Scope of Advisory Group #3:
Impact of Expanding UC/Industry Relationships on the Academic Environment
Many UC policies seek to preserve an academic environment in which academic investigators remain free to conduct studies as they see fit and to share research results without restriction among their colleagues and students. For example, it is longstanding UC policy that freedom to publish or disseminate results is a major criterion of the appropriateness of a sponsored research project. While a sponsor may seek a short delay in publication in order to comment upon or review publications for disclosure of its proprietary data or for potentially patentable inventions, such delays are normally granted for no longer than 60 to 90 days. It is becoming increasingly common, however, for industry sponsors to ask for longer publication delays and more control over research results arising from work they have sponsored at the University, or supported through provision of proprietary company information, biological materials or other valuable company resources. Concerns have been raised about whether the growing dependence of University researchers on industry support and the related growing commercial implications of such support, including patent and other royalties might begin to generate a culture among UC scientists supporting the delay of the release of research results, diminish collegial exchange of information among faculty and students, and interfere with or confuse the traditional academic environment. In addition, the willingness of some faculty and students to accept confidential company information and materials and to agree to protect its confidentiality during and after a research project adds another layer of secrecy that seems to further erode the traditional openness of the University academic research enterprise.
Advisory Group #3 will consider UC policies and guidelines pertaining to dissemination of research results, acceptance and management of confidential company information and materials, and how these relate to the maintenance of an open academic environment.
Participants in Advisory Group #3:
Impact of Expanding UC-Industry Relationships on the Academic Environment
Joseph Cerny (Chair)
Vice Chancellor for Research
UCB
Christina Hansen (Specialist)
Director of Research Administration
UCI
Norm Abrams
Vice Chancellor
UCLA
Brian Copenhaver
Provost, College of Letters and Science
UCLA
France A. Cordova
Vice Chancellor of Research
UCSB
Karl J. Hittelman
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
UCSF
James U. Lemke
President, Aerolift, Inc.
San Diego, CA
Terry Lightfoot
Public Information Representative, News and Communication, University Relations
UCOP
Patrick E. Mantey
Chair, Computer Engineering
UCSC
Duncan Mellichamp
Chair, Academic Council
UCOP
Piermarie J. Oddone
Deputy Lab Directory
LBNL
Bruce F. Rickborn
Professor of Chemistry
UCSB
R. Michael Tanner
Executive Vice Chancellor
UCSC
Report of Advisory Group #3:
Impact of Expanding UC-Industry Relationships on the Academic Environment
Concerns/Challenges:
1. Agreeing on the appropriate mission of the University
2. Agreeing on appropriate time limits for publication review
3. Overcoming contract concessions of the past
4. Consistent application of rules to private and public sponsors
5. Hesitancy of some faculty to work with Industry
6. Establishing guidelines for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows relative to intellectual property, access to proprietary or confidential information from sponsors, and employment in a faculty member's company
7. Maintaining access to cutting-edge hardware, software, information from Industry
8. Addressing Industry requests for more flexibility in terms and in working relationships
9. Educating Industry on the limits and abilities of the University
10. Educating the Public (taxpayers, politicians)
11. Educating the Faculty
12. Overcoming perception that University technology transfer program's sole goal is to make money
13. Reminding all parties that the most important technology transfer is trained students and postdoctoral fellows
Opportunities:
1. Universities can and should assist in setting the Nation's research agenda
2. Universities should pursue appropriate access to Industry's equipment, software, information, source code, thereby strengthening our training and research programs
3. Universities should set standards for graduate students on the acceptance of proprietary information, restrictions on publications, and their work on proprietary research
Guiding Principles:
1. Enhance research and educational opportunities through interactions with Industry, where appropriate, while maintaining an open academic environment.
2. Maintain the freedom to publish.
3. Any extramurally-funded research should be open to the involvement of students.
Recommendations for Action:
1. Develop a policy allowing graduate students to receive proprietary or secret information relevant to their thesis research only with the approval of the appropriate campus academic officer, typically the Graduate Dean. This policy should also provide general guidelines for academic supervision of graduate students doing their thesis research in Industry.
2. The 60-90 day norm for granting a delay in publication still appears to be realistic. Graduate students should be made aware in advance of any possible publication delays.
3. Re-examine University patent policy with regard to personnel exchanges with Industry. Perhaps some form of joint-ownership of the intellectual property will be necessary.
4. A policy covering postdoctoral fellows in the relevant intellectual property areas should be developed, as part of a general University initiative to incorporate postdocs into more University policies.
Synopsis of Discussion:
Following introductions, Advisory Group Chair Cerny prefaced the discussion with two very important quotes from a Cornell business school set of interviews with Cornell and MIT science and engineering faculty:
"The main cultural problems in [technology transfer] arise when research is not disseminated freely, when the sponsorship of the research severely reduces scientific discovery, and when the research is sponsored by the researcher's company."
"Another effect of having a large number of people engaged in commercial activities is the difficulty of doing research in emerging research areas. Information in emerging areas is almost entirely in the minds of those who work in that area. If people do not share this information, by conversations, conferences, and publication, some researchers at both Cornell and MIT feel it can significantly retard scientific, technological, and commercial advancement in those areas."
Group Chair Cerny also referred the group to three Guidelines from the UC Guidelines on Industry-University Relations that pertain to the Group Topic. These are: Guideline #1 - Open Academic Environment; Guideline #2 - Freedom to Publish; and Guideline #6 - Responsibility to Students.
"What Aspects of the Culture of Technical Professors and the Structure of Research Universities Help or Hinder the Transfer of Technology to Start-Up Ventures," a report sponsored by the Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 1996.
The group went on to discuss the widely-publicized case involving Dr. Betty Dong at UC San Francisco and the British pharmaceutical company, Boots Co. [Reference to Background Reading Material] Advisory Group Specialist Hansen mentioned two recent negotiations at Irvine in which the sponsoring companies insisted that the University take additional steps to ensure non-disclosure of sponsor-provided materials and information by getting signed Non-Disclosure Agreements from all research personnel working on the sponsored project. This request puts the individuals personally at risk in any accusation of unapproved disclosure.
The group generally opposed Industry demands for non-disclosure as a means of restricting information exchange. It was noted that this is a particularly objectionable practice if related to obtaining significant amounts of extramural support. One comment receiving support was that the University should negotiate from a position of strength, i.e., be willing to say "no" to the offer of funds if the terms compromise University principles.
The group went on to identify concerns or challenges and, on the second day, opportunities. The group determined that there was insufficient time to fully discuss concerns, determine details of issues, and prioritize the items identified during the discussion, thus they are provided in unranked order.
Comments on the Report of Advisory Group #3:
Impact of Expanding UC-Industry Relationships on the Academic Environment
No comments submitted.
