Alan Paau: Intellectual Property & Conflict Management in Academic Institutions


Published on

El Dr. Alan S. Paau, Vice-Rector de Desarrollo Económico y Transferencia de Tecnologías de la Universidad Cornell (Estados Unidos), hace una presentación sobre Propiedad Intelectual y Gestión de Conflictos en Instituciones Académicas.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Alan Paau: Intellectual Property & Conflict Management in Academic Institutions

  1. 1. Consejo de Innovacion June 2, 2009, Santiago, Chile Intellectual Property & Conflict Management in Academic Institutions Alan Paau, MBA, PhD, CLP Vice Provost Technology Transfer and Economic Development
  2. 2. Topics Evolution of Academic Activities and Institutions Roles of Government in the Development of Academic Culture Infrastructural Support from a Policy Perspective Key elements of IP and Conflict Management Policies
  3. 3. Evolution of Academic Activities And Sponsorships Pure curiosity pursuit wealthy individuals Increasing Utilitarian in Character churches/monasteries Pursuit to “impress” + nobles and kings Pursuit for use + ambitious monarchies + industry Pursuit to serve + government
  4. 4. Diversity of Academics Platonic academics : devoted to knowledge and art for their own sake (Socrates philosopher) – not devoted to finding uses of them; not utilitarian and rare in institutional form today Sophist academics : aims to impart knowledge and skills useful for worldly action for a price, make businesses out of wisdom (“knowledge/skill hired guns”) Baconian academics : state sponsorship devoted to knowledge that would extend man’s influence over nature (and others) and augment the power of the state for the benefit of its constituents (Sir Francis Bacon, later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans, set the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it.) Modern day academic institutions that receive government funds are Baconian Institutions
  5. 5. US Government’s Support of Academic Institutions – A Historical Perspective Morrill Acts – Land Grant College Acts of 1862, 1890 WWII penicillin – moldy cantaloupe and fermentation research in Peoria, IL in 1944 synthetic rubber – Akron, CalTech in 1942 mechanical computing – Colossus in UK, Z4 in Germany, ENIAC in USA atomic weaponry – Manhattan Project in USA multiple projects in Germany Cold War (1940s early 1990s) space race arm race (conventional and nuclear)
  6. 6. Take-Home Lessons from The USA Experience Act of government extends education and imparts knowledge and skills to the general public for society good Academic research can serve the national interest well Strategic vision that cut across politics from the leadership is important Support from the leadership is important on 3 fronts - cultural (mind-set) influence of leadership infrastructural – policies and organizational resources – financial and human capital Takes time and patience
  7. 7. Multiple Stakeholders with Intersecting and Potentially Conflicting Interests Institution - reputation - proper academic missions - financial return on use of resources - leadership vision - other gains (professional, power) Heads of academic units of the researchers (mostly same as above but at a more “territorial” level) Individual researchers-extremely varied •  efinitely D not homogeneous •  ay be congruent or conflicting M
  8. 8. Policies of Academic Institutions Serve to define rules and expectations guide decisions and activities/actions spell out in a transparent manner the proper administrative mechanisms and processes In order to achieve the desirable and rational outcome The targeted readers are not lawyers. Important to not use legalese
  9. 9. Intellectual Property Policies Usually, two key IP policies for academic institutions: Invention/Patent Policy patentable v patented or not physical embodiment of an invention tangible properties (biologicals) Work of Authorship/Copyrights Policy Other policies: Trademark or Use of Institution Name
  10. 10. Key Elements of Intellectual Property Policies Statement of scope, goals, applicability to stakeholders and signing of Acknowledgement Form Ownership – based on relationship and use of resources Reporting requirements and standard Responsible administrative unit – roles/responsibilities and authorities Management philosophy and process Benefit-sharing scheme (rights of the stakeholders) Dispute resolution or grievance process Final disposition or adjudication by institution Invention Policy dominates Work-of-Authorship Policy
  11. 11. Conflict Management Potential for conflict exists when stakeholders have multiple relationships Conflict arises when a stakeholder advances the interest of one relationship at the expense of the other relationship We all have multiple relationships (not avoidable) – but most do not have intersecting interests that may give rise to conflict (not all intersecting interests will give rise to conflict) When an academic institution encourages its employees to be innovative and entrepreneurial, it encourages additional relationships with interests that may intersect Important to have a policy in place to spell out . . .
  12. 12. Key Elements of Conflict Management Policy The key interests of the institution and why they are considered so Statement of scope, goals and applicability to stakeholders Disclosure requirement and standard Responsible administrative units – compositions, roles and responsibilities, and authorities Management philosophy and process Dispute resolution or grievance process Final disposition or adjudication by institution
  13. 13. Conflict Management Infrastructure Conflict Management Office – staff, accept relationship disclosures, preliminary review, gather background information, make referrals and provide administrative support to . . . Conflict Advisory Panel/Committee – faculty, review referrals to determine whether potential of conflict is “manageable”. Devise “Conflict Management Plan” and recommend to the responsible academic leadership (dean, provost, vice rector, rector) Conflict Oversight Committee/Subcommittee – monitor compliance with “Conflict Management Plan” once approved by the academic leadership 3 units + 1 instrument = “3 + 1 Architecture”
  14. 14. Key Institutional Interests The important interests of the institution – normally can be summed up as 4 key issues Proper use of Institutional Resources for proper academic activities (that advances the missions of the institution) No misappropriation of intellectual property and inventions (that should be owned and controlled by the institution) Maintenance of good reputation without bias interpretation of research results (research integrity) Fulfillment of institutional responsibilities and duties A good Conflict Management Plan addresses all of them with effective mitigation approaches.
  15. 15. Mitigation Approaches Use of institutional resources – funds, facilities and personnel Oversight Committee to monitor compliance with the Conflict Management Plan -  eriodically and independently interview subordinates P (students, staff, post-doctoral researchers) -review and, if necessary copy, notebooks -review publications and the overall program output and nature of activities To ensure activities are not improper in an academic program and indeed advance the institutional missions Report non-compliance and concern to Conflict Advisory Panel
  16. 16. Mitigation Approaches Intellectual Property – ownership and use without permission Oversight Committee to monitor compliance with the Conflict Management Plan -  andatory disclosure of all inventions and copyrights m -periodic search of patent databases -follow through with “whistle-blower” and investigate -review and determine compliance To ensure no misappropriation of institutional IP Report non-compliance to Conflict Advisory Panel
  17. 17. Mitigation Approaches Reputation/Research Integrity – most difficult to judge and philosophical since even disinterested researchers may interpret research results differently Oversight Committee to monitor compliance with Conflict Management Plan -  andatory disclosure in all publications and presentations m of research result of the researcher’s relationship with one or more third parties in which the researcher has significant financial interests (or clinicians, disclosure to patients) to “let the readers beware” To ensure proper disclosure is made Report non-compliance to Conflict Advisory Panel
  18. 18. Mitigation Approaches Institutional Responsibilities and Duties – most straight forward Oversight Committee to monitor compliance with Plan -  ttendance guidelines (1 day/week away allowed in the US) a -review record of publications and other scholarly writings -funding level -teaching activities To ensure contributions to institution are comparable to peers in similar positions Report non-compliance or concerns to Conflict Advisory Panel
  19. 19. Ramifications Conflict Advisory Panel – review reports of non-compliance and concerns of the Oversight Committee -discussion with the interested researcher -discussion with the interested researcher’s superior -determine proper remedial or punitive action(s) required Recommend corrective action(s) to the relevant academic leadership for final implementation
  20. 20. Policies and Processes Transparent and straight forward with as little ambiguity as possible while with enough flexibility to accommodate disciplinary differences Well distributed and publicized for good awareness Continuing awareness program (not “one and done”) Diligently monitored for compliance with the will to enforce Periodic review for policy and process update Competent implementation (human resource)