so that you know where to go and you can get a question answered when you need it answered. And another suggestion was to avoid the silo-type of operation where industry, or faculty for that matter, may need to go here for this, there for that, and so forth. We should establish some people whose specific role is that of facilitating, making things easier to get done.

A fourth area was to encourage the University, by virtue of its interests in interactions with industry, to recognize that we need a bolder role that will require some risk, risk that things could go wrong or could not work in the right way. And if we're going to take more risk, then we have to find a balance between that risk and the elements of accountability and of responsibility by the faculty and the other folks taking part in this. So we need to find that balance, where we do encourage a more aggressive approach to relations with industry and do recognize that it takes risk as part of that and we find the best ways to counter-balance that with accountability and responsibility.

Then, fifth, several groups came up with a need to clarify and define the relative roles of the system or of the Office of the President on the one hand, and the campuses on the other hand. The general picture should be a system responsibility, and this now means all of us working together, to define, if you will, the principles at play, and the guidelines that underlie our interactions with industry. But the campuses should have substantial roles and discretion in the implementation of those guidelines. One goal here is to try to get a system going where there can be prompt response and prompt action.

The sixth one had to do with policy generation. A rather specific concept is that it is desirable to re-address patent policy, particularly from the standpoint of enabling partnering and the sharing of intellectual ownership that may go with that partnering. Another specific goal is to facilitate the involvement of short-term visitors and not have everyone, the instant they walk in the door, have to sign something that signs all patent rights over to UC.

Now going further along the line of policy, there was, particularly within the copyright group where I happened to sit myself, a belief that we need to re-address those aspects of intellectual property policy that surround or fill out beyond the Patent Policy. Those issues are, in part, copyright policy. But there are things that are probably not captured within the one word of "copyright" as well. We need an expeditious effort to identify and establish policies along those lines, recognizing that this is the sort of thing that will take widespread consultation within the University, but that we need to get started and try to move it along.

Seventh, we should try to be more user-friendly to industry. If you take the view of the outside looking inward towards us, what do we look like? Are we easy to use? There are feelings that we are not easy to deal with. Can we create an organization and approach that is more user-friendly for industry and which enables, if you will, one-stop shopping by a company that wants to get into the game with us?

An eighth one -- and this I picked up as much from conversations here and there as from the discussion of the group leaders--is that we need to recognize disciplinary differences, or field differences that pertain to intellectual property. We heard about the pharmaceutical industry from Jane Shaw late yesterday. It's quite striking that what goes on there leads clearly to the conclusion that you must own, if you're going to make all of this investment in bringing a product all the way along to market. We have heard that the electronics industry is quite different and that things move very rapidly and there is a tendency to share property quite readily.

And then I can mention one more industry which is the one that I've dealt with for 35 or more years, the chemical process industries, as being yet different in that they will patent quite readily and use patents heavily; however, they are in a line of business where process patents, in particular, are rather easily circumvented. So that if you really want to protect something, you don't even patent it; you just tell nobody. So, the different industries and the different disciplinary areas do differ and I think this means that we're going to have to put a dimensionality of that sort on our policies and on our operations.

Finally, I'd like to mention the ninth, which is the need for the open, true academic environment. Graduate student experience should be the educational experience that we want to provide for graduate students as part of their education in getting degrees. They should not be locked up away from that, and interchange between graduate students cannot be substantially hampered. There needs to be a good scholarly interaction among all of those in the academy, and we have to look for and find the ways to be sure that happens.

With that, I would like to move to the second phase of this session which is the one point each for the group chairs. So nine different, quite pristine and pure distillates, will now appear. Rather than going in the order of the session numbers, for ease in doing this, let's take the order in which people are sitting on the platform. Wayne comes later, so Jim Gill.