University of Michigan

Office of the Vice President for Research

SACUA Research Policies Committee

Friday, September 12, 2003

9:00 – 11:00 a.m.

4006 Fleming Building

PRESENT:     Lajos Balogh, Fred Bookstein, Katarina Borer (chair), Mary Haan, Rex Holland, Pinaki Mazumder, Jane Ritter (staff), Susan Shore, J. Hunter Waite, Roscoe Warner, John Younger, and Jens Zorn (SACUA liaison),

ABSENT:       Steven Ceccio

1.                  Introduction of committee members

2.                  Recap of 2002/2003 committee activities – Katarina Borer

3.                  Comments to committee – Fawwaz Ulaby

·        Committee has two roles:  serve as an advisory body to OVPR on issues of research policy; the second role is self-generated agenda by committee members, again on issues of research policy.  Thus topics can come from committee or from OVPR.

·        Topics of that OVPR would like the RPC members to discuss and produce recommendations on are:

a)      Proposed revision of Regental Intellectual Property Policy

b)      Science, Technology and Public Policy – committee report included in RPC manual – (please review and prepare to discuss)

c)      Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment policies.– (A Regental Conflict of Interest policy exists, but UM does not have a Conflict of Commitment policy.)  A inter-departmental committee, chaired by the Medical School Associate Dean James Woolliscroft was appointed by OVPR and charged with review of  CoI policy and development of CoC policy.  When draft of these policies is finished, it will be presented to RPC for review.

d)      Data Ownership Policy

4.                  PowerPoint presentation on the proposed changes to UM IP policy and Royalty Distribution Formula – Fawwaz Ulaby

·        To date, the Central Administration has subsidized the cost of intellectual property development and technology transfer. Two schools, Medicine and Engineering, have participated in sharing of the costs, as follows. In 2003, cost to the Office of Technology Transfer was 2.7 million, and to the Medical school and Engineering, 0.23 and 0.53 million, respectively.

·        Revenues from TT were 9.1 million in 2003. The formulas for revenue distribution have been differentiated by individual schools. Thus inventors’ share was 35% in the Medical School, 64% in the College of Engineering, and 12% in the remaining schools. Because of the greater involvement in TT revenue generation by the Medical School and the CE, the average inventors’ share at Michigan has been 40% in contrast to the average of 30% in 13 other private and public universities that are research peers to UM. The current proposal is to change the formula for revenue sharing based on the magnitude of revenues generated (see below).

·        Proposed changes for the distribution of the TT revenues are

a)      Keep the allotment for inventor at 40%

b)      Change the allotment for Central Administration from 0% to 19%. These funds would be used for gap funding and fellowships

c)      Change School/College allotment from 33% to 23%

d)      Change Department allotment from 26% to 18%. These changes align UM more closely with the other 13 schools that distribute revenues along the four categories (a) 30%, (b) 40%, (c) 11%, (d) 19%.

·        VP Ulaby invites RPC discussion in the change in percentages for revenue sharing for inventor, school/college and department.  The charge is to evaluate the policy change, and, if warranted,  add RPC opinion regarding the modifications that are worthwhile.  Discuss with other faculty and departments.

5.               DISCUSSION: The proposed policy change is to have inventors and other parties share in the costs above the $800K that central admin supports prior to any royalty distribution. Current plan has Med School and CoE sharing the expense over $800K which is a disproportional cost load.  Discussion about mechanics and process of patent application. 

·        Suggestion was made that RPC members seek reactions from their deans on the proposed changes in Royalty Distribution Formula.  Ulaby will meet with RPC the last 30 minutes of the next meeting to allow for RPC discussion and answer questions.

·        Once new model is approved, VP Ulaby will establish a faculty committee to set up policy. 

·        VP Ulaby would like RPC response at next meeting.  The changed policy will then follow two paths: start in RPC, go to SACUA (faculty line); and start in OVPR, go to APG.  Ideally, have these two paths will converge with one consensus.  Then the policy will be presented to Regents.

·        Review policies of other universities – expand knowledge base – web research.

·        Are we doing what feels right for our institution?

·        Fred Bookstein will send link and provide more information on his viewpoint how this policy may influence faculty research in a negative fashion. He has proposed to invite Rebecca Eisenberg, a campus expert on external costs of licensing and patent, to a future RPC meeting. 

6. Next meeting:  10/17/03, 10-12.

Issue of data ownership – work with Rackham in areas of graduate students – framework for taking with faculty; guidelines.

4.                  POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT YEAR:  Include Rackham; post doc vs. graduate students; barriers to human research – barriers, etc.

Question of whether or not to have June meeting was raised but the members agreed it was not necessary.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am.