Friday, March 12, 1999
10:30-12:30 p.m., 4006 Fleming

RPC members present: Jack East, Roberto Kampfner, Jill Macoska, David Musch, Roberto Merlin, Ben van der Pluijm, Teshome Wagaw
OVPR staff present: Lee Katterman, Tim Killeen, Judy Nowack, Marvin Parnes, Jackie Hoats-Shields

The notes from the February meeting were approved.

Updates from OVPR
Proposed Revision to OMB Circular A-110
Judy Nowack said an e-mail will soon be sent to all faculty regarding the revision to OMB Circular A-110 implementing the statute that requires release of research data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As background, Nowack said OMB A-110 is one of the circulars that governs the operations of the federal government. OMB A-110 gives in general terms the relationship between the federal government and its grantees. OMB has proposed language implementing the statute with a deadline for comments on April 5. The trap is that if we propose refinement of the language then that seems to be a type of acceptance of the rule. The goal in responding with the University letter is to encourage OMB to delay finalizing the implementation language until the impact on research can be studied. Nowack said only 170 letters have been received so far by OMB regarding the proposed rule.

She said she does not know any professional research organization or university that doesn't feel this rule is a threat. Everyone is taking a different approach but there is agreement that a request for a time-out is the best approach for now. Other institutions, including professional societies and the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), will be drafting letters. In addition, individual letters will be a very powerful tool if they are from faculty talking about how this rule will affect their research, Nowack said.

Nowack described the informational effort from UM in response to the proposed rule change. She said a joint letter is going out from Fawwaz Ulaby and Gilbert Omenn. The letter will say that as a public institution we understand the issue of accountability and dissemination as that is our mission; FOIA has never been applied to this type of data; and further, there are grave issues at hand with regard to confidentiality and trust that will severely impact our core mission. Roberto Merlin said this change imposes a burden on us, but also the information - unanalyzed data - would be useless to those who receive it or worse, it would be taken and misunderstood out of context. Merlin said we should communicate that we want to preserve the system as it is, since there are procedures currently to provide data.

There will be a place on the OVPR web site with links to information pieces about the issue. It was noted that the statement by the National Science Board is a useful summary.

Other OVPR Updates - Tim Killeen
• The new incubator unit, the Center for Spatial Analysis, is moving forward. This will be a major GIS node on main campus.
• The UMTRI director search is proceeding and hopefully will conclude soon.
• OVPR is sponsoring an environmental research colloquium which consists of a series of lunches open to faculty members on campus. The group has jumped into a discussion of Life Sciences Commission report.

Updates from the Chair
Future Agenda Items
Ben van der Pluijm said RPC members would like to have more discussion with Fawwaz Ulaby at a future meeting about interdisciplinary research. He said it looks like the May 14 RPC meeting might be necessary after all given the additional issues still to be discussed:
• Investment in Research Infrastructure/OMB A-21 Direct and Indirect Costs
• Post-docs
• Copyright/media issues (Marvin Parnes said there is an interim report which will require ample discussion.)

Research and Education: Tim Killeen
Tim Killeen said research and education are often seen by the public as competing interests. OVPR has a longstanding interest in integrating research and education, and he pointed out that Fred Neidhardt made a Report to the Regents on this topic, titled "A Michigan Tradition: Research and Undergraduate Education," in the summer of 1997. Killeen said UM already has an extraordinary record in integrating research and education. Killeen said the combination of dissemination and generation of knowledge has been stressed since the time of President Tappan. Killeen summarized UM's history of groundbreaking achievements with regard to undergraduate education. Recent developments include the University receiving the NSF Recognition Award for Integration of Research and Education (RAIRE) in 1997. Killeen said in 1998 the UM budget request to the State of Michigan was explicitly tied to undergraduate research integration. More information on related achievements is available on the web site: www.undergraduate.research.umich.edu

Killeen said initially it was hoped all students at the University might be able to have a UROP-like experience, but it was determined that it is not feasible to provide such one-on-one mentoring to every student. So, this idea has evolved toward innovations in the classroom meant TO promote more engagement by students. That is, the aim has become to distill the success of UROP, with a focus on engaging students in an active classroom learning experience.

Killeen described NSF objectives with regard to undergraduate education, including the 1989 "Neal Report," so named for Homer A. Neal, which focused on encouraging more Ph.D. graduates in the sciences. Killeen said the NSF's current aim is to get to all students, regardless of their likelihood of continuing for a Ph.D. He said NSF has placed the integration of research and education as one of their four top priorities.

Killeen described the Faculty Mini-grants program, and said OVPR seeks advice from RPC on how to improve the proposals being received. He also showed some slides with information about UROP outcomes, and RPC members discussed UROP acceptance procedures and the impact of this on the outcome data.

Killeen talked about the upcoming Wiesner Symposium on March 29 which will be about the integration of research and teaching. Topics to be covered include the responsibility of research universities in education, preparation of K through 12 teachers, graduate education, faculty development, and a highlight of our UROP. Recent experiences of universities will be described, there will be a panel of student perspectives, moderated by Fawwaz Ulaby, and there will be a panel on charting the future.

Ben van der Pluijm said it sounds like the integration of research and education has become one of the University's main missions. Roberto Merlin said there did not seem to be an evaluation of what we are currently doing. Merlin asked whether these initiatives are moving in the right direction and upon what data and whose recommendation. Jill Macoska agreed with the need for more data, since UROP has not been around very long. Killeen said the effort toward concrete evaluations and assessments of the outcomes is beginning now. He said there is much more that can be done to evaluate the effectiveness of current methods of undergraduate education and programs such as UROP. Killeen said we are inviting challenges, and trying to respond in the best way we can. Teshome Wagaw said it seems OVPR has taken the initiative here to see where such a program will lead us, and this is what a university is for: to lead, to shape, to experiment. He suggested continuing and learning from it. Wagaw said that even if the full value is not apparent now that does not mean it does not have worth; the past paradigm of education was constructed for another group of people.

Intellectual Property Policy Revision: Marvin Parnes
Marvin Parnes said a process is underway to modify a part of the 1996 Intellectual Propery Policy. It is hoped that the revision can be presented to the Regents later this semester.

Parnes gave a brief history of the development of the Intellectual Property Policy at UM. Regents Bylaw 3.10 establishes University ownership of intellectual property such as patents, copyrights derived from faculty and staff activity, and computer software created by faculty and staff. In addition, the 1980 federal Bayh-Dole Act encourages technology transfer through patents, as well as revenue return to inventors and to education and research. The Intellectual Property (IP) Policy has been evolving since 1983 with revisions in 1987 and the latest in 1996. The 1996 IP Policy reflected the acknowledgement of technology transfer as an important outgrowth of research and teaching and a part of the mission of the University. The 1996 IP policy provides the inventor with a choice of commercialization options. One of those options provides an opportunity for continued research involving companies in which the inventor has an interest.

Parnes mentioned that the Policy on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Sponsored Projects and Technology Transfer, implemented in 1995, is a counterbalance to the Intellectual Properties Policy. The conflict of interest policy was established in part as a response to state and federal requirements, and states that ". . . the University of Michigan will exercise care in concluding technology transfer agreements involving University employees. Such agreements will be managed with appropriate administrative oversight." Conflict of interest management options include public disclosure of financial interests; monitoring of research by independent reviewers; partial exclusion from research activity; divestiture of significant financial interests; and severance of relationships that create conflicts.

Parnes explained that the 1999 proposed revision of the Intellectual Property Policy concerns the money, not the principles, and in large part is motivated by the evolution of the University's budget process from VCM to the current model. Under VCM none of the technology transfer revenue went to the central administration and central activities were to be funded through an alternate mechanism. The proposed revenue distribution is more consistent with the current budget model and allows the central administration to share such revenue in support of the technology transfer mission and high priority educational investments.

The new proposal calls for 20% of technology transfer revenue between $200,000 and $2 million to go to the central administration with the inventor receiving 33%; the school or college, 25%; and the department or sub-unit, 22%. If the revenue is above $2 million, the 22% share of the department or sub-unit will revert to the school or college, though the inventor may make an application to the dean as to how the funds could be allocated.

Parnes said these changes are meant to emphasize that the University's primary mission is academic and not commercial. The proposed revision is an attempt at a clear and fair method of return that does not reduce the inventor's personal income. The proposed changes have been discussed with staff of the Office of the Provost and the Chief Financial Officer, and with representatives of the deans in the Medical School and the College of Engineering. Jill Macoska said it makes sense for the policy to point a portion of the departmental share of the money in support of the inventor's research. She said there is no other assurance that a piece of the funding will go there. Parnes said he feels that in actuality this cannot be controlled by policy, though it will continue to be recommended by the policy.

Regarding the central administration piece of the pie, Parnes said this is money that can be used to invest in technology transfer. He said for example, patent money is always needed. Roberto Merlin said there is sometimes a difficulty in searching for licensees and suggested the central money be used to assist in this. Ben van der Pluijm said support of interdisciplinary research could be another use for the central money. David Musch asked how likely it is that we will lose faculty who come up with great ideas that have commercial potential. Parnes said faculty seem to be more interested in the facilitation of their work than in the money. He said more technology may be lost through lack of facilitation than through the draw of money. Judy Nowack said for example, facilitation of faculty work is a philosophical underpinning of the conflict of interest policy, and in practice that means we do not make categortical prohibitions - instead we seek appropriate management.

There were issues raised about how attractive the revision would be to inventors, and even whether it is appropriate for inventors to profit. Parnes said it may be possible to add in the revision that the inventor has the right to direct that their personal portion goes to their own research fund that they themselves control. Care must be taken in such situations to remain in compliance with IRS rules. Parnes asked for RPC to please share with him their opinions about the proposed IP policy revision. Van der Pluijm suggested individual feedback for now, and then to revisit the issue at a future meeting.

RPC Notes, 3/12/99 5