Research Policies Committee
University of Michigan
Office of the Vice President for Research
SACUA Research Policies Committee
Friday, October 17, 2003
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
4006 Fleming Building
PRESENT: Lajos Balogh, Fred Bookstein, Katarina Borer (chair), Steven Ceccio, Mary Haan, Rex Holland, Marvin Parnes, Jane Ritter (staff), Susan Shore, Roscoe Warner, Jens Zorn (SACUA Liaison), Jillian Yant (undergraduate student representative)
ABSENT: Pinaki Mazumder, J. Hunter Waite, John Younger
GUEST: Rebecca Eisenberg
1. Approval of minutes from 9/12/03
2. Discussion of proposed changes to UM IP Policy and Royalty Distribution
Discussion revolved around three themes:
Fred Bookstein (MCBI, a service unit, funded through Michigan Life Sciences Corridor, and
IoG, ) was of the opinion that dangers of TT outweigh the benefits to researchers. The profit motive could be disruptive to faculty. Attorney Rebecca Eisenberg was invited to this RPC discussion to contribute her perspective on this topic.
Steven Ceccio disagree with Fred and thought that it was important to incentivize the inventor.
Mary Haan (Public Health) viewed the overall proposed changes as positive, particularly for research scientistsand funding for fellowships , although it appears that DRDA is trying to get more money back. Lajos Balogh (Med School/Engineering) also viewed the proposed policy changes as favorable. Information about where the extra funds that are generated would go is useful, but it is not clear how funds would get back to researchers. . In the case of indirect costs, the amount of revenue that is returned to the lab depends very much on department – in Internal Med, very little goes back to the labs. In Biomed Engin, everything goes back. Interdisciplinary research is at a disadvantage because funds are going back to PIs.
(Marvin
Parnes explained that
indirect costs are separate from IP distribution revenue. 100% of IDC is returned to the schools and colleges. Distribution of the funds is at the discretion of the deans. Recent A21 memo to serves as reminder that if schools and colleges don’t support the infrastructure, grants and IDCs are not allowed to do this. Central Admin tries to encourage schools and colleges to support infrastructure.)
Rebecca Eisenberg: To address issue of research over profitability. Sharing profits with faculty seen as incentive for research and patents.
Marvin Parnes explained that the UM philosophy is not to put generating revenue first but that research is supported and deployed where it will do the most good. In some cases TT is the best way. Small number of faculty participate in TT so that the overall impact on academic activities is small. Most faculty are not motivated by the money – but by the challenge of the problem and the ease in participating in TT. The focus of TT should be on facilitation of research and its translation to commercial endpoints. Investment should be in hiring more and better staff.
Rebecca Eisenberg suggested that better funding for OTT offices would be beneficial.
2.Now that a share of the
profits is earmarked for central administration, how will these funds be spent?
Several members have raised the question, What will the UM do with the share of the money that is now slated to go to central administration? A concern was expressed that central administration or schools/colleges may not spend funds wisely while faculty directing the successful research efforts are more likely to do so.
Marvin
Parnes responded that portion
of funds would be reinvested in research, some would go to gap funding; and a
limited amount to the TT offices so that most funds would be reinvested in
education and research. Steven Ceccio:
How money spent should be more clearly defined as it was not entirely
clear to RPC how central administration would use some their share of the funds.
3. What proportion of funds should return to the investigator and investigator’s lab and how could this be best arranged?
Several members were reacting to the proposed shift in fund allocation
from department to school as the stream of TT revenue increases above 200,000 $.
The focus of the concern was the extent that this fund distribution would
support the laboratory that generated the revenues.
Mary Haan stated that it seems unfair to leave out department – often there is large departmental investment in the support of research.
Lajos Balogh indicated that it is vital to research faculty to get funds and obtain patents, even though many patents are obtained to fill the line on the resume, according to S. Ceccio.
Roscoe Warner also indicated that a portion of revenue should be going directly to the researcher. He was also concerned that the IP distribution change might lead to central administration wanting to take some of that back for research support.
Marvin Parnes suggested that language could be added to the policy that at the higher revenue levels, it is the expectation that funds would be distributed to the department.
SUMMARY of the discussion is that the majority concern is how to get inventor’s portion of the revenue back into the lab. If the inventor wishes to direct the funds to his/her lab, there should be an array of options because each school and college works differently. lab. ? An option should be that Schools and colleges match the TT revenues that the inventor does not want to accept as personal share but wants to direct to his/her lab. To avoid complications with becoming encumbered with income tax burden and not have the ability to direct funds to one’s own lab, the University should provide the option of having a portion or all of the funds assigned directly to inventor’s laboratory and thus avoid the complicating tax issues. Thus the three options that RPC recommends to have added to the policy are:
1. Follow the proposed revenue distribution.
2. Allow inventor to negotiate percentage that they would like to receive in person and percentage they would like to directly divert to their lab.
3. Have department/school/college match dollar for dollar the percentage of revenue originally intended for the inventor that has been re-directed to inventor’s lab..
· Options 2 & 3 would require the university to assign inventor’s share directly to his/her lab if the inventor so desires assuming that this prevents the income tax and other logistical problems that would result from disbursement of funds to the inventor personally
Next meeting: 11/21/03, 9:00-11:00 a.m.