1. Open Academic Environment
2. Freedom to Publish
3. Outside Professional Activities
4. The Obligation to Avoid Conflict of Interest
5. Disclosure Responsibilities
6. Responsibility to Students
7. Patent Policy
8. University Practice on Licensing the Use of Technology Resulting from Research
9. Copyright Policy
10. Tangible Research Products
11. Use of University Facilities
12. Recovering Costs from Research Sponsors: Gift/Grant Distinctions
13. Organizational Arrangements

Current Guideline #1. Open Academic Environment

All University research, including research sponsored by industry, is governed by the tradition of the free exchange of ideas and timely dissemination of research results. The University .is committed to an open teaching and research environment in which ideas can be exchanged freely among faculty and students in the classroom, in the laboratory, at informal meetings, and elsewhere in the University. Such an environment contributes to the progress of teaching and research in all disciplines.

Reasonable steps should be taken to insure that commercial pressures do not impede faculty communication with their colleagues or their students about the progress of their research or their findings. Indicators of possible problems include the disruption of the informal exchange of research findings and products, the lessening of collegiality, and the rise of competitive and adversarial relations among faculty.

Guideline: The Administration and the Academic Senate are responsible for assuring that an open environment exists throughout the University. It is the responsibility of the campus administration, departmental faculty, and the Academic Senate to establish appropriate norms and to assure the existence of an open environment.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

All major U.S. research universities have guidelines, such as ours, lauding the value of an open academic environment. Yet, recent studies conclude that academic investigators with industrial support are twice as likely to engage in trade secrecy or to withhold research results from colleagues as are investigators without such support. Is this true at UC? How would we know? Do we even know how many faculty members have outside entrepreneurial activities which entail secrecy agreements? Do we know what number of industry agreements with the University entail proprietary data and non-disclosure requirements? Should UC adopt a policy similar to MIT's, which precludes students from receiving trade secrets or proprietary data? What precisely do we mean when we say that "reasonable steps" should be taken to insure that commercial pressures do not impede faculty communication with students and colleagues? What are some examples of "reasonable steps", and who should be responsible for seeing that they are taken?

Current Guideline #2. Freedom to Publish

Freedom to publish and disseminate results is a major criterion of the appropriateness of any research project. University policy precludes assigning to extramural sources the right to make final decisions about what may be published. A sponsor may seek a short delay, however, in order to comment upon and to review publications for disclosure of its proprietary data or for potentially patentable inventions. Such a delay in publication should normally be no more than 60 to 90 days. Chancellors, and Vice Presidents, in their areas of responsibility, may make exceptions to this policy under a few limited conditions. This is outlined in full in the Contract and Grant Manual. If any doubt remains concerning an exception, the Chancellor may resolve it by further referring the matter to the Office of the President.

The freedom to publish is not an obligation to publish. Under the Faculty Code of Conduct, a faculty member "...accepts the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge..." The exercise of this self-discipline and judgment, not external factors, should determine the content and timing of publication.

Guideline: Freedom to publish is fundamental to the University and is a major criterion of the appropriateness of a research project.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT

Recently, there have been more frequent requests from industry that the University cede some control over decisions about what research results may be published out of a sponsored research project. Current UC policy allows Chancellors to grant such exceptions only in cases involving national security, government restrictions in extraordinary circumstances which do not involve ultimate censorship of the research results, when the University is producing a product for purchase by the sponsor, or if the sponsor reserves the first right of publication but promises to surrender that right back to the University after a reasonable interval of time. Are Chancellors making such exceptions more often than in the past? What other exceptions to the publication policy are being made, and do they all fall within the list of allowable exceptions provided for by current policy? Is the 60-90 day norm for granting a delay in publication realistic, or should a longer delay period be allowed? Are longer delays already being allowed? How important a value is the freedom to publish and disseminate research results? Is it equally important for all types of sponsored research? For example, does the type of research performed for industry sponsors typically result in high-quality academic publications? Is it realistic to expect unfettered publication of results for pharmaceutical clinical trial projects and other "testing," consulting, or service agreements? Are outside commercial interests of faculty members affecting decisions about the content and timing of publications?

Current Guideline #3. Outside Professional Activities

Faculty are encouraged to engage in appropriate outside professional activities. Each year faculty must submit an annual report on outside professional activities to the department chair. This information is included in the faculty member's record and evaluated in the academic review process. It is the responsibility of each faculty member to assure that such outside activities do not interfere with obligations to the University in teaching, research, and public service; and that no portion of time due the University is devoted to private purposes. Provisions of outside consulting agreements must not limit a faculty member's ability to carry out ongoing obligations under University policies such as the Patent Policy.

Guideline: Faculty are encouraged to engage in appropriate outside professional activities. Responsibility rests with each faculty member to assure that such activities do not interfere with the performance of University duties.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

A conflict of "commitment" occurs when a full-time employee's outside activities detract from the employee's primary obligation to his or her University duties, or when the employee's primary professional loyalty is not to the University of California. Conflicts of commitment can also occur which do not involve the allocation of time, for example, when a faculty member submits a research proposal through channels other than the University to support work that will be or could be performed at the University.

Since the adoption of these guidelines in 1989, it has become the policy of the University of California that employees will not engage in compensated outside professional activities for more than 39 days during the academic year. In addition, it is University policy that employees who receive any part of their salary through the University, or whose activities use any University resources or facilities, must submit their proposals for extramural support to the University. In addition, all awards must be made to The Regents of the University of California.

What concerns or trends led to the adoption of these new policies? Has there been a significant increase in the number of faculty engaging in outside professional activities? More specifically, has there been a significant increase in the number of UC faculty who have started companies? Should this be encouraged (e.g., through the wider award of entrepreneurial leaves, or greater consideration of technology transfer activity in promotion and tenure decisions, etc.)? Should it be discouraged? Should a faculty member document or report the differences between his/her activities on campus and his/her activities for the company? Is it appropriate for faculty members to assume management or line responsibility for their companies? Should oversight committees evaluate the appropriateness of a faculty-entrepreneur's on-campus activity in order to avoid potential abuse of students? Is it appropriate for the University to become a development arm of a company?

Current Guideline# 4. The Obligation to Avoid Conflict of Interest

University employees must avoid conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is a situation in which an employee has the opportunity to influence a University decision that could lead to financial or other personal advantage, or that involves other conflicting official obligations. The California Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits any University employee from making or participating in the making of a University decision from which personal financial gain is foreseeable. Exempted from the Act are decisions on the selection of teaching and other program materials and some decisions about research. The Universitywide Statement on Conflicts of Interest gives some examples of conflict-of-interest situations. It goes on to say, however: "It has long been recognized that the only truly effective safeguard against conflicts of interest situations is the integrity of the faculty and staff. A codification of the complex ethical questions involved, even if possible, would be unduly restrictive. At the same time, even the most alert and conscientious person may at times be in doubt concerning the propriety of certain actions or relationships. Whenever such doubt arises, the University expects the individual involved to consult with the Office of the Chancellor, or the Chancellor's designated representative, before making a decision.

Guideline: Faculty may not engage in any activity that places them in a conflict of interest between their official University activities and any other interests or obligations.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

Conflicts of interest do not necessarily derive from the character or actions of the individual. Sometimes they arise from the fact that an important means of accomplishing the University's public service mission is the involvement of University employees in efforts to transfer the results of University research and scholarship to the private sector by engaging in close partnerships with industry. Instead of requiring UC employees to avoid conflicts of interest, which may imply that such conflicts are inherently bad or wrong , should the University recognize that such conflicts are common when research universities adopt technology transfer and related economic development as key missions?

Do we agree that it is appropriate that University employees be rewarded for their participation in such activities? Do we still contend that it is wrong, however, for a University employee's actions or decisions made in the course of his or her University activities to be determined by considerations of personal financial gain? Because the University of California is a public institution, is it not equally important that steps be taken to minimize the appearance that a University employee's professional actions or decisions are motivated by considerations of personal financial gain?

Most conflicts of interest can be managed through some form of disclosure (see Guideline #5). Are disclosure and management of actual or potential conflicts of interest sufficient to enable the University to allow arrangements which give rise to conflicting interests to go forward?

Current Guideline #5. Disclosure Responsibilities

Principal Investigators who have a financial interest in any non-governmental sponsor proposing to fund their research must disclose that interest. The written statement of disclosure must be reviewed and approved independently and substantively by local campus committees on the basis of specific criteria in the University's disclosure policy and guidelines before funding for the research can be approved. This report is required by both University policy and State law. A project completion statement is also filed. Such statements of disclosure are open to public inspection. As noted in Guideline 3, faculty must also submit to the department chair after-the-fact annual reports on outside professional activities.

Guideline: Principal Investigators who have a financial interest (such as equity, directorship, or consultant relationship) in any non-governmental sponsor proposing to fund their research must disclose this interest prior to acceptance of funding.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

UC's current conflict of interest disclosure policy is driven by external requirements imposed, since 1982, by the State of California and, since 1995, by certain federal agencies. Indeed, UC was one of the first major research universities in the United States to require its faculty to disclose personal financial interests in companies proposing to sponsor their research; such disclosures are viewed as a reasonable way to identify and eliminate -- or at least manage -- conflicting interests. By 1995, when the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation began to require all grant applicants to disclose all personal financial interests related to their proposed research, most major research universities had adopted their own internal conflict of interest disclosure policies. In contrast, UC has chosen simply to continue to require PI's to disclose their financial interests in proposed private sponsors, as mandated by State law and reflected in Guideline #5, while also adopting a new policy to implement the somewhat different disclosure requirements imposed on faculty applying for grants through PHS or NSF. The University is set to phase in the use of the PHS/NSF disclosure requirements for all extramurally- and intramurally-sponsored research, beginning with all federal sponsors in July 1997.

Should UC continue on its current path toward extending the PHS/NSF disclosure requirements to all sponsored research (while continuing to comply with different State disclosure requirements for PI's only in relation to private research sponsors)? Should UC recognize that many conflicts of interest are unavoidable, require all employees to disclose their financial interests in any outside entities which could be affected by their University research activities or University business decisions, and establish a mechanism to manage such conflicts?

Current Guideline #6. Responsibility to Students

University regulations protect the academic freedom of students, and responsibility for adherence to these principles rests with the faculty. Students who have reasons to believe they are in situations which violate those principles are advised to seek the advice of the Department Chair or campus ombudsperson. The Academic Senate's Divisional Graduate Councils and the Universitywide Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs are also responsible for making sure that closer University-industry relations do not create strains in the professor-student relationship.

Students must be able to choose research topics for educational reasons without being overly influenced by the need to advance investigations of direct interest to a -particular firm; they must be protected against-the premature transmittal of research results; and they must be advised objectively on career choices.

The Faculty Code of Conduct states:

"As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals, and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that their evaluations of students reflect each student's true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom."

Guideline: Faculty members must not allow any outside professional activities or interests to adversely affect their responsibilities to students as teachers, mentors, or supervisors of research.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

What is the actual impact on students of increased industry sponsorship of work inside the University and increased faculty entrepreneurial activity outside? Should faculty members involve their students in their outside professional activities? Is there a need to protect the integrity of the mentoring relationship between faculty and students? Should faculty be discouraged from employing students outside of the University or involving students in industry- funded projects? Should students sign trade secrecy agreements?

Current Guideline #7. Patent Policy

All University employees must disclose all potentially patentable inventions conceived or developed while employed by the University and must assign all those inventions that occur in the course and scope of their employment to the University. Whether inventions are or are not patentable is a matter of Federal patent law. Whether the University will prosecute any specific patent is a determination to be made by the UC Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Office. While all patentable inventions must be disclosed, inventions resulting from permissible consulting activities without use of University funds or facilities need not be assigned to the University. Consulting agreements should be reviewed carefully, however, to make sure they do not conflict with obligations under University patent and other relevant policies.

The University of California Patent Policy seeks to assure balance among several objectives: 1) facilitating prompt and effective development of useful inventions; 2) preventing the inappropriate use of public funds for private gain; 3) maintaining good relations with industry to make the best use of opportunities for education and research funding; and 4) obtaining appropriate revenues for the University from the licensing of patents. For these purposes, the University Patent Policy provides for: 1) mandatory disclosure to the University of potentially patentable inventions by employees or those who otherwise use facilities or research funds of the University; 2) assignment of patent rights to inventions developed in the course of University employment, or with use of University research facilities, or University funds; 3) sharing of royalties with inventors; and 4) transferring of technology to industry for the public benefit. Although the primary purpose of University research is not commercially applicable discoveries or inventions, the University recognizes the need to encourage the practical application of the results of research for the public benefit. Thus, the University maintains an active program for identifying and patenting potentially useful inventions and for licensing them to firms which have the capability of developing, manufacturing, and marketing them.

Guideline: All University employees and others who use University funds or facilities must sign patent agreements and must adhere to the University of California Patent Policy.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

A key feature of UC Patent Policy is that inventions made by all personnel who use UC resources, including visiting scientists from industry, must disclose such inventions and assign title to UC. There is some resistance to this position in industry when industry employees work in UC laboratories; when UC faculty/students work in industry laboratories; and when proprietary industry research materials are used at UC sites. Should industry ever own intellectual property made by UC employees or students and their collaborators, or using UC resources? What is the appropriate role of faculty, employees, and students in management decisions concerning their I.P.? Is UC non-involvement in faculty consulting I.P. agreements (as is now the case) appropriate? Should faculty ever own the I.P. generated at UC? What are the appropriate criteria for UC release of ownership of inventions to employee inventors?

Current Guideline #8. University Practice on Licensing the Use of Technology Resulting from Research

The major purposes of licensing to industry the use of technology resulting from University research are: 1) to provide a mechanism for transferring, disclosing, and disseminating the results of University research to the public for the public benefit; and 2) to meet obligations to research sponsors. Licensing also provides a financial return to support further research and education.

Terms and conditions for licensing agreements should consider the nature of the technology, the stage of development of the invention, the effect on the research endeavor in question, the public benefit, and the marketplace. Agreements are negotiated on a case by case basis. If a company needs time to evaluate a research result, an option agreement may be negotiated to allow a limited time for a review for licensing purposes. The University will grant the right of first refusal to the sponsor for an exclusive or nonexclusive license, based on the level of sponsor support. Any license of a patentable invention must at least provide for diligent development by the licenses and, in most cases, for the payment of royalties. Reproduction of copyrightable expressions may be separately licensed. Agreements, options, non-exclusive licenses, and exclusive licenses must not interfere with the principle of open dissemination of research results.

Guideline: university practice permits the licensing of technology resulting from its research as long as the university retains the right to disseminate the results publicly. The principle of the right of open dissemination of research results must not be compromised.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

What are the objectives of the University's technology licensing program, and what criteria should be used to select licensees (e.g., maximum royalty income? future research support? State or regional economic development? Support for small company start-ups?) Under what circumstances should an invention be licensed to the inventor's company, and what controls, if any, should be placed on such a relationship? What principles should guide the University in determining invention licensing rights that should be committed to industry research sponsors? ... To providers of research materials? ... To others involved in research collaborations or partnerships? Should a principal investigator be able to commit the rights to inventions made by the PI's students under the PI's research project? ... Made by the PI's collaborators? Should a PI be able to commit the rights to University inventions made by others when the PI's research sponsor may need access to those other inventions to practice the invention made by the PI? Should a PI be able to commit rights to inventions to an industry research sponsor for inventions arising out or his or her federally funded projects? Under what, if any, circumstances are royalty-free licenses appropriate? Do the answers to any of the above change by industrial sector?

Current Guideline #9. Copyright Policy

In keeping with academic tradition, University Copyright Policy provides that ownership of copyrights to scholarly or aesthetic works that are prepared through independent academic effort and not as part of a directed University assignment generally reside with the author (unless the work in question was commissioned by the University, or the work was created under extramural support). Such scholarly or aesthetic works include, but are not limited to, books, articles, lectures, and computer software resulting from independent academic study; or artistic works such as novels, videotapes, and musical compositions.

Otherwise, all rights in copyright arising from University employment or the use of University resources belong to the University. Title to the copyrightable material that is developed under a contract or grant from a commercial sponsor normally belongs to the University. In limited cases, where the purpose of the agreement is to develop a copyrightable work for the sponsor's publication, the copyright may be assigned to the sponsor, but only if there is a provision surrendering this right to the University after a reasonable interval of time, in the event the extramural fund source has not published within that time. Each campus has a designated official who is able to answer questions about applicability of the Copyright Policy.

Guideline: All University employees and others who use University funds or facilities must adhere to the University Copyright Policy.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

When the current policy on ownership of copyrighted works was created, such works were typically scholarly publications and course materials in a printed medium. Today, copyrighted works are a commodity in high demand, and the stakes have been raised considerably. The demand for new technologies and content has presented opportunities for faculty to interact with industrial sponsors in new and positive ways, but the rules for determination of ownership and control of copyrighted works are complex and unclear. At present, the creators of a work de facto determine who owns the work, but a creator of a work may not be aware of legal, contractual and policy requirements governing their work, and they may not accurately determine ownership in accordance with copyright law or UC Policy. In situations where there are many authors involved, there are likely to be joint interest situations, and it is unclear how ownership is established. Should the University take a more active role in determining ownership of copyrighted works? Should the University reevaluate its position on ownership between the University and faculty on commercially valuable works? Should there be special attention given to software or multimedia products? The Policy on Copyright Ownership does not provide guidance on the University's position on ownership of copyrighted works with respect to sponsors of research. Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the University to grant ownership to the sponsor? Should the guidelines used for patented technologies be applied to copyrights? Should there be additional policies developed to address management, dissemination, and distribution of income of copyrightable works?

Current Guideline #10. Tangible Research Products

Tangible research products include a wide range of tangible property resulting from the conduct of research, as distinct from copyrightable expressions and patentable inventions. Tangible research products may confer a public benefit through commercial licensing and may include biological materials, such as cell lines and plasmids; chemical compounds; electrical schematic diagrams; mechanical design drawings; and more abstract products such as detailed descriptions or compilations of laboratory procedures, analytical methods, or other such "know-how." The University's Intellectual Property Advisory Council is developing a written policy on tangible research products.

In the event that research results are to be licensed, the University prefers that they be patented or copyrighted when possible. When this is not practical, licensing of tangible research products consistent with these Guidelines is permissible. When the University licenses tangible research products', it is willing to restrict commercial availability of such materials, but such agreements must permit the University to retain the discretion to publish any results of research at any time and to disseminate the tangible materials for educational and research purposes. Such publication and dissemination rights are essential to an academic institution of education and research.

Licensing of tangible research products must have the written concurrence of the involved researchers and the approval of the appropriate Chancellor, laboratory Director, or Vice President. All such licenses must follow standard University policy and procedures for contracts. Chancellors are further responsible for monitoring the effects of such arrangements on the openness of academic exchange.

Guideline: The University will permit the licensing of tangible research products as long as no inappropriate restrictions are placed on publication or dissemination of research results and materials.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

The University is no longer actively working on the development of a written policy on tangible research products. Should such a project be reactivated? Are there disputes currently about who owns tangible results? What has been our experience in licensing out tangible research products? Are licensees willing to accept that the University is free to disseminate the materials for educational and research purposes, as well as to publish research results? What restrictions are acceptable to the University when the University licenses in tangible materials? Are biotechnology companies, for example, securing rights to research results without paying for the research itself under the terms of the company's material transfer agreements?

Guideline #11. Use of University Facilities

University facilities are to be used for activities appropriate to the University's mission. Regulation 4, Special Services to Individuals and Organizations, which governs the use of research facilities, establishes guidelines limiting research to activities which are appropriate to the University. In a limited number of instances within the scope of Regulation 4, the University does permit the use of unique or very specialized University facilities by outside parties, both industry and government agencies, on a fee-for-use basis.

Regulation 4 states:

"University participation in tests and investigations shall be limited to activities which lead to the extension of knowledge or to increased effectiveness in teaching. Routine tasks of a commonplace type will not be undertaken.

University laboratories, bureaus and facilities are not to be used for tests, studies, or investigations of purely commercial character, such as mineral assays, determination of properties of materials, the performance efficiencies of machines, analyses of soils, water, insecticides, fertilizers, feeds, fuels, and other materials, statistical calculations, etc., except when it is shown conclusively that satisfactory facilities for such services do not exist elsewhere. Those requiring such tests or services should apply to business firms or to...public agencies..."

Guideline: University facilities and resources should be devoted to activities that support teaching and research and that lead to the advancement of knowledge. They should not be used for routine tasks of a commercial character. Unique or special facilities may be made available to outside users on-a fee-for-use basis.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

What criteria should be used to assess whether it is appropriate for a project to be conducted at the University or whether University facilities should be used by outside parties? How concerned are we that the University might be turned into a high tech "job shop" for industry? How do we weigh the public interest in technology transfer and economic development against the public interest in making sure that public resources are not used for private gain? Should the University designate special buildings or research parks where projects can occur which are governed by rules different from those which apply to "on campus" sponsored projects? Who is responsible for deciding, project by project, what is an appropriate activity to be performed at the University and what is not? How serious is the issue of "competing with the private sector"?

Current Guideline #12. Recovering Costs from Research Sponsors: Gift/Grant Distinctions

In accepting contracts and grants from extramural sources, the University expects to recover full direct and indirect costs of the activity. This is a protection against the use of public funds for private gain. In the case of nonprofit and Federally sponsored research, the University may agree to share some costs, usually in the form of contributed effort. In the case of grants from independent philanthropic foundations, the University does occasionally waive indirect costs as a form of cost sharing.

The University views cost recovery in the case of gifts differently. With a gift, the donor does not impose contractual obligations and funds are awarded irrevocably. The criteria that distinguish gifts from grants are provided in the University Policy on Review of Gifts/Grants for Research.

Contracts with commercial entities should provide for full direct and indirect cost recovery.

Guideline: The proper distinction between gifts and grants, with the different obligations in each case, is important to the integrity of the University's sponsored research program.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

Should industry sponsors be required to reimburse the University for the full cost, direct and indirect, of a project? In what cases should the University waive indirect cost recovery, or otherwise "cost share" the project? How do MICRO, STAR and other University/Industry initiatives address the principle of full cost recovery? Should rights to results of federally- funded projects be committed to business entities which support the related research of a faculty member? What constitutes "use of public funds for private gain," and when is it allowable?

Current Guideline #13. Organizational Arrangements

Innovative organizational approaches for promoting University-industry relations and funding University research, if compatible with University policy, should be considered. Campuses are entering into various combinations of arrangements including those with government funding, with multiple corporate sponsors, with a single company, and with other campuses and universities.

Primarily because of its need to be even handed in its support of faculty members and in its openness to competing commercial enterprises, the University has not arranged for investment in firms whose products derive from University research, when the principal purpose is to promote faculty inventions. If the University were to be an equity participant in the work of one or more faculty members, it could be seen as favoring those faculty members, and could be in conflict with the University's role to support scholarship and allocate institutional resources in an even-handed manner. Moreover, this kind of relationship with certain companies could preclude or inhibit research sponsorship by other competing companies.

Guideline: In general, it is not appropriate for the University to invest directly in enterprises when such investment is tied to the commercial development of new ideas created or advanced through University research.

DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR THE RETREAT:

At present, the University does not directly invest in licensees, but as of February 16, 1996, the University may accept equity in a company as partial consideration for technology licensing-related transactions in appropriate circumstances. Should the University reconsider its unwillingness to invest University funds in licensees and/or faculty start-up companies? When equity is accepted, who should participate in the decision? Should the University or individual campuses create a venture capital fund for invention development?