The notes from the annual fall retreat were approved.

Ben van der Pluijm talked about RPC’s role in communicating and interacting with OVPR. He said this year it seems OVPR would like to let RPC drive the agenda more so than in the past, and to use the time less for information dissemination from OVPR. He said he wants to confirm this is OVPR’s wish, and would like feedback. Fawwaz Ulaby said he views RPC as an important faculty and student committee, and OVPR turns to RPC for advice on key issues. He said he would like to place with RPC issues that are not easy to resolve, which may not be at an implementation stage, but rather at a point where philosophical considerations are being weighed. Examples of such topics:

1) Technology transfer at UM is undergoing a transformation by reaching a new level of importance across campus. We want to respond to faculty needs and desires as well as respond nationally, and it is important for OVPR to seek as much input as possible.

2) There is the sense that we are not well represented at the national level in key policy making committees that are in advisory roles to federal agencies. We would like to get a sense from RPC on how we can play a more critical role here.

3) Investment in research infrastructure, and the consequences of A21. Some meetings last year addressed this topic. We would like to look for other approaches this year.

In addition, Fawwaz Ulaby said he would like RPC to place on the agenda items which RPC feels are important. He noted he does not want the meetings to be just for information updates from OVPR to RPC.

Peter Ward said it would be useful for OVPR to help set the agenda. Ben van der Pluijm said RPC needs background information from OVPR to proceed with many agenda items, especially about what is under consideration at OVPR and/or important at the time. In some cases, agenda items may need to be prompted by OVPR. He said as a committee that consults and advises, it is not RPC’s sole role to pursue its own agenda. Lloyd Johnston said RPC needs input on what is important to OVPR, but he appreciates that OVPR does not want RPC to be just a passive receptor of information.

Jill Macoska said if agenda issues are to be generated by RPC, then that creates more of a work and time commitment for RPC members; and though it may be a worthwhile endeavor, the feasibility for RPC members would need to be discussed. Ben van der Pluijm suggested RPC members consider this and share responses on e-mail. He also encouraged RPC members to come forward with issues they care about for potential agenda items.

Judy Nowack said that historically the activity level of RPC has varied depending on the issues of the time. During very active periods sometimes subcommittees were formed with both RPC and non-RPC members.

There was discussion of the possibility of establishing informal subcommittees to explore issues such as how attractive is UM for scientists; and how functional are certain policies that are in place. The advantage to subcommittees, it was stated, is they allow for informal discussion between individuals from different disciplines.

Fawwaz Ulaby gave a presentation on technology transfer (TT) covering areas such as its history; the federal mandate for TT and federal support for it; the environment for TT at UM; outcomes of a recent retreat on the topic; and the future for TT. Points from the presentation are contained in a handout. There was discussion of the revenue generated by TT and how it supports both research and education. Mpathways will help with tracking this and then we can compare how we are doing with how other universities are doing. Peter Ward pointed out that it would be useful to be able to calculate how many jobs technology transfer generates, because this type of information would increase public support. Fawwaz Ulaby said that the annual OVPR Report to the Regents contains such information.

Fawwaz Ulaby’s presentation included a discussion of the economy in the late 1970’s which forced the closing of research and development (R&D) labs in companies, and many of these labs have never been recreated. Prior to the 1970’s a lot of R&D happened both in industry and in universities. Since then it has shifted and universities have become the main place for research. Leading up to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, there was not a strong link between universities and industry and there was the sense that what universities produced did not benefit society as a whole. The Bayh-Dole Act said the results of non-profit, federally-funded research may be owned by the non-profit and protected though the patent process. Any royalties received must feed back into research and educational activities. University relationships with commercial entities were encouraged to assist in getting federally-funded research developments into practical applications.

There was discussion of the retreat on technology transfer in August of 1999, which involved individuals on campus as well as some from other institutions. One main topic of the retreat was the question of why should we engage in technology transfer? Fawwaz Ulaby said for instance, 99% of what we do here at UM is basic science, scholarship, and creativity. Yet, sometimes this results in an application that has economic value and a social application, and we want to be prepared to be able to make the most of these possibilities. The question is should we take an active or passive role?

Ben van der Pluijm stated that we need to make the point to the outside world that other things we do contribute to society, besides those with an obvious practical application. He suggested that OVPR is in the position to communicate that message. Fawwaz Ulaby agreed and said that is what we are doing when we talk to the federal government and in various forums about the importance of basic research and the investment over years in basic research. Ulaby emphasized that the aim to enhance technology transfer activities is not in contradiction with support for basic research. Jill Macoska said there is a fear around campus that if your research does not have an immediate application for TT, then it will be devalued by the UM. Ulaby said basic research is what we are all about, and technology transfer is only an add-on. Tim Killeen noted that the Regents said technology transfer is an integral part of our existing mission, meaning that it does not dominate other aspects of the mission.

Ben van der Pluijm said he sees a narrowing mission taking shape for the University through informal emphasis on certain areas, and said some disciplines feel excluded with all the attention to the life sciences, and to fields which lend themselves to technology transfer. He asked whether this signals a trend toward the University reacting to politics. Fawwaz Ulaby said this is a very important point, and that to maintain a broad university, we should be able to support all disciplines and the way we do that is to create ways to offset the national trends. The University encompasses fields where there is little external support and fields where such support is more plentiful. He noted that for the humanities and social sciences, we strive to provide more internal support to balance out the fact that there is little else available.

Peter Ward said the medical sciences at UM have actually been behind peers in funding. He said with the biomedical revolution is coming fast, we need to be able to take advantage of what is available to us now, and through this make ourselves a leader.

Ben van der Pluijm said there is an opportunity now to streamline the technology management process better, and get more of the revenue to the central administration, where it could be distributed to more diverse fields. Fawwaz Ulaby said that while none of the revenue currently goes to the central administration, patent costs are rising, so it is under consideration that a percentage of the patenting costs will be paid by the schools and colleges, and a percentage of the royalties will go to the central administration. This change would need to be approved by the Regents, and it is now in discussion. Jill Macoska proposed that some of the revenue return go to areas that are not yet competitive for lack of adequate funding. Tim Killeen cited some examples from other universities that could be looked at, such as Wisconsin and Columbia.

Xiao-Ying Yu asked what are the difficulties facing those who engage in technology transfer at UM. Fawwaz Ulaby said for the faculty member there is a degree of bureaucracy, and filing for patents is costly for the institution. The University needs to be sure the end result will be worth the effort. The decision on whether to go forward is aided by faculty committees. After that the case goes to the Technology Management Office and lawyers there help get the patent. Unless there is a business that would be interested in licensing the patent, it is not really fruitful; ideally, royalties would be paid to the University by the licensee. He noted that effort is also expended by the University making sure royalties do in fact get paid. Ulaby said in this whole process the University typically only breaks even, but the intent is not the money. Rather, he said, the benefit is in transferring these research developments out to the society at large.

Richard Ford suggested that lobbying at the state level might be most effective regarding technology transfer since the jobs created are hoped to be in-state. Fawwaz Ulaby said the federal government does in fact care about this and congress is interested in anecdotes about the economic impact of TT in states and regions. Regarding linkages with the state, we are creating a new technology transfer position jointly with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, and this individual will be a good link.

Tim Killeen gave an update on the Materials Science and Geoscience initiatives. Funding has been allocated by UM to go to groups that submit proposals that have the potential to grow. Proposal need to have an institutional impact embedded in them. For Materials Sciences, one proposal has been selected out of the first round (four proposals were submitted, representing about 30 faculty). Feedback will go to those who weren’t selected. Second year funding will be based on a nine-month review. The Geosciences initiative is now open for proposals with a deadline of December 1.

Tim Killeen talked about the ad hoc group of faculty that meet weekly for a colloquia on environmental issues. This has led to several proposal groups. The “new urbanization” was the topic of yesterday’s colloquia. Each topic has an interdisciplinary focus. The Environmental Sciences steering committee has met with Fawwaz Ulaby to see how to better coordinate our strengths across campus. This group will likely produce a report. The interest in this area is at the grass-roots and is faculty-driven.

Other initiatives:

• Information technology - NSF has announced a new program on ITR

• GIS and the Center for Spatial Analysis are moving forward

• We are now hooked into internet 2

He said we are also in the early stages of evaluating the impact of research and education initiatives. There have been meetings with CRLT on how to expand our assessment of teaching and research. A group member suggested that the assessment include finding out how many UROP students go on to science careers. Killeen said from information available now it appears that such educational initiatives have an impact on choice of graduate schools and on students’ proactivity in career development.

Robert Todd gave an update on current efforts in the Life Sciences initiative and toward the Life Sciences corridor. He said that with the onsite (UM) Life Sciences initiative, the major push now is to identify a director. Robert Todd’s own efforts have been toward the statewide Life Sciences corridor. Activities over the last month or two have included negotiations with other universities, the Van Andel Institute, and others, to develop a clear organizational infrastructure that will help to determine how funding will be spent. The organizational process being negotiated includes a steering committee to report to the governor, and a scientific advisory board which will review proposals for funding and will report to the steering committee. The goal is to decide on a clear organizational structure for funding allocation by the 1^st of the year. Todd said the aim is to fund multi-disciplinary and multi-institute projects that would not have funding elsewhere.

Robert Todd said another current aspect of the corridor is a “think tank” that includes task force committees on such topics as neuroscience, diabetes, genomics, bioinformatics, and bioengineering. The task forces are meeting to discuss the strengths are weaknesses among the institutions involved and to determine what resources should be developed with the available funding. The result may be large infrastructure core resources that can be used by all parties to the corridor throughout the state. Ideas for such resources include labs for x-ray crystallography and structural biology.