Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003
Table of Contents Sponsored Research Executive Summary
1
Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY94 – FY03 Figure 1 – Funding History by Sponsor Type Table 1 – Funding History by Sponsor Type Figure 2 – Federal Funding Figure 3 - % Growth in Fed. Science & Eng. Obligations – 1991– 2001 Figure 4 – State, Local & Int’l Gov. Funding Figure 5 – Private Industry Funding
Funding History by School - FY94 – FY03
2 2 3 3 4 4 5
Figure 6 – Arts & Sciences Figure 7 – School of Engineering Figure 8 – School of Social Work Figure 9 – School of Medicine Table 2 – Funding History by School
Award Dollars by School and Cost Category
6
Table 3 – Direct Costs vs Indirect Costs – FY02 & FY03
Award Dollars by Project Type – FY02 & FY03 Table 4 – Award Dollars by School & Project Type Figure 10 – Award Summary by Sponsor Type
7 8
Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY02 & FY03 Table 5 – Direct and Indirect Award Dollars Table 6 – Award Dollars by Sponsor & Cost Category Table 6a – Award Dollars by Sponsor and Direct/Sub Award Category Table 7 – Federal Award Dollars by School & Sponsor- FY03 Table 8 – Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type Table 9 – College of A & S – Award Dollars by Dept. Table 10 – School of Engin. – Award Dollars by Dept. Table 11 – School of Med. – Award Dollars by Dept.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Washington University Rankings – FY 2001 Table 12 – WU Rank Among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support Table 13 – WU Rank Among Private Univ. Receiving Federal Support
Office of Technology Management Executive Summary
17 18 19
Invention Disclosures by School Figure 11 – Invention Disclosures by School – FY99-FY03 Table 14 – Invention Disclosures by School – FY99-FY03 Table 15 – Invention Disclosures by School – Dept. – FY02 & FY03
23 23 24
Patent Applications by School Figure 12 – US Patent Applications by School – FY99-FY03 Table 16 – US Patent Applications by School – FY99-FY03 Table 17 – US Patent Applications by School & Dept. – FY02 & FY03
25 25 26
Licenses by School Figure 13 – Licenses by School – FY99-FY03 Figure 14 – % of Licenses by School – FY03 Table 18 – Licenses by School – FY99-FY03 Table 19 – Licenses by School & Dept. – FY01, FY02 & FY03 Table 20 – License Type by School & Dept. – FY03
License Revenue by School – FY99-FY03
27 28 28 29 30 31
Figure 15 - License Revenue by School Table 21 – License Revenue by School
License Revenue – FY99-FY03
32
Table 22 - License Revenue
Industry Sponsored Research Agreements – FY03 Figure 16 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School Table 23 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School Table 24 – Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School & Dept.
33 33 34
Other Agreements – FY03 Figure 17 – Other Agreements by School Table 25 – Other Agreements by School Table 26 – Other Agreements by School & Dept.
35 35 36
Material Transfer Agreements – FY03 Figure 18 – Material Transfer Agreements Table 27 – Material Transfer Agreements Table 28 – Material Transfer Agreements by School & Dept.
37 37 38
Sponsored Research Executive Summary
This report presents an overview of external funding for sponsored research projects and training at Washington University during the fiscal year of 2003 (FY03). The award dollars reported are those of awards with start dates on or between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. Data Sources The data for the majority of these tables were obtained from the Washington University Financial Information System (FIS) and reflect awards for sponsored research and projects. Excluded from these figures are revenue derived from gifts, sales and service agreements, clinical trials and federal work study funds. This is the first year we have removed the work study funds from the total award dollars both for FY03 and the prior ten year award tables. Because of this change in methodology, the award totals will be slightly lower than in the previously published reports. The tables on pages 18-19 are reproduced using the most recently published figures collected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and represent government-wide data from federal fiscal year 2001. Total Award Dollars The University’s total research support for FY03 was $480 million, an increase of 14% over FY02. This increase is related to a significant increase in the budget of a key federal agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Federal agency support continues to be the University's leading source of sponsored research funding, constituting 79% of total sponsored dollars in FY03. Key Federal Research Sponsors NIH awarded $377 million in FY03, representing 79% of total University sponsored research funding. NSF remains the number two sponsor of University research by awarding $17.4 million. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the third largest sponsor, awarding $5.2 million. National Ranking NSF’s most recent nationwide comparison of universities with federal research support ranked Washington University as 12th in receiving federal research funding and 6th in support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 6th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS funding (tables 12 and 13). In addition, the School of Medicine ranks 3rd out of all medical schools in the United States in the amount of funding received from the NIH.
1
Funding History
The following graphs illustrate Washington University's funding history over the past decade. The first chart graphs the total dollars received each year, sorted by three broad sponsor types: 1) federal, 2) state, local and international governments, and 3) private sector, which includes industry and nonprofit sponsors. The tables on pages 5 and 6 address the same sponsor data in greater detail. Finally, 10-year trends are compared among the four research-intensive units of the University: the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Engineering and Applied Science, the Washington University School of Medicine, and the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.
Figure 1 Funding History FY94 to FY03 by Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars
$500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
Federal
State/Local/Int'l.
Private
Table 1 in thousands of dollars Federal State/Local/Int'l. Private Total
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
$163,659
$180,217
$196,106
$221,303
$208,837
$277,855
$293,301
$4,041 $42,510
$5,895 $39,354
$5,276 $42,661
$5,202 $48,702
$8,377 $45,952
$7,443 $46,740
$8,364 $60,933
$210,210
$225,466
$244,043
$275,207
$263,166
$332,038
$362,598
FY01 $344,771
FY02 $362,217
FY03 $413,718
$8,100 $56,326 $409,197
$11,771 $46,377 $420,365
$14,953 $51,123 $479,794
Note: Table 1 excludes Federal Work Study funds in all fiscal years. As a result Federal and total award dollars will not match totals in previously published reports.
2
Funding History by Sponsor Type As figure 3 shows, the University’s cumulative growth in federal research funding from 1991 to 2001 has outpaced the growth in federal science and engineering obligations made to the top 100 universities and colleges receiving these dollars. Figure 2 Federal Funding - FY94 to FY03 in thousands of dollars
$450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
Figure 3 Percent Growth in Federal Science and Engineering Obligations – 1991 to 2001
120.00%
100.00%
80.00% Federal Support to Washington University 60.00%
40.00%
20.00% Federal Science and Eng. Obligaitons to top 100 Universities
20 01
20 00
19 99
19 98
19 97
19 96
19 95
19 94
19 93
19 92
19 91
0.00%
3
Funding History by Sponsor Type
Figure 4 State, Local and International Government Funding – FY94 to FY03 in thousands of dollars
$16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
Figure 5 Private Industry Funding – FY94 to FY03 in thousands of dollars
$70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
4
Funding History by Sponsor Type
Figure 6 Arts and Sciences
Figure 7 School of Engineering $25,000
$40,000 $35,000
$20,000
$30,000 $15,000
$25,000 $20,000
$10,000
$15,000 $5,000
$10,000 $5,000
$0
$0
FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
Figure 8 School of Social Work
Figure 9 School of Medicine $450,000
$10,000
$400,000 $350,000
$8,000
$300,000
$6,000
$250,000 $200,000
$4,000
$150,000 $100,000
$2,000
$50,000
$0
$-
FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03
Table 2 Arts & Sciences School of Engineering School of Medicine School of Social Work Other Total
FY94 $25,332 $12,358 $167,588 $1,273 $3,659 $210,210
FY95 $25,102 $10,156 $185,585 $2,319 $2,304 $225,466
FY96 $23,085 $13,339 $203,009 $1,881 $2,730 $244,043
FY97 $22,872 $15,571 $230,923 $2,288 $3,553 $275,207
FY98 $23,374 $15,946 $215,538 $4,128 $4,180 $263,166
FY99 $23,548 $10,619 $290,472 $3,691 $3,708 $332,038
FY00 $31,089 $20,270 $302,692 $5,503 $3,044 $362,598
FY01 $28,799 $8,403 $362,407 $9,150 $438 $409,197
FY02 $30,177 $15,349 $366,884 $6,075 $1,880 $420,365
FY03 $38,376 $14,168 $419,271 $6,444 $1,535 $479,794
5
Award Dollars by School and Cost Category
The following table compares FY03 award dollars with the prior year, broken out by direct costs and indirect costs. The percent of change from one fiscal year to the next is tracked in the far right column. It should be noted that when a school receives one very large award or regularly receives a small number of awards, the data could lead to skewed or even misleading interpretations.
Table 3 Direct Costs vs. Indirect Costs – FY02 and FY03 in thousands of dollars
Schools Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine* Social Work Other Total
Award Count 281 2 127 2 1455 34 9 1910
FY03 Direct Indirect Costs Costs
Total
$28,109 $10,267 $38,376 $888 $131 $1,019 $10,480 $3,689 $14,169 $93 $45 $138 $309,224 $110,047 $419,271 $4,991 $1,453 $6,444 $358 $20 $378 $354,143 $125,651 $479,794
FY02 Award Direct Indirect Count Costs Costs
Total
230 $21,564 $8,613 $30,177 3 $1,052 $199 $1,251 105 $11,631 $3,718 $15,349 2 $85 $45 $130 1242 $265,041 $101,843 $366,884 34 $4,429 $1,646 $6,075 10 $473 $26 $499 1626 $304,275 $116,090 $420,365
Total Award Dollar Change $$ % $8,199 -$232 -$1,180 $8 $52,387 $369 -$121 $59,429
27% -19% -8% 6% 14% 6% -24% 14%
6
Award Dollars by Project Type
The term "project type" refers to the distinct types of awards received by the University. Types chosen for this table are Research, Research Training and Other Sponsored Activities. Research projects are those activities whose principal focus is the discovery, verification, or evaluation of new knowledge. Research training includes individual and institutional awards for the support of postdoctoral trainees and fellows plus institutional awards for graduate education. Other Sponsored Activities include projects such as scholarly conferences, equipment grants, community outreach programs, and college work-study assistance.
Table 4 Award Dollars by School and Project Type in thousands of dollars
Schools
Research FY03 FY02
Administration Architecture Art Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine Social Work Total
$382 $447 -$4 $15 $0 $0 $34,590 $28,571 $1,019 $1,251 $13,412 $14,900 $130 $130 $393,888 $341,897 $3,739 $4,304 $447,156 $391,515
Research Training FY03 FY02 $0 $0 $0 $2,073 $0 $644 $0 $20,840 $685 $24,242
$37 $0 $0 $1,205 $0 $449 $0 $20,491 $443 $22,625
Other Sponsored Activities FY03 FY02 $0 $0 $0 $1,713 $0 $112 $8 $4,543 $2,020 $8,396
$0 $0 $0 $401 $0 $0 $0 $4,496 $1,328 $6,225
Total FY03 FY02 $382 -$4 $0 $38,376 $1,019 $14,168 $138 $419,271 $6,444 $479,794
7
$484 $15 $0 $30,177 $1,251 $15,349 $130 $366,884 $6,075 $420,365
Award Dollars by Project Type
The graphs and tables in this section intend to answer many questions. • •
From what sources does the University receive funding? From which sectors---government, industry, and not for profit--does the University receive the most funding? Which federal agencies are most important to the individual schools? Which sponsors have stepped up or scaled down their investments in University research over the past fiscal year?
• •
Sponsor types used in the tables are broadly defined as Federal, Other Government, Industry and Not for Profit. The Federal sponsor type is the largest sector, representing 86% of total University award dollars in FY03. The other government category includes state arts funding, city projects, awards from international governments, and most often, state university subcontracts funded by those institutions' federal grants. Industry, as a sponsor type, refers to any grant or contract awarded by a for-profit entity. Nonprofits include foundations, professional societies, and volunteer health organizations. Figure 10 Award Summary by Sponsor Type - FY 02 and FY03 in thousands of dollars FY03
FY02
$39,262
$33,634
$377,330
$330,309
$11,861 $14,953
$12,743 $11,771
$18,995 $17,393
$20,831 $11,077
N IH
N SF
O th e r F e d
O th e r G o v t
In d u stry
N o n P ro fit
8
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 5 Direct and Indirect Award Dollars by Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars FY03
Sponsors
% Total Direct Costs Direct
Indirect Costs
FY02
% Total F&A
Total
% Total % Total Direct Costs Direct
Indirect Costs
% Total F&A
Total
% Total
Federal*
$300,543
84.9%
$113,175
90.1%
$413,718
86.2%
$257,277
84.6%
$104,940
90.4%
$362,217
86.2%
Other Govt Total Govt
$10,433 $310,976
2.9% 87.8%
$4,520 $117,695
3.6% 93.7%
$14,953 $428,671
3.1% 89.3%
$8,273 $265,550
2.7% 87.3%
$3,498 $108,438
3.0% 93.4%
$11,771 $373,988
2.8% 89.0%
$34,876
9.8%
$4,386
3.5%
$39,262
8.2%
$29,622
9.7%
$4,012
3.5%
$33,634
8.0%
$8,291
2.3%
$3,570
2.8%
$11,861
2.5%
$9,103
3.0%
$3,640
3.1%
$12,743
3.0%
$43,167
12.2%
$7,956
6.3%
$51,123
10.7%
$38,725
12.7%
$7,652
6.6%
$46,377
11.0%
Nonprofit Industry Total Private Total
$354,143 100.0%
$125,651 100.0%
$479,794 100.0%
$304,275 100.0%
$116,090 100.0%
$420,365 100.0%
* Federal award dollars exclude work study funds
9
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 6 Award Dollars by Sponsor and Cost Category in thousands of dollars
Direct Costs FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH NSF NASA DOD EPA ED DOE DHHS HRSA USDA OTHER Total Federal OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI STATE-All Other OTHER GOV'T Total Other Govt PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY NON PROFITS Total Private
Total
FY03 Indirect Costs
Total
Direct Costs
FY02 Indirect Costs
Change Total
$$
%
$273,294 $12,969 $3,709 $2,748 $778 $1,486 $2,787 $1,435 $144 $1,191 $300,543
$104,036 $4,425 $1,526 $919 $133 $84 $1,158 $406 $34 $454 $113,175
$377,330 $17,394 $5,235 $3,667 $911 $1,570 $3,945 $1,841 $178 $1,645 $413,718
$233,741 $7,949 $3,024 $2,641 $3,366 $1,319 $1,679 $1,445 $366 $1,747 $257,277
$96,568 $3,128 $1,428 $1,333 $535 $93 $697 $415 $79 $664 $104,940
$330,309 $11,077 $4,452 $3,974 $3,901 $1,412 $2,376 $1,860 $445 $2,411 $362,217
$47,021 $6,317 $783 -$307 -$2,990 $158 $1,569 -$19 -$267 -$766 $51,501
14% 57% 18% -8% -77% 11% 66% -1% -60% -32% 14%
$695 $9,252 $486 $10,433
$138 $4,344 $38 $4,520
$833 $13,596 $524 $14,953
$1,098 $6,635 $540 $8,273
$226 $3,226 $46 $3,498
$1,324 $9,861 $586 $11,771
-$491 $3,735 -$62 $3,182
-37% 38% -11% 27%
$8,291 $34,876 $43,167 $354,143
$3,570 $4,386 $7,956 $125,651
$11,861 $39,262 $51,123 $479,794
$9,103 $29,622 $38,725 $304,275
$3,640 $4,012 $7,652 $116,090
$12,743 $33,634 $46,377 $420,365
-$882 $5,628 $4,746 $59,429
-7% 17% 10% 14%
Note: FY03 and FY02 U.S. Department of Education award dollars exclude Federal Work Study Program Funds. As a result FY02 U.S. Department of Education totals and overall fiscal year totals will not match the FY02 published annual report numbers
10
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Washington University receives a considerable amount of research funding from other institutions, including state and local government agencies, commonly referred to as “sub-awards”. The following table shows the original source of the award dollars, including sub-award dollars, rather than attributing the funds to the awarding entity. Table 6a Award Dollars by Sponsor and Direct/Indirect Award Category in thousands of dollars Direct Awards FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH NSF NASA DOD EPA ED DOE DHHS HRSA USDA OTHER Total Federal OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI STATE-All Other OTHER GOV'T Total Other Govt PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY NON PROFITS Total Private
Total
FY03 Sub Awards
$371,712 $17,393 $5,235 $3,527 $912 $1,570 $3,945 $1,840 $178 $875 $407,186
$25,414 $2,083 $1,921 $1,375 $381 $73 $157 $450 $102 $1,271 $33,226
$588 $161 $17 $178
$160 $2 $0 $2
$9,376 $25,797 $35,173 $442,537
$16 $3,265 $3,281 $36,508
Total
Direct Costs
$397,125 $328,164 $19,476 $11,076 $7,155 $4,452 $4,902 $3,839 $1,293 $3,902 $1,642 $1,437 $4,102 $2,376 $2,290 $1,860 $280 $445 $2,146 $1,694 $440,412 $359,245 $748 $163 $17 $928
$843 $412 $5 $1,260
$9,392 $10,539 $29,061 $21,618 $38,453 $32,157 $479,794 $392,661
FY02 F&A Costs
Change Total
$18,064 $346,229 $1,866 $12,943 $1,939 $6,391 $296 $4,135 $63 $3,965 $77 $1,514 $387 $2,763 $719 $2,580 $107 $552 $553 $2,247 $24,073 $383,317
$$
%
$50,897 $6,534 $764 $767 -$2,672 $129 $1,339 -$289 -$272 -$101 $57,095
15% 50% 12% 19% -67% 8% 48% -11% -49% -4% 15%
$1,184 $451 $0 $1,635
-$436 -$288 $17 -$707
-37% -64% na -43%
$0 $10,539 $3,256 $24,874 $3,256 $35,413 $27,709 $420,365
-$1,147 $4,187 $3,040 $59,429
-11% 17% 9% 14%
$341 $39 $0 $380
Note: FY03 and FY02 U.S. Department of Education Award Dollars exclude Federal Work Study Program Funds. As a result FY02 U.S. Department of Education totals and overall fiscal year totals will not match the FY02 published annual report numbers.
11
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 7 Federal Award Dollars by School and Sponsor in thousands of dollars
University FY03
Arts & Sciences
% of Change from FY02
FY03
% of Change from FY02
School of Engineering FY03
% of Change from FY02
School of Medicine % of Change from FY02
FY03
School of Social Work Other FY03
% of Change from FY02
FY03
Schools % of Change from FY02
NIH
$377,330
14.2%
$10,977
15.9%
$2,653
57.3%
$359,580
14.0%
$3,991
15.5%
$130
-8.1%
NSF
$17,393
57.0%
$13,689
99.3%
$2,630
-4.8%
$1,074
-15.6%
$0
0.0%
$0
-100.0%
ED
$1,570
11.2%
$920
17.3%
$0
0.0%
$340
-1.7%
$0
0.0%
$309
9.7%
NASA
$5,235
17.6%
$4,473
15.5%
$256
188.1%
$505
2.9%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
DOD
$3,667
-7.7%
$289
-26.1%
$3,183
-11.2%
$194
100.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
-100.0%
EPA
$912
-76.6%
$0
0.0%
$912
-76.6%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
DOE
$3,945
66.0%
$1,195
-6.5%
$449
-10.5%
$2,301
286.1%
$0
0.0%
$0
-100.0%
HHS HRSA
$1,840
-1.1%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$1,818
-2.2%
$22
100.0%
$0
0.0%
$178
-60.0%
$178
-60.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$1,648
-31.7%
$55
-88.3%
$15
-90.0%
$1,531
20.3%
$10
-97.6%
$40
-63.0%
$413,718
14.2%
$31,776
34.8%
$10,098
-20.3%
$367,343
14.3%
$4,023
4.1%
$479
-32.0%
USDA OTHER TOTAL
12
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 8 Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars
Schools Administration Architecture Art Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine Social Work Total
Government Federal Other Govt. FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02
Private Industry Nonprofit FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02
Total FY03
FY02
$349 $402 $23 $84 $0 $0 $9 $0 $381 $486 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$4 $15 -$4 $15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,776 $23,579 $1,157 $1,276 $2,391 $2,592 $3,053 $2,730 $38,376 $30,177 $0 $173 $5 0 $0 $0 $1,014 $1,078 $1,019 $1,251 $10,098 $12,674 $1,705 $696 $1,444 $1,580 $921 $398 $14,168 $15,348 $130 $130 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $138 $130 $367,343 $321,393 $12,033 $9,276 $7,987 $8,305 $31,909 $27,910 $419,271 $366,884 $4,023 $3,865 $30 $439 $31 $265 $2,361 $1,504 $6,444 $6,073 $413,718 $362,217 $14,953 $11,771 $11,861 $12,742 $39,262 $33,635 $479,794 $420,365
13
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 9 College of Arts and Sciences - Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars
Government Department
Federal
Administration African & Afro-American Studies Anthropology Art History & Archaeology Biology Center for Political Economy Chemistry Classics Earth & Planetary Science Education Graduate School History International Writers Center Mathematics Music Philosophy Physics Political Science Psychology Weidenbaum Center Total
$0 $31 $35 $0 $8,273 $50 $7,345 $0 $1,850 $4,196 $558 $20 $0 $316 $0 $139 $5,224 $0 $3,166 $571 $31,776
Private
Total
Other Govt. Industry Nonprofit $0 $0 $0 $0 $453 $0 $144 $0 $304 $0 $0 $0 $5 $11 $0 $0 ($10) $0 $174 $75 $1,157
$0 $0 $0 $0 $813 $0 $236 $0 $919 $0 $333 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 $0 $0 $0 $2,391
$121 $0 $3 $0 $1,123 $0 $356 $0 $302 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57 $0 $0 $422 $0 $670 $0 $3,053
FY03 $121 $31 $39 $0 $10,662 $50 $8,081 $0 $3,375 $4,196 $891 $20 $5 $384 $0 $139 $5,726 $0 $4,010 $646 $38,376
FY02 $129 $0 $27 $37 $10,495 $0 $5,457 $11 $5,099 $42 $853 $0 $0 $657 $2 $62 $4,251 $57 $2,997 $0 $30,177
14
Award Summary by Sponsor Type Table 10 School of Engineering - Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars Government Department
Private
Total
Federal Other Gov't. Industry Nonprofit
FY03
FY02
$1,941
$102
$0
$230
$2,273
$882
Chemical Engineering
$623
$128
$199
$120
$1,070
$1,028
Civil Engineering
$853
$54
$0
$0
$907
$662
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$61
$1,088
$860
$328
$0
$2,276
$4,775
Electrical Engineering
$163
$0
$0
$157
$320
$1,580
Environmental Engineering
$978
$401
$135
$94
$1,608
$3,932
Center for Materials Research
$596
$60
$34
$0
$690
$6
Mechanical Engineering
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,722
Systems Science & Math Other Total
$0 $3,856 $10,098
$0 $100 $1,705
$0 $748 $1,444
$0 $320 $921
$0 $5,024 $14,168
$497 $203 $15,349
Biomedical Engineering
Computer & Comm. Research Center Computer Science
15
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 11 School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars Department
Government Federal Other Govt.
Private Industry Nonprofit
Anatomy & Neurobiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Genetics Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Subtotal Preclinical Anesthesiology Internal Medicine Neurological Surgery Neurology Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology Orthopaedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Surgery Subtotal Clinical Administration Div.of Biology/Biomedical Sciences Biostatistics Cancer Center Clinical Research Center Center for Health Behavior Research Emergency Medicine Medical Library Occupational Therapy Physical Therapy Subtotal Other
$10,177 $6,251 $7,854 $90,088 $10,652 $10,071 $135,093 $4,618 $53,442 $1,454 $17,426 $2,013 $12,514 $1,318 $4,741 $18,332 $19,813 $38,966 $27,726 $13,836 $216,197 $745 $3,952 $4,351 $1,344 $3,483 $609 $0 $0 $941 $628 $16,053
$206 $56 $25 $2,426 $0 $10 $2,724 $0 $2,412 $0 $646 $0 $0 $0 $49 $657 $1,011 $2,399 $683 $561 $8,417 $0 $31 $579 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116 $166 $0 $892
$869 $78 $630 $631 $1,568 $510 $4,287 $199 $7,549 ($18) $2,176 $412 $445 $660 $14 $2,711 $4,406 $1,449 $1,412 $2,843 $24,258 $493 $197 $724 $74 $127 $722 $10 $0 $997 $20 $3,364
$142 $11,395 $28 $6,413 $289 $8,799 $387 $93,533 $1,402 $13,622 $60 $10,652 $2,309 $144,413 $158 $4,974 $2,905 $66,307 $63 $1,499 $321 $20,570 $0 $2,425 ($94) $12,864 $434 $2,413 $0 $4,804 $716 $22,415 $1,117 $26,347 $0 $42,814 $350 $30,171 $404 $17,643 $6,374 $255,246 ($711) $527 $0 $4,180 $0 $5,654 $0 $1,419 $0 $3,610 $0 $1,331 $0 $10 $0 $116 $15 $2,119 $0 $648 ($696) $19,612
$13,523 $7,289 $9,941 $75,909 $11,583 $7,777 $126,022 $4,639 $63,276 $1,395 $19,097 $2,212 $13,028 $2,108 $4,879 $19,186 $24,018 $36,768 $21,775 $11,853 $224,233 ($459) $3,827 $3,760 $1,406 $3,617 $1,809 $0 $101 $1,886 $683 $16,629
Total
$367,343
$12,033
$29,931
$9,964
$366,884
Total FY03
$419,271
FY02
16
Washington University Rankings
Each year, the National Science Foundation produces a ranking of the top 100 research institutions receiving federal research support. The most recent federal fiscal year data reported by NSF is for FY00. Washington University ranks 13th in receiving federal funding and 6th in support from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health. Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 6th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS funding. Table 12 Washington University Ranking Among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support FY2001
Institution Johns Hopkins University University of Washington U of Pennsylvania U of Michigan U of CA San Diego U of CA Los Angeles U of CA San Francisco Stanford University Harvard University Columbia U City New York U of WI Madison Washington Univ St. Louis U of Colorado Cornell University U of Pittsburgh U of Minnesota U of NC Chapel Hill Yale University Duke University PA St U University Park MA Inst of Technology Baylor Col of Medicine U of Southern California U of CA Berkeley U of IL Urbana-Champaign
Rank Among Top 100 Research Institutions Total Federal Federal Funding Funding From HHS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 3 2 5 16 8 4 15 7 12 20 6 21 26 9 17 11 10 13 53 56 14 29 42 74
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), "Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2001" (Arlington, VA) 2003.
17
Washington University Rankings
Table 13 Washington University Ranking Among Private Universities Receiving Federal Support FY2001
INSTITUTION
Johns Hopkins University U of Pennsylvania Stanford University Harvard University Columbia U City New York Washington Univ St. Louis Cornell University Yale University Duke University MA Inst of Technology Baylor Col of Medicine U of Southern California Case Western Reserve U Vanderbilt University University of Rochester Northwestern University University of Chicago Emory University Boston University Scripps Rsch Inst, The CA Inst of Technology NY University CUNY Mt Sinai Schl of Med University of Miami Yeshiva University NY
RANK AMONG TOP 100 RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS TOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FUNDING FUNDING FROM HHS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 9 4 6 3 14 5 7 32 8 16 10 12 18 22 15 11 19 13 33 21 17 26 20
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), "Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2001" (Arlington, VA) 2003.
18
Technology Management Executive Summary During the year, the Office of Technology Management (OTM) received 91 new technology disclosures. Approximately 78 % were in the life sciences and 22 % were in the physical sciences, including computer science technologies. The Office handled 11 % more disclosures than the year before. Patents issued numbered 48, an increase of 17 %. During the year, the University generated $ 14.3 M in total technology transfer revenue. This amount is 76 % more than the previous fiscal year. Licensing related distributions to individual inventors, Washington University Schools and third parties totaled $ 11.6 M. Legal expenses totaled $ 1.6 M and gross operating expenses totaled $ 1.1 M. Of the total legal fees, $ .9 M was reimbursed by licensees. The University entered into a total of 228 new license agreements during the year, up 10 % from the year before. Of the total new license agreements, 95 % were non-exclusive licenses. FY02 Licensing Revenues by School School of Medicine School of Engineering and Applied Sciences School of Arts and Sciences School of Social Work
$12.5 M $0.9 M $0.8 M $0.07 M
During the year, OTM expanded its involvement with the community on local, regional and state levels. Organizations with which members of OTM are actively involved are RCGA, MOBIO, Danforth Plant Sciences Center Alliance, Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences, Missouri Venture Forum, Research Alliance of Missouri, BIO, Midwest Research Universities Network, and JETRO. In its relationships with these organizations, OTM works to build the economy and to develop channels for commercializing Washington University technologies. The relationship with the Business School’s entrepreneurship program continued to grow. Students from the program work on marketing and financial evaluation issues pertaining to various inventions. This work contributes to the assessment of ideas within a commercial context, whether start-ups or the licensing of ideas to large, established companies. The Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Research launched the Bear Cub Fund to nurture technologies with potential commercial value. This fund of approximately $250,000 in the first year was distributed to award winners in amounts ranging from $20,000 to $50,000. The purpose of the fund is to enable investigators to conduct proof of concept experiments in areas where commercial promise exists. The first awards were made in March 2003. The fund award winners were as follows: Roger D. Chamberlain (Computer Science and Engineering). Roger Chamberlain’s project is designed to speed up computer database searches. He used the Bear Cub grant to assist in designing and building a system that will make database searches up to 100 times faster than with conventional approaches. The Bear Cub funding enabled the building of a prototype that was instrumental in the formation and capital investment of a new St. Louis startup company.
19
Technology Management Executive Summary
Elliot L. Elson (Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics). Elliot Elson’s grant funded work on a system to improve the screening of chemical compounds thought to have therapeutic potential. Typical screening methods provide little or no information about biological responses to chemical compounds. Dr. Elson is developing a screening method that measures cellular responses to candidate drugs. Narasimhan Gautam (Anesthesiology). Narasimhan Gautam is addressing the growing complexity — and promise — in the field of drug discovery. He is using fluorescence-based biosensors to measure G-protein coupled receptor activity, a technology that could play a role in the design of more effective drugs. John W. Lockwood (Computer Science and Engineering). The Wireless Area Sensor Pod (WASP) is a “smart” sensor prototyped in reconfigurable hardware. It has generic electrical interfaces that allow the WASP to collect and process data from a variety of sensors, to communicate the data to multiple wireless networks, and to be reconfigured for different sensing tasks either over the net by an operator or in auto-response to different stimuli. Rosanne S. Naunheim (Emergency Medicine). Rosanne Naunheim is studying encapsulated microspheres that can help measure head trauma. There is growing concern about head injuries in soccer, American football and other contact sports. Her Bear Cub grant funded production and testing of microspheres that could be placed in sports or military helmets to help medical personnel determine the severity of head injuries. New Technologies Hyperthermophilic Archaeons Jan Amend (Earth & Planetary Sciences) has isolated a novel microbe that thrives in geothermal wells with temperatures in excess of 80C (175F). Similar hyperthermophiles are the basis for many research and industrial products such as those used in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cloning. This microbe could play an important role in research and industry. DNA vaccine vector delivery system Roy Curtiss and Wei Wong (Biology) have developed genetically engineered bacteria as vectors to deliver DNA-based therapeutics. An example of such a vector is a salmonella bacterium genetically modified to deliver a vaccine to deep tissue. This system may be superior for inducing immunity against viral, fungal and parasitic pathogens in animals and humans. G protein biosensor and cell line expressing biosensors and receptors Narasimhan Gautam (Anesthesiology) has developed a fluorescence based biosensor that directly measures activation of a variety of mammalian cell membrane receptors. This biosensor is made up of G protein subunits fused to mutants of Green Fluorescent protein that provides a FRET signal. This fluorescence based biosensor permits non-destructive assays and, therefore, offers new potential means to conduct drug screening and identification of new drug targets.
20
Technology Management Executive Summary Apparatus of extending the life of CT tubes David Habif, a trustee of the University, donated three patents that served as the foundation for Vivatech, LLC, a company formed by the Egan Group of St. Louis. The donated technology is a method and apparatus for extending the life of CT tubes by changing the oil cooling bath at regular intervals. Diagnosis of human metapneumovirus (hMPV) infection using real-time quantitative PCR and immunoassays Michael Holtzman (Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine) has developed a real-time quantitative PCR assay to detect human metapneumovirus. This research, which creates potential to generate antihMPV antibodies and to develop new immunoassays, could help in the diagnosis of this infection. Applying magnetics to authenticate seals on shipping containers Ron Indeck’s Magneprint technology has served as the basis for a company called CertiSeal, LLC, formed by Jerome Krachenfels of Virginia. This technology will increase security and contribute to faster shipping times. Notch 1-4 monoclonal antibodies specific to g-secretase cleavage Raphael Kopan (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology) has developed antibodies directed against the newly formed N-terminus of Notch proteins following presenilin dependent gamma-secretase cleavage. This discovery could facilitate research in cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Subdural Electrocorticography Telemeter for Human Patients with Epilepsy Eric Leuthardt, with Ralph Dacey and others, (Biomedical Engineering and Neurological Surgery) has developed a telemeter that is implanted below the scalp to transmit electrocorticographic signals to an outside source. Conventional systems permit connection between spinal fluid and the surface of the brain thus causing infection. Another advantage to this design is that the patient is no longer tethered to the monitoring device. Increased mobility will reduce the risks associated with prolonged bed rest, namely deep venous thrombus, pneumonia, and patient discomfort. This device can be used to report activity of any kind and probably forms the basis for development of the implantation of programmable devices with two-way communication capability. Luciferase Complementation Imaging Kathryn Luker and David Piwnica-Worms (Radiology) have developed a bioluminescence imaging tool to study regulated protein interactions in vivo. The imaging tool is based on the optimization of the firefly luciferase protein fragment complementation and permits a non-invasive means to visualize protein interaction, with low background activity. Amplified expression of the Arabidopsis Dof transcription factor, OBP3, to induce dwarfism and alter root/shoot ratios in plants such as turfgrass and row crops Julio Perez-Fontan (Pediatrics Critical Care) has developed a therapy based on the synthesis and release of neurokinins (substance P and other peptides encoded by the PPT-A gene) in inflammatory (hemopoietic ) cells. This therapeutic approach may provide a superior means to treat inflammation in the lungs. It is based on the discovery of a new amplification system that operates during inflammation in the lungs. This discovery will help people who are maintained on ventilators for extended periods of time.
21
Technology Management Executive Summary y) has discovered a means to amplify ex Dipeptidyl peptidase I knock-out mouse Christine Pham (Internal Medicine) has created the first dipeptidyl peptidase I knock-out mouse. This mouse model will be useful in conducting tests to determine the role of proteases in different inflammatory disease processes. Poly-ubiquitinated firefly luciferase fusion reporter plasmid and cells David Piwnica-Worms (Radiology) has developed a means to accomplish real-time, in vivo analysis of 26S proteasome activity. This technology will enable researchers to monitor the efficacy of proteasome inhibitors and investigate function and impairment of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway in a variety of diseases. Highly permissive cell lines supporting HCV RNA replication Charles Rice and Keril Blight (Molecular Microbiology) have produced highly permissive cell lines that will facilitate analysis of RNA replication at the genomic and subgenomic levels in hepatitis C virus. This research could lead to new therapeutics to treat hepatitis. Improve spatial sampling and image resolution of positron emission tomography (PET) via asymmetric detector and system geometry Yuan-Chan Tai (Radiology) has created a novel design to improve the image quality for PET scans. Conventional systems use symmetric geometry. With an asymmetric approach to spatial sampling, which is the primary limitation on image resolution, PET image quality can be improved dramatically. New Mouse Calicivirus Herbert Virgin (Pathology and Immunology) has developed a new RNA virus that causes the majority of epidemic nonbacterial gastroenteritis in adult humans. This new calicivirus has high homology to epidemiologically important human pathogens. The mouse model will lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms for protective responses in humans. Mouse embryo fibroblast (MEF) propagation Jason Weber (Molecular Oncology) has developed a novel process for passaging MEFs in tissue culture. This new process allows for passaging greater numbers of MEFs for longer periods of time using equivalent numbers of embryos. The process will yield more fibroblasts for medical research. Disruption of host hematopoetic cell beta3 integrin subunit inhibits bone metastasis Katherine Weilbaecher, with Sam Teitelbaum and Suzanne Bakewell, has completed research on a potential therapeutic that may prevent spread of cancer tumors. Most work with beta3 integrin inhibitors (integrin proteins direct interactions between cells) has been targeted as therapies for diseases other than cancer. The tests indicate that this therapeutic can protect bones from metastisis when exposed to a melanoma cell line.
22
Invention Disclosures by School Under the University Patent Policy, creators are required to disclose to the OTM inventions made using significant University resources. The OTM evaluates each new “disclosure” to determine: • • • • •
whether the invention is complete; the potential commercial value; how to protect the intellectual property; the best mode for its commercialization; and whether the University wishes to retain title to the invention.
The OTM business development managers continue to present seminars to departments and divisions and also attend community organization meetings to represent the OTM and Washington University. Figure 11 Invention Disclosures by School – FY99 to F03 120 1 100 0 1
0
80
1 81
60
71 62
70
63
4 8
8 5
40
20 18 0
4 FY99
FY00
Arts & Sciences
FY01
Engineering
10
13
10
7
FY02
Medicine
FY03
Social Work
Table 14 FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
Arts & Sciences
4
8
5
10
7
Engineering
18
4
8
10
13
Medicine
81
70
63
62
71
Social Work
1
1
1
0
0
104
83
77
82
91
Total
23
Invention Disclosures by School Table 15 Invention Disclosures by School-Department – FY03 and FY02 School-Department Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology Joint Disclosures - Physics/Biochem & Molecular Biophysics Subtotal Arts and Sciences Biomedical Engineering Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical & Civil Engineering Mechanical Engineering System Science & Mathematics Joint Disclosures - Electrical Engineering/Computer Science Arts & Sciences
Subtotal Engineering Anatomy & Neurobiology Medicine Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Comparative Medicine Genetics Institute of Biological Computing Internal Medicine Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurosurgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Occupational Therapy Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Surgery Joint Disclosures Anesthesiology & Pediatrics Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics/Pediatrics Internal Medicine/Neurology Internal Medicine/Pathology Neurology/Pathology Pathology/Surgery Subtotal Medicine Social Work Subtotal Social Work
Total New Disclosures
FY02 6 3 0 0 0 1 10 2 0 3 3 0 1 1 10 3 0 3 6 1 1 0 15 5 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 10 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 62 0 0 82
FY03 3 0 1 2 1 0 7
1 5 6 0 0 1 13 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 18 4 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 10 2 3 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 91
24
Patent Applications by School The Center files patent applications on inventions that have potential commercial, as well as social value. Frequently, the first step is to file for a provisional patent. This filing is not actually examined by the Patent Office, but rather serves to establish a filing date and “patent pending” status for a year. Provisional filings - because of their relative ease and speed - are particularly useful for managing the sometimes conflicting demands between publication and commercialization. The Center will later file for a non-provisional patent that will be examined by the patent office before it is granted. Patent protection strengthens the University’s position with respect to potential licensees, particularly in a field such as pharmaceuticals where the investment to bring a product to market can be large. A company seeking return on investment will perceive unpatented technology as less valuable. The Center will seek foreign patents if warranted. Figure 12 US Patent Applications by School – FY99 to FY03
80
0 0
70 0 60
0
50 0
69 62
40
52 52
30
31
20
10
4
4
5
6
3 2
0 FY9 9
FY0 0
FY0 1
9
7
5
6
FY0 2
FY0 3
Arts & Sciences
Engineering
Medicine
Social Work
Table 16 FY99 5
FY00 6
FY01 2
FY02 5
FY03 6
4
4
3
9
7
Medicine
69
62
52
31
52
Social Work
0
0
0
0
0
Total
78
72
57
45
65
Arts & Sciences Engineering
25
US Patent Applications by School and Department – FY03 and FY02 Table 17 School-Department
FY02
FY03
2 1 0 1
6 0 0 0
1 5
0 6
2 2 2 1 0 2 9
0 4 2 0 1 0 7
0 0 1 2 0 0 0 6 4 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 0
3 2 1 0 0 1 0 11 4 3 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 3 1 8 1
1 1 1 1 31
0 0 0 0 51
0 0 45
0 0 65
Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Joint US Patent Applications Physics/Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics
Subtotal Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Mechanical & Civil Engineering Systems Science & Mathematics
Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Comparative Medicine Genetics Inst. For Biomedical Computing Internal Medicine Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurosurgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Surgery Joint US Patent Application Anesthesiology & Pediatrics Internal Medicine/Neurology Internal Medicine/Pathology Anesthesiology/Ophthalmology/Psychiatry
Subtotal Medicine
Social Work Social Work
Subtotal Social Work
Total
26
Licenses by School
Patented and unpatented inventions are transferred to industry through a variety of licensing arrangements. The rights to a licensee are defined by the allowed field of use and by the exclusivity of the license. Payment terms are also highly varied including one or a combination of license fees due on signing, maintenance fees, milestone payments and earned royalties on sales. Defined here are the major categories used in this report: Exclusive: A fee- and royalty-bearing exclusive license grants a licensee the sole right to commercialize a technology (may include sublicensing rights). Non-Exclusive: • Fee- and royalty-bearing license: grant of rights to commercialize the technology; may be granted to multiple licensees, • Paid-up license: a non-exclusive license granted in return for a one-time up-front license fee without subsequent fees or royalties, • No-fee license: rights are granted to a third-party (usually another non-profit educational institution) to use a technology (frequently computer software) that is generally licensed to others for a fee. License Modifications: • Amendment: an agreement modifying the terms of an existing license. • Assignment: a reassignment of rights caused by a change in ownership of the licensee through merger or acquisition. The majority of licenses granted by the University are to existing commercial companies located in the United States, with a smaller number to foreign entities. The University is also beginning to focus more on partnerships with Missouri and St. Louis companies and is actively supporting and encouraging the creation of new business ventures. Licensing technology to start-up companies can provide the best mode of commercialization for early-state platform technologies. Figure 13 Licenses by School – FY99 to FY03 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 FY99
FY00
Arts & Sciences
FY01
Engineering
FY02 Medicine
FY03 Social W ork
27
Licenses by School Figure 14 Percent of Licenses by School – FY03 Social Work 14%
Arts & Sciences 1%
Engineering 1%
Medicine 84%
Table 18 Licenses by School – FY99 to FY03 FY99 1
FY00 2
FY01 2
FY02 1
FY03 2
Engineering
36
12
2
7
3
Medicine
73
137
195
180
200
Social Work
47
85
60
26
34
Total
157
236
259
214
239
Arts & Sciences
28
Licenses by School Table 19 Licenses by School and Department – FY01 - FY03 School/Department Arts & Sciences
FY01
FY02
FY03
2 0 2
1 0 1
0 2 2
0 2 0 0 2
0 6 1 0 7
0 0 2 1 3
2 0 2 1 118 23 15 11 1 2 0 4 12 2 0 2 195
2 0 6 0 103 43 4 5 3 3 0 0 10 0 1 0 180
0 0 4 0 97 59 9 4 3 1 3 3 9 4 4 0 200
Subtotal Social Work
60 60
26 26
34 34
Total Licenses
259
214
239
Biology Psychiatry
Subtotal Arts and Sciences
Engineering Biomedical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering
Subtotal Engineering
Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Dermatology Genetics Institute of Biological Computing Internal Medicine Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Neurology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Radiology Surgery
Subtotal Medicine
Social Work Social Work
29
Licenses by School
Table 20 License Type by School and Department – FY03 Non-Exclusive School-Department
Exclusive Roy. Bearing Paid-up No Fee Amendment Assignment
Extensions
Arts & Sciences Biology Psychiatry
Total Arts & Sciences Engineering Biomedical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering
Subtotal Engineering Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Dermatology Genetics Institute of Biological Computing Internal Medicine Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Neurology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Radiology Surgery
Subtotal Medicine Social Work Social Work
Subtotal Social Work Total
0 0 0
0 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 1
0 0 1 1 2
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 9
0 0 4 0 6 0 6 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 0 29
0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 86 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 147
0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 8
0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 11
0 0 30
34 34 40
0 0 147
0 0 9
0 0 9
0 0 2
30
License License Revenue Revenue by School Under most licenses, the OTM receives gross licensing income in the form of license fees, maintenance fees, milestone payments, and earned royalties against product sales. In addition, the University collects patent expense reimbursements from some licensees, particularly when the license is exclusive. For technologies that are not yet licensed, patent expenses are recovered from the creator’s department through expense allocation arrangements. Legal expenses represent the amounts paid out to external law firms engaged in the prosecution of our patent portfolio. Other expenses may include specific out-of-pocket costs incurred as part of technology licensing (e.g. consulting fees) or non-patent legal costs. Licensing Income Distribution Inventors School OTM
Disclosed Prior to 7/1/98 Disclosed After 7/1/98 50% 45% 45% 40% 5% 15% Figure 15 License Revenue by School – FY99 to FY03 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $FY99
FY00
Arts & Sciences
Engineering
FY01
FY02
Medicine
FY03
Social Work
Table 21 FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
Arts & Sciences
$ 206,024
$
21,801
$ 223,286
$
171,433
$
810,051
Engineering
$ 599,590
$ 2,315,960
$ 840,410
$
861,541
$
937,343
Medicine
$ 7,407,814
$ 5,928,862
$ 7,938,441
$ 6,997,028
$ 12,508,498
Social Work
$
53,530
$ 222,360
$ 182,055
$
$
Total
$ 8,266,958
$ 8,488,983
$ 9,184,192
$ 8,130,072
100,070
70,634
$ 14,326,527
31
License Revenue
Table 22 License Revenue – FY99 to FY03 FY99 Income Licensing Income Misc. Income Expense reimbursements OTM Current FY (External) Expense reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External) Expense reimbursements for Dept. (External) Expense Credits Other Subtotal Income Expenses Legal Other Subtotal Expenses Distributions Distribution to inventors Distribution to schools (Lic. Income) Distribution to schools (Other Income) Distribution to third parties Expense Payback to Third Parties from Lic. Rev. Expense Payback to Dept. from Lic. Rev. Expense Reimbursements for Dept. (External) Expense Reimbursement OTM from Distribution Carry forward - - Expenses Held/Paid in Advance CFU legal expense recovery Transfer to reserve Patent Expenses held in advance Patent expense adjustment Subtotal Distributions Contribution to CTM operations
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
$7,107,379 $0 $939,485 $0 $0 $204,866 $15,228 $8,266,958
$7,259,349 $0 $944,963 $0 $0 $232,412 $52,260 $8,488,984
$7,687,256 $0 $1,080,046 $0 $0 $367,503 $49,390 $9,184,195
$6,546,707 $0 $992,793 $0 $20,503 $547,298 $22,770 $8,130,071
$12,815,429 $0 $800,900 $91,349 $15,227 $592,687 $10,934 $14,326,527
$1,168,144 $36,708 $1,204,852
$1,325,939 $11,857 $1,337,795
$1,758,822 $44,165 $1,802,987
$1,696,924 -$105 $1,696,819
$1,585,941 $4,284 $1,590,224
$3,015,562 $2,626,838 $0 $593,399 $0 $83,599 $0 $0 $325,673 $103,696 $40,165 $0 -$4,389 $6,784,543
$3,270,166 $2,999,166 $0 $515,230 $0 $0 $0 $0
$3,534,864 $3,147,532 $0 $501,508 $0 $4,887 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,188,792 $192,416
$2,954,063 $2,542,439 $22,770 $579,395 $10,807 $8,019 $20,503 $0 $11,240 $0 $0 -$4,615 $0 $6,144,621 $288,631
$5,625,302 $5,062,039 $10,934 $889,129 $608 $75,376 $83,089 $65,281 $8,827 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,820,585 $980,998
$69,998 $0 $16,647 $0 $6,871,207 $277,563
32
Industry Sponsored Research Agreements
The OTM handles all sponsored research agreements where the sponsor is a commercial or for-profit entity. “Research” is defined primarily in this context as laboratory activities that may result in the discovery of new intellectual property. Specifically excluded from this group are clinical trials (handled by the Center for Clinical Studies). Contract extensions represent specific agreements that extend or renew an existing research contract beyond the original term, thereby providing additional research support dollars.
Figure 16 Industry Sponsored Agreements by School – FY03
25 20 15 10 5 0 New Arts & Sciences
Extensions
Amendments
Engineering & Applied Science
Medicine
Social Work
Table 23 New
Extensions
Amendments
Total
Arts & Sciences
4
2
2
8
Engineering & Applied Science
10
6
7
23
Medicine
9
10
7
26
Social Work
0
0
0
0
Total
23
18
16
57
33
Industry Sponsored Research Agreements
Table 24 Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School and Department – FY03 School-Department
FY03
Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology
Subtotal Arts and Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Chemical Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical & Civil Engineering Mechanical Engineering System Science & Mathematics
Subtotal Engineering Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Comparative Medicine Genetics Institute of Biological Computing Internal Medicine Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurosurgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Occupational Therapy Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Surgery
Subtotal Medicine Social Work Social Work
Total Social Work Total
3 5 0 0 0 8 0 7 0 10 3 0 3 0 23 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 4 1 26 0
0
57
34
Other Agreements
The OTM also processes a proportion of all so-called sales and service contracts. These are more limited laboratory research activities, frequently involving the testing of another party’s proprietary material or device. Figure 17 Other Agreements by School – FY03
60 50 40 30 20 10
e
l
ic
na Se
rv
ti o itu
s&
st
le
rin In
Sa
te
n t io ua Ev
al
Co
nf
id
&
en
O
ti a
pt io
lit
n
y
0
Arts & Sciences
Engineering & Applied Science
Medicine
Social Work
Table 25 Other Agreements Confidentiality
Evaluation & Option
Interinstitutional
Sales & Service
Arts & Sciences
4
1
2
2
Engineering
14
2
0
3
Medicine
39
12
9
39
Social Work
0
0
0
0
57
15
11
44
Total
35
Other Agreements Table 26 Other Agreements by School and Department - FY03
School-Department
Confidentiality
Evaluation Inter& Option institutional
Sales & Service
Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology
Subtotal Arts and Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Chemical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Engineering & Applied Science Mechanical & Civil Engineering Mechanical Engineering System Science & Mathematics
Subtotal Engineering Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Comparative Medicine Genetics Institute of Biological Computing Internal Medicine Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurosurgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Occupational Therapy Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Surgery
Subtotal Medicine Social Work
1 3 0 0 0 4
0 1 0 0 0 1
2 0 0 0 0 2
0 2 0 0 0 2
1 0 4 7 0 0 1 1 14
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
2 0 1 0 1 2 0 11 2 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 5 1 39
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 12
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 9
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 6 1 12 1 39
Social Work
0
0
0
0
Subtotal Social Work Total
0
0
0
0
57
15
11
44
36
Material Transfer Agreements When transferring proprietary materials in and out of the University to support research activities, the University requires execution of a materials transfer agreement (MTA). Incoming MTA’s are no-fee agreements used when the material is received from another non-profit institution or from a commercial third party. Many of these materials are highly valuable and proprietary research tools deemed essential to our research activities. Outgoing MTA’s are used to distribute our materials (patented and unpatented) without charge to other non-profit institutions so that researchers can use them in their research activities. If the University receives a request for materials from a scientist within a commercial concern, OTM usually negotiates a license rather than an MTA.
Figure 18 Material Transfer Agreements – FY03
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Incoming Arts & Sciences
Outgoing
Engineering & Applied Science
Medicine
Social Work
Table 27 Incoming
Outgoing
Total
Arts & Sciences
21
7
28
Engineering & Applied Science
3
0
3
Medicine
415
925
Social Work
0 439
510 0
Total
517
0 956
37
Material Transfer Agreements Table 28 Material Transfer Agreements by School and Department – FY03 Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology
Subtotal Arts & Sciences Engineering Biomedical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical & Civil Engineering Mechanical Engineering System Science & Mathematics
Subtotal Engineering Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Comparative Medicine Genetics Institute of Biological Computing Internal Medicine Molecular Biology & Pharmacology Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurosurgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Occupational Therapy Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Surgery
Subtotal Medicine Social Work Social Work
Subtotal Social Work Total
Incoming
Outgoing
19 1 1 0 0
2 4 1 0 0
21
7
2 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3
0
28 9 9 20 0 12 0 132 29 17 20 1 5 0 12 3 3 35 28 8 3 19 22 415
1 1 1 24 0 0 0 189 71 29 10 0 0 0 13 0 0 148 4 2 2 9 6 510
0
0
0 439
0 517
38