Research Policies Committee Notes
March 13, 1998
10:00-12:00 noon
4006 Fleming

RPC members present: Richard Altschuler, David Ballou, Jack East, Edith Gomberg, Jim House (chair), Roberto Merlin, Anil Subramani
OVPR staff present: Tim Killeen, Fred Neidhardt, Judy Nowack, Marvin Parnes, Jackie Hoats (staff)

The minutes from the January and February RPC meetings were approved.

Updates from OVPR
Fred Neidhardt reported on the recent lectures co-sponsored by OVPR, all of which have been very successful. He said that YoHA events have been co-sponsored by OVPR with the unit most closely related to the speaker or topic. This has worked well and has helped with publicity to target audiences.

Unit reviews. Neidhardt said unit reviews are a major undertaking for the staff of OVPR. Four unit reviews are currently under way. OVPR has the written reports from the external reviewers of the three "lifespan" units, and OVPR staff are working through the reports with the unit directors, faculty, deans and the provost, a process that will take about another 6 weeks. The fourth unit review is of UMTRI, and is just beginning. The external review committee has recently been identified.

Interdisciplinary initiatives. Fred Neidhardt listed interdisciplinary areas that are developing, giving details about some. Program in Complex Systems wants to grow and become an institute. Geographic and Information Sciences (GIS) is coming to fruition. This will be described at the next RPC meeting.

Neuroimaging. This is a joint effort between Engineering, the Medical School, and LSA to build our ability to support MRI studies and cognitive neurosciences. David Ballou noted there is the potential for UM to be very strong if all these areas pull together. Richard Altschuler asked where one would go with a grant that has components from different schools.

Marvin Parnes said OVPR has oversight for now and can assist in determining where to start with such a grant. The future leadership will likely be someone with a joint appointment between the relevant units. Ballou said joint undergraduate programs between the schools have been difficult to maintain, but perhaps if the neuroimaging effort works it can be a model. The important thing is for the UM as a whole to know about it. It was suggested that these interdisciplinary initiatives be posted on the OVPR web page along with the names of the contact people.

Bioinformatics is a very hot field now. We want to increase expertise and infrastructure in bioinformatics, which has to do with DNA information and how to annotate and compare sequences. A Masters or Certificate program may be developed since there is such enormous demand by pharmaceutical companies for people trained in this field. It is such an emerging field that no one can yet be called an expert in it. Parke Davis and the Medical School have a weekly seminar series on bioinformatics. We might be able to use adjunct faculty from Parke Davis for our program. Tim Killeen said this area ties in with the large scale computing initiative and with complex systems.

Environmental Studies. Daniel Mazmanian's committee has submitted its report and this opens the door to forming the environmental council of deans, which will be a subgroup of APG. The goal of the council is to identify to the world how strong we are across so many disciplines that relate to environmental studies. A concern was expressed by an RPC member that the deans do not have enough expertise in environmental issues. Tim Killeen said the council of deans will look at resources and strategic planning. OVPR will be looking at information exchange, and will have research colloquiums to bring people together to discuss common interests.

Killeen said there are specific spots at UM that could be pulled together, for example, SNRE and Public Policy. ISR survey methods could be coupled with a variety of other fields. The Mazmanian Report is on the web with a pointer from the OVPR page.

Additional interdisciplinary programs include:
Structural Biology
Organogenesis
Aquatic Sciences

Neidhardt said that Earl Lewis is chairing the Diversity Dialogue Committee which will in part look the impact of diversity on research. There is an article about the committee in the March 11 Record.

Killeen said the ITD Directors' Committee meets biweekly and is thinking strategically about a master plan for the digital development of campus. This is related to the future of the digital libraries.

Neidhardt mentioned a letter from Congressman Vern Ehlers telling of a recent funding meeting in Washington. The meeting was about ways to increase funding for research nationally. It is hoped an agreement can be worked out with the Senate and the President.

Updates from the Chair
The May RPC meeting has been shifted to Friday, May 22 (10:00-12:00, 4006 Fleming).

Jim House said he attended the Senate Assembly meeting last month. House gave a report to Senate Assembly members on activities of RPC, and his report was well-received.

House said he has expressed appreciation to Nancy Cantor on behalf of RPC for the time she spent with the committee regarding the discovery process. Cantor is currently working on assembling a search committee for the new vice president for research. The timetable for the search is unknown.

Future agenda items for RPC (April and May)
Paul Courant will be a guest at the April 10 RPC meeting to discuss the new budget model, its implementation, and its impact on research and interdisciplinary activities.

Additional items for the next meetings include OSEH and laboratory safety; status of the PRS tracks; and industrial initiatives. House asked for preferences from RPC members. Richard Altschuler proposed a discussion of A21 changes and their impact on the research environment. He is concerned about what this means to researchers who are supported by federal grants. Altschuler will prepare a list of concerns and bring this to the committee.

Marvin Parnes suggested Jim Randolph of DRDA as a good person to involve in the discussion, and perhaps others from contract administration depending on the angle of the concerns. Jack East stated that tuition reimbursements may be altered indirectly in Engineering due to the way A21 is approached there. Parnes noted that many of those decisions are based on financial planning and strategy within schools. Roberto Merlin said the quality of special seminars in Physics has gone down since they are no longer allowed to use federal funds to pay speakers. It was noted that concerns about A21 should be channeled to Judy Nowack.

Technology Transfer and the Experience with the Revised Intellectual Properties Policy - Marvin Parnes
Marvin Parnes outlined the history behind the Intellectual Properties Policy, starting with Regental Bylaw 3.10 which establishes that the University owns intellectual property developed by faculty. Then, in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act empowered universities to exploit technology transfer and return revenue to both the inventor and the university's education and research mission. The earlier versions of the UM Intellectual Property Policy were promulgated in 1983 and 1987 and focused on the objectives of and options for technology transfer and the resulting revenue distribution.

In 1995, in response to regulations set forth by NSF and PHS, the University developed its conflict of interest policy pertaining to financial conflicts in sponsored projects and technology transfer. The 1996 revision of the Intellectual Property Policy makes reference to the conflict of interest policy, discusses incentives, and lays out the mission of technology transfer at UM.

Parnes said UM is a latecomer to the establishment and development of technology transfer as a university function. Other universities had technology transfer offices long before, whereas UM only established TMO in the mid-1980s. There has been a rise over the decades in invention disclosures to the University. This act of officially informing the university involves filling out a TMO disclosure form acknowledging the existence of a discovery or invention and is the beginning of the patent or copyright process. Judy Nowack said most federal research agreements require that an invention be disclosed to the technology transfer office.

Regarding revenues generated by a technology transfer office, Parnes said there is likely to be a growth in revenues over time, but the process can be slow and it includes developing a culture in which people see a value in technology transfer activity. He said at UM the patent budget is smaller than at peer institutions. This is especially true in comparison to MIT, which has a policy of patenting everything. Parnes said UM, on the other hand, is more efficient because our net patent costs are lower than our peers.

Parnes described how the Intellectual Properties Policy and the Conflict of Interest Policy go hand-in-hand. The Conflict of Interest Policy was developed by a task force led by Judy Nowack, who is the chair of the OVPR Conflict of Interest Review Committee. The policy was designed to ensure compliance with the State of Michigan Conflict of Interest Statute and requirements of PHS and NSF. The committee attempts to accept agreements (including technology transfer agreements) where there is manageable conflict which does not compromise the integrity of the institution. The review of a conflict includes identification and evaluation of risk; design of strategies for management; Regental approval in some cases; and monitoring and review of compliance. Parnes listed various forms of conflict of interest management that may be employed, including 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. The Medical School also has a conflict of interest committee.

Parnes described what led to the changes in the Intellectual Properties Policy. He cited the growing recognition that technology transfer is valuable to society. In the past a single technology would be licensed at a time, but now technologies are often bundled when licensed in order for companies to do further research with them. Parnes noted that technology transfer is not a very lucrative undertaking for a faculty member, and most faculty want the money to go back into their laboratory. A challenge in the development of technology transfer on campus has been to generate faculty interest in it, and demonstrating they can do this and still be faculty.

The Intellectual Properties Policy was revised through a consultative process involving discussions about the issues with faculty and staff at UM, including RPC, as well as with external individuals and groups. The new version of the policy makes clear that technology transfer is integral to the University's mission and is related to our other missions as a natural byproduct of teaching. The choice of commercialization options is now a joint one between the faculty member and TMO staff. In addition, the new policy incorporates the notion of conflict of interest management instead of the necessity to impose significant restrictions upon research to avoid conflict. Also, the revenue flow is changed in the new policy to increase the amount going to the units (the new policy was generated concurrently with VCM), up to $2 million. Over $2 million, the school or college determines allocation of all but the inventor's share.

In April 1996 the new policy was approved by the Regents, and in spring of 1998 a committee will be appointed to review outcomes of the policy with the goal of reporting back to the Regents in April 1999.

The group discussed the impact of the revised Intellectual Properties Policy on the environment for technology transfer. Parnes said although the increase in invention disclosures may appear to be due to the policy, he has heard from faculty that it is not the policy specifically that has made the difference. They say it is part of a more general trend of approval for technology transfer activity, yet the mission statement of the policy helps to ameliorate the negative image about technology transfer.

Parnes said that even big government labs have been under pressure to do technology transfer. He said in order to form a Michigan model for this activity it must be viewed as a normal and appropriate way for research to go out of the University. It now seems to be accepted that a balanced approach to technology transfer is not going to turn the University into a corporation. Parnes and the group noted with interest that RPC itself reflects the changed culture. Two years ago, when consulted about technology transfer and the policy revision, RPC members were much more hesitant and wary of commercialization.

Fred Neidhardt asked about the focus on funds generated from technology transfer as opposed to the idea that it will not be a big revenue source. He noted that at a recent CIC meeting it was clear that the regents of other schools do see technology transfer as a revenue source. Parnes said that since technology transfer exists in a money-based market for ideas, if revenue is not a value then the basis for some decisions is lost. The revenue generated goes back to support the central mission of the university. David Ballou said we still need to be vigilant and not let money become the sole focus. He also pointed out that technology transfer can contribute to the educational experience for students. The distribution of some technology transfer revenue to the central administration was noted as a topic to mention to Paul Courant at the April RPC meeting. The idea was proposed that it be maintained centrally as research seed funding.

Ideas for New RPC Members:
The group discussed ideas for next year's new RPC members. Richard Altschuler (Otolaryngology), David Ballou (Biochemistry), and Jim House (ISR) will be rotating off the committee this year. A new member is needed from the medical center, and it was also suggested someone from MHRI might be a good addition. Some names were mentioned in these areas. The committee will need someone from the social sciences as well. It was noted that current RPC member Leon Pastalan (Architecture) will be retiring in the summer, and so a replacement should be appointed for him. The committee will also need to select a new chair for 1998-99. Suggestions for new members and for the new chair should be sent to Jim House by e-mail.

HR>