What's a fair share?

PATRICK McDONAGH | Cutting-edge research, long a source of pride at McGill, is the result of a symbiotic balance between the institution and its individual researchers: the latter provide the brainpower and labour, with the former contributing facilities and resources. The result: publications in prestigious journals, a high profile for research centres, and fame, of a sort. But, for the most part, no fortune. However, recently, both researchers and institutions have begun to look beyond the marketplace of ideas to the marketplace of products and cold, hard cash. More and more products of university research are finding their way into the world as patented inventions rather than as academic papers. Indeed, this summer saw the release of the Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research Report, a federal government-backed initiative, which calls for a greater emphasis on getting the products of university research into the marketplace. The growing movement of university research into the market is stimulating some shifts in the traditional environment. The development of new intellectual property policies is one example. Last spring, a draft of a proposed new intellectual property policy, originating from the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research) Pierre Bélanger, was circulated and discussed by MUNASA and MAUT. As a consequence of these discussions, a revised proposal was released on July 29. "This new policy serves several purposes," explains Bélanger. First, he says, it provides clarification. "The present Policy on Inventions and Patents includes phrases like 'it is expected that,' and 'the inventor may request....' The policy doesn't explain whether one must do what is 'expected,' or under what grounds the inventor 'may request' something. It isn't clear." A second concern is the consolidation of policies; presently, McGill has different policies for inventions and patents, for software development, and for the routine transfer of biological material. These will be conflated in the proposed Policy on Intellectual Property. Other issues include the clear designation of ownership. Says Bélanger, "You have to be sure that all the inventors are in the picture." The proposed policy addresses the case of multiple inventors to ensure that everyone involved has a slice of whatever pie may result. However, the item most likely to attract attention concerns the division of royalties between McGill and its researchers. The present policy sees 65% of royalties go to the researcher and 35% to the University. "We would like to bring McGill in line with what goes on in the rest of Canada, and certainly the rest of North America," says Bélanger. The norm, he says, is at least a 50/50 split, with institutions such as the University of California applying a formula that sees the inventor receive 50% of the first $100,000, 35% of the next $400,000, and 20% of anything over that. "McGill," he notes, "is presently very generous." One reason the University would like a larger cut is to cover the development costs of the inventions that do not pan out on the open market. "Successful inventors never see those costs, but we have to bear the cost of everything that doesn't work, so in fact our 35% comes out to less," explains Bélanger. However, MAUT is less convinced. In late May, the MAUT Council voted its opposition to the shift from joint ownership of IP and from a 65/35 sharing to 50/50 sharing. Says MAUT president Myron Frankman, an economics professor, "Our feeling is that before agreeing to a change of that sort, we would like to be convinced that we're getting something in exchange. The perception right now is that there is a net loss." According to Bélanger, the perceived net loss could be countered by an increase in support for the Office of Technology Transfer, which is responsible for bringing the products of research into the realm of investors and clients. Inventors would get a smaller cut, but this could still translate into more dollars if the OTT were given the resources to market products more aggressively. In addition, he notes, "We've incorporated provisions for people who are not just inventors, but who get involved in establishing the new company, giving their time and know-how. They usually end up with a greater share than 50/50." This past year, says OTT head Alex Navarre, inventions and patents have brought $800,000 to McGill. At present, the University's royalties are divided evenly among the University administration, the faculty that developed the product, and the Faculty of Graduate Studies. The new proposal would see royalties evenly split four ways, with one quarter going to fund graduate fellowships. "We have to bear in mind that research is supposed to profit the entire University," argues Bélanger. Five faculties, and about five per cent of the professoriate, will be affected by the new policy, estimates Bélanger. Medicine has by far the most marketable research products, with the other affected faculties including Engineering, Science, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and Dentistry. "We hope to get this policy approved by the end of October," says Bélanger. "Of course," he adds, "we'll have to have more discussions with MAUT before it goes to Senate." And then, perhaps, a new symbiotic triangle will develop: the University, the researchers, and the buyers and sellers in the market.