Table of Contents Sponsored Research Executive Summary
1
Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY95 - FY04 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. Obligation – 1994-2002 Figure 4 – State, Local & Int’l Gov. Funding Figure 5 – Private Industry Funding
2 2 3 3 4 4
Funding History by School – FY95 – FY04 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
5
Award Dollars by School and Cost Category Table 3 – Direct Costs vs. F & A Costs – FY04 & FY03
6
Award Dollars by Project Type – FY04 & FY03 Table 4 – Award Dollars by School & Project Type Figure 10 – Award Summary by Sponsor Type
7 8
Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY04 & 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 – FY04 Table 8 – Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type Table 9 – School of A & S – Award Dollars by Dept. Table 10 – School of Engineering – Award by Dept. Table 11 – School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Dept.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Washington University Rankings Table 12 – WU Rank among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support Table 13 – WU Rank among Private Univ. Receiving Federal Support Table 14 – WU Medical School Rank Receiving Federal NIH Support
17 18 19
Office of Technology Management Executive Summary
20
Table of Contents Invention Disclosures by School Figure 11 – Invention Disclosure by School – FY00 – FY04 Table 15 – Invention Disclosure by School – FY00 – FY04 Table 16 – Invention Disclosure by School – Dept. – FY03 & FY04
26 26 27
Patent Applications by School Figure 12 – US Patent Applications by School – FY00 – FY04 Table 17 – US Patent Applications by School – FY00 – FY04 Table 18 – US Patent Applications by School & Dept. – FY03 & FY04
28 28 29
Licenses by School Figure 13 – Licenses by School – FY00 – FY04 Figure 14 - % of Licenses by School – FY04 Table 19 – Licenses by School – FY00 – FY04 Table 20 – Licenses by School & Dept. – FY03 & FY04 Table 21 – License Type by School & Dept. – FY04
30 31 31 32 33
License Revenue by School – FY00 – FY04 Figure 15 – License Revenue by School Table 22 – License Revenue by School
34
License Revenue – FY00 – FY04 Table 23 – License Revenue
35
Industry Sponsored Research Agreements – FY04 Figure 16 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School Table 24 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School Table 25 – Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School & Dept.
36 36 37
Other Agreements – FY04 Figure 17 – Other Agreements by School Table 26 – Other Agreements by School Table 27 – Other Agreements by School & Dept.
38 38 39
Material Transfer Agreements – FY04 Figure 18 – Material Transfer Agreements Table 28 – Material Transfer Agreements Table 29 – Material Transfer Agreements by School & Dept.
40 40 41
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 2004 (FY04). The award dollars reported are those of awards with start dates on or between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004. This report also contains a summary of licensing revenue and patent activity. 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 second year we have removed the work-study funds from the total award dollars for FY04 and the prior tenyear 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 17-19 are reproduced using the most recently published figures collected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and represent government-wide data from federal fiscal year 2002. Total Award Dollars The University’s total research support for FY04 was $534.7 million, an increase of 12% over FY03. This increase is attributed to 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 86% of total sponsored dollars in FY04. Key Federal Research Sponsors NIH awarded $415 million in FY04, representing 77% of total University sponsored research funding. NSF remains the number two sponsor of University research by awarding $24.7 million. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the third largest sponsor, awarding $4.8 million. National Ranking NSF’s most recent FY02 nationwide comparison of universities with federal research support ranked Washington University as 10th in receiving federal research funding and 5th in support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)(table 12). Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 4th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS funding (table 13). In addition, the School of Medicine ranks 2nd out of all medical schools in the United States in the amount of funding received from the NIH for FY03 (table 14).
1
Funding History The following graphs illustrate Washington University’s funding history over the past decade. Figure 1 illustrates the total dollars summarized in table 1 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. Figures 2-5 address the same sponsor data in greater detail. Finally, 10-year trends are compared in figures 6-9 and table 2 among the four research-intensive units of the university: the School 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 FY95 to FY04 by Sponsor Type (000s) $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Federal
State/Local/Int'l
Private
Table 1 (000s) Federal State/Local/Int'l Private Total
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
$180,217
$196,106
$221,303
$208,837
$277,855
$293,301
$5,895
$5,276
$5,202
$8,377
$7,443
$8,364
$39,354
$42,661
$48,702
$45,952
$46,740
$60,933
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
$344,771 $362,217 $413,718 $461,661 $8,100 $56,326
$11,771 $46,377
$14,953 $51,123
$17,301 $55,747
$225,466 $244,043 $275,207 $263,166 $332,038 $362,598 $409,197 $420,365 $479,794 $534,709
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 2 illustrates, the University has demonstrated cumulative growth in federal research funding from 1995 to 2004. Figure 3 illustrates Washington University has continued to outpaced the growth in federal science and engineering obligations made to the top 100 universities and colleges receiving these dollars. Figure 2 Federal Funding – FY95 to FY04 (000s) $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Federal
Figure 3 Percent Growth in Federal Science and Engineering Obligations – 1994 to 2002 100% 90% 80% 70%
Federal Support to Washington University
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
Federal Science & Engineering Obligation Top 100
0% 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
3
Funding History by Sponsor Type
Figure 4 State, Local and International Government Funding – FY95 to FY04 (000s) $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 State/Local/Int'l
Figure 5 Private Industry Funding – FY95 to FY04 (000s) $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Private
4
Funding History by School Figure 6 Arts and Sciences
Figure 7 School of Engineering
$50,000
$25,000
$40,000
$20,000
$30,000
$15,000
$20,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
$0
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
Figure 8 School of Social Work
Figure 9 School of Medicine $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0
$10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
Table 2 A&S Engineering Medicine Social Work Other Total
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
$25,607
$23,629
$23,351
$23,925
$24,313
$31,807
$28,777
$30,177
$38,376
$43,017
$10,278
$13,427
$15,652
$16,051
$10,753
$20,385
$8,403
$15,349
$14,168
$16,434
$185,700
$203,134
$231,050
$215,698
$290,893
$303,130
$362,778
$366,884
$419,271
$468,085
$2,362
$1,929
$2,362
$4,236
$3,843
$5,561
$9,150
$6,075
$6,444
$5,438
$3,004 $226,951
$3,351 $245,470
$4,245 $276,660
$5,405 $265,315
$4,394 $334,196
$3,570 $364,453
$89 $409,197
$1,880 $420,365
$1,534 $479,794
$1,735 $534,709
5
Award Dollars by School and Cost Category The following table compares FY04 award dollars with the prior year, broken out by direct and facility/administrative cost for each school 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. F & A Costs– FY04 and FY03 (000s) FY04 Schools Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine Social Work Other Total
FY03
Award Count 249
Direct Costs $33,063
F&A Cost $9,954
Total
Direct Costs $28,109
F&A Cost $10,267
Total
$$
%
$43,017
Award Count 281
$38,376
$4,641
12%
4 116 4 1,665 34 9 2081
$542 $12,093 $339 $346,371 $4,217 $594 $397,218
$136 $4,341 $0 $121,715 $1,221 $125 $137,491
$678 $16,434 $339 $468,085 $5,438 $718 $534,709
2 127 2 1455 34 9 1910
$888 $10,480 $93 $309,224 $4,991 $357 $354,143
$131 $3,689 $45 $110,047 $1,453 $20 $125,651
$1,019 $14,168 $138 $419,271 $6,444 $378 $479,794
-$341 $2,265 $201 $48,816 -$1,006 $341 $54,915
-33% 16% 146% 12% -16% 90% 12%
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 even evaluation of new knowledge. Research training includes individual and institutional awards for the support of pre and postdoctoral trainees and fellows plus institutional awards for graduate education. Other Sponsored Activities include projects such as scholarly conferences, equipment grants and community outreach programs. Table 4 Award Dollars by School and Project Type FY04 and FY03 (000s)
Schools
Research FY04 FY03
Research Training FY04 FY03
Other Sponsored Activities FY04 FY03
Total FY04
FY03
Social Work
$288 $0 $0 $38,680 $624 $11,546 $39 $438,276 $3,250
$0 -$4 $0 $34,590 $1,019 $13,412 $130 $393,888 $3,739
$0 $0 $0 $2,282 $0 $577 $0 $23,383 $749
$0 $0 $0 $2,073 $0 $644 $0 $20,840 $685
$429 $0 $2 $2,055 $54 $4,312 $300 $6,426 $1,439
$0 $0 $0 $1,713 $0 $112 $8 $4,543 $2,020
$716 $0 $2 $43,017 $678 $16,434 $339 $468,085 $5,438
$382 -$4 $0 $38,376 $1,019 $14,168 $138 $419,271 $6,444
Total
$492,703
$446,774
$26,991
$24,242
$15,017
$8,396
$534,709
$479,794
Administration Architecture Art Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine
7
Award Dollars by Project Type The graphs and tables in this section attempts 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 most funding? Which federal agencies provide the most support to the individual schools? Which sponsors have stepped up or scaled down their investments in University research over the past fiscal year? Figure 10 Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY04 and FY03 FY04
FY03
$40,833
$415,435
$39,262
$377,740
$11,861 $14,953 $18,585 $17,393
$14,918 $17,301 $21,525 $24,700
NIH
NSF
Other Fed
Other Govt
Industry
Non Profit
8
Award Summary by Sponsor Type Sponsor types 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 FY04. The other government category includes state 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. Table 5 Direct and F&A Award Dollars by Sponsor Type FY04 and FY03 (000s) FY04
Direct Costs
% Total Direct
Federal
$338,967
Other Govt
FY03
F&A Costs
% Total F&A
Total
% Total
Direct Costs
% Total Direct
85.6%
$122,693
89.3%
$461,661
86.3%
$300,543
84.9%
$113,175
90.1%
$413,718
86.2%
$12,198
3.1%
$5,103
3.7%
$17,301
3.2%
$10,433
2.9%
$4,520
3.6%
$14,953
3.1%
Total Govt
$351,165
88.7%
$127,796
93.0%
$478,962
89.6%
$310,976
87.8%
$117,695
93.7%
$428,671
89.3%
Nonprofit
$35,491
9.0%
$5,338
3.9%
$40,829
7.6%
$34,876
9.8%
$4,386
3.5%
$39,262
8.2%
Industry
$10,561
2.7%
$4,357
3.2%
$14,918
2.8%
$8,291
2.3%
$3,570
2.8%
$11,861
2.5%
Total Private
$46,052
11.6%
$9,695
7.1%
$55,747
10.4%
$43,167
12.2%
$7,956
6.3%
$51,123
10.7%
Total
$395,878
100.0%
$137,459
100.0%
$534,709
100.0%
$354,143
100.0%
$125,651
100.0%
$479,794
100.0%
Sponsors
F&A Costs
% Total F&A
Total
% Total
9
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 6 Award Dollars by Sponsor and Cost Category FY04 and FY03 (000s)
FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH NSF NASA DOD EPA ED DOE DHHS HRSA LABOR USDA OTHER Total Federal OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI STATE-All Other OTHER GOV'T Total Other Govt PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY NON PROFITS Total Private
Total
Direct Costs
FY04 F&A Costs
Direct Costs
FY03 F&A Costs
Total
$303,603 $19,148 $3,310 $3,243 -$71 $1,560 $1,952 $1,446 $2,016 $1,548 $1,212 $338,967
$111,832 $5,552 $1,552 $845 $112 $197 $900 $398 $928 $166 $211 $122,693
$830 $10,532 $834 $12,196
Change Total
$$
%
$415,435 $24,700 $4,862 $4,088 $41 $1,757 $2,852 $1,844 $2,944 $1,714 $1,423 $461,661
$273,645 $12,969 $3,709 $2,748 $778 $1,486 $2,787 $1,435 $500 $144 $842 $300,543
$104,095 $4,425 $1,526 $919 $133 $84 $1,158 $406 $266 $34 $397 $113,175
$377,740 $17,393 $5,235 $3,667 $912 $1,570 $3,945 $1,840 $766 $178 $1,239 $413,718
$37,693 $7,307 -$373 $417 -$871 $187 -$1,093 $4 $2,178 $1,892 $190 $47,942
10% 42% -7% 11% -96% 12% -28% 0% 284% 1063% 15% 12%
$130 $4,922 $51 $5,103
$962 $15,454 $885 $17,301
$695 $9,252 $486 $10,433
$138 $4,344 $39 $4,520
$833 $13,596 $524 $14,953
$129 $1,858 $361 $2,348
15% 14% 69% 16%
$10,561 $35,491 $46,052
$4,357 $5,338 $9,695
$14,918 $40,829 $55,747
$8,291 $34,876 $43,167
$3,570 $4,386 $7,956
$11,861 $39,262 $51,123
$3,057 $196 $3,253
26% 0% 6%
$397,219
$137,491
$534,709
$354,143
$125,651
$479,794
$54,915
12%
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. The effect increases the Federal total and decreases the Private totals. Table 6a Award Dollars by Sponsor and Direct/Sub Award Category FY04 and FY03 (000s)
FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH NSF NASA DOD EPA ED DOE DHHS HRSA LABOR USDA OTHER Total Federal OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI STATE-All Other OTHER GOV'T Total Other Govt PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY NON PROFITS Total Private
Total
Direct Awards
FY04 Sub Awards
Total
Direct Awards
FY03 Sub Awards
$414,116 $24,701 $4,862 $3,486 $41 $1,760 $2,852 $1,843 $2,945 $1,714 $684 $459,004
Change Total
$$
%
$25,774 $2,229 $2,486 $1,855 $368 $172 $220 $880 $101 $0 $1,426 $35,511
$439,890 $26,930 $7,348 $5,341 $409 $1,932 $3,072 $2,723 $3,046 $1,714 $2,110 $494,515
$371,712 $17,393 $5,235 $3,527 $912 $1,570 $3,945 $1,840 $766 $178 $875 $407,186
$25,414 $2,083 $1,921 $1,375 $381 $73 $157 $450 $43 $102 $1,271 $33,226
$397,125 $19,476 $7,155 $4,902 $1,293 $1,642 $4,102 $2,290 $809 $280 $2,146 $440,412
$42,765 $7,454 $193 $439 -$884 $290 -$1,030 $433 $2,237 $1,434 -$36 $54,103
11% 38% 3% 9% -68% 18% -25% 19% 136% 512% -2% 12%
$520 $490 $52 $1,062
$236 $185 $44 $470
$756 $675 $96 $1,532
$588 $161 $17 $178
$160 $2 $0 $2
$748 $163 $17 $928
$8 $512 $79 $604
1% 314% 465% 65%
$11,330 $25,370 $36,700
$0 $1,961 $1,962
$11,330 $27,331 $38,662
$9,376 $25,797 $35,173
$16 $3,265 $3,281
$9,392 $29,061 $38,453
$1,938 -$1,730 $209
21% -6% 1%
$495,371
$37,943
$534,709
$442,537
$36,508
$479,794
54,915
12%
11
Award Summary by Sponsor Type
Table 7 Federal Award Dollars by School and Sponsor FY04 (000s)
University
FY04
% of Change from FY03
$415,433 $24,700 $1,757 $4,862 $4,084 $41 $2,852
10.1% 42.0% 11.9% -7.1% 11.4% -95.5% -27.7%
USDA
$1,844 $2,944 $1,714
OTHER TOTAL
NIH NSF ED NASA DOD EPA DOE HHS HRSA LABOR
Arts & Sciences
Engineering
FY04
% of Change from FY03
$11,836 $15,696 $1,142 $3,657 $500 $5 $1,168
7.8% 14.7% 24.1% -18.2% 73.0% 0.0% -2.3%
0.2% 284.3% 862.9%
$0 $0 $415
0.0% 0.0% 133.1%
$0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$1,430
62.1%
$204
270.9%
$5
-66.7%
$461,661
12.0%
$34,623
9.0%
FY04
% of Change from FY03
$2,182 $5,669 $0 $296 $2,022 $37 $253
-17.8% 115.6% 0.0% 15.6% -36.5% -95.9% -43.7%
$10,464
3.6%
School of Medicine
Social Work
FY04
% of Change from FY03
FY04
$397,889 $2,914 $300 $909 $1,563 $0 $1,430
10.7% 171.3% -11.8% 80.0% 705.7% 0.0% -37.9%
$2,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,844 $2,945 $1,299
1.4% 284.5% 0.0%
$615
-14.8%
$411,708
12.1%
% of Change from FY03
Other
Schools
FY04
% of Change from FY03
$595 $421 $316 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
-26.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$294
284.0%
$302
655.0%
$3,226
-19.8%
$1,634
241.1%
$0 $0 $0
357.7% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
12
Award Summary by Sponsor Type Table 8 Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type FY04 and FY03 (000s) Government Federal Other Govt. FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03
Private Industry Nonprofit FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03
Schools Administration Architecture Art Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine Social Work
$380 $0 $0 $34,623 $370 $10,464 $301 $411,708 $3,226
$349 $0 $0 $31,776 $0 $10,098 $130 $367,343 $4,023
$49 $0 $2 $1,136 $0 $1,133 $0 $14,950 $37
$23 $0 $0 $1,157 $5 $1,705 $0 $12,033 $30
$0 $0 $0 $3,123 $0 $2,393 $8 $8,974 $421
$0 $0 $0 $2,391 $0 $1,444 $9 $7,987 $31
$287 $0 $2 $4,135 $308 $2,444 $30 $32,453 $1,754
Total
$461,661
$413,718
$17,301
$14,953
$14,918
$11,861
$40,829
Total FY04
FY03
$9 ($4) $0 $3,053 $1,014 $921 $0 $31,909 $2,361
$716 $0 $2 $43,017 $678 $16,434 $339 $468,085 $5,438
$381 ($4) $0 $38,376 $1,019 $14,168 $138 $419,271 $6,444
$39,263
$534,709
$479,794
13
Award Summary by Sponsor Type Table 9 School of Arts and Sciences – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type FY04 and FY03 (000s)
African & Afro-American Studies Anthropology Art History & Archaeology Asian & Near Eastern Lang & Lit Biology Center for Political Economy Career Center Chemistry Classics Earth & Planetary Science Education Graduate School History International Writers Center Mathematics Music Philosophy Physics Political Science Psychology The Center for Humanities Weidenbaum Center
Government Other Federal Govt. $0 $0 $375 $109 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,882 $510 $0 $0 $13 $0 $6,100 $113 $24 $15 $2,269 $304 $24 $0 $631 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $599 $0 $0 $0 $113 $0 $5,628 $12 $0 $0 $5,617 $73 $0 $0 $348 $0
Total
$34,623
Department
$1,136
Private
Total
Industry $0 $3 $0 $0 $1,400 $0 $0 $330 $0 $1,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nonprofit $25 $17 $0 $41 $1,297 $0 $0 $219 $26 $631 $0 $328 $0 $0 $74 $0 $0 $990 $0 $448 $10 $29
FY04 $25 $504 $0 $41 $16,089 $0 $13 $6,762 $65 $4,504 $24 $959 $0 $0 $673 $0 $113 $6,720 $0 $6,138 $10 $377
FY03 $31 $39 $0 $6 $10,662 $50 $21 $8,081 $0 $3,375 $4,196 $891 $20 $5 $384 $0 $139 $5,726 $0 $4,010 $100 $646
$3,123
$4,135
$43,017
$38,376
14
Award Summary by Sponsor Type Table 10 School of Engineering – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type FY04 and FY03 (000s)
Department
Government Other Federal Gov't.
Private Industry
Nonprofit
Total FY04 $3,081 $981 $984 $6,475 $1,585 $834 $0 $1,989
FY03
Other
$1,331 $380 $834 $4,432 $1,315 $431 $0 $1,461 $280
$150 $350 $150 $168 $13 $173 $0 $80 $49
$50 $212 $0 $1,635 $10 $150 $0 $336 $0
$1,550 $39 $0 $240 $247 $80 $0 $112 $175
Total
$10,464
$1,133
$2,393
$2,443 $16,434 $14,168
Biomedical Engineering Chemical Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Science and Engineering Electrical & Systems Engineering Environmental Engineering Center for Materials Research Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
$505
$2,273 $1,070 $906 $2,276 $320 $1,607 $690 $0 $5,025
15
Award Summary by Sponsor Type Table 11 School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type FY04 and FY03 (000s) Department
Government Federal Other Govt.
Private Industry Nonprofit
Total FY04
FY03
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 & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Surgery Subtotal Clinical Administration* Div.of Biology/Biomedical Sciences Biostatistics Center for Clinical Studies Center for Health Behavior Research Emergency Medicine Medical Library Occupational Therapy Physical Therapy Proteomics Core Lab Siteman Cancer Center
$12,489 $6,070 $9,045 $80,598 $9,544 $11,911 $129,657 $5,720 $84,012 $2,355 $22,388 $2,000 $13,785 $3,068 $7,600 $23,086 $26,590 $35,736 $4,454 $22,762 $14,308 $267,864 $1,567 $4,296 $3,878 $0 $1,546 $15 $0 $818 $680 $0 $1,387
$256 $95 $150 $1,446 $29 $25 $2,001 $0 $2,710 $0 $1,084 $0 $24 $5 $370 $280 $1,787 $2,627 $42 $265 $2,491 $11,685 $15 $30 $770 $0 $0 $0 $180 $269 $0 $0 $0
$0 $339 $150 $50 $925 $0 $1,464 $150 $3,129 $22 $397 $0 $0 $473 $7 $723 $590 $229 $104 $192 $444 $6,460 $959 $0 $58 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $23 $0 $0
$774 $85 $829 $660 $1,366 $585 $4,299 $256 $8,124 $46 $2,312 $250 $483 $878 $146 $2,167 $5,256 $2,332 $396 $1,277 $2,382 $26,305 ($468) $18 $529 $122 $779 $124 $0 $699 $17 $9 $20
$13,519 $6,589 $10,174 $82,754 $11,864 $12,521 $137,423 $6,126 $97,975 $2,423 $26,181 $2,250 $14,292 $4,424 $8,123 $26,256 $34,223 $40,924 $4,996 $24,496 $19,625 $312,320 $2,073 $4,343 $5,238 $122 $2,324 $138 $180 $1,797 $720 $9 $1,406
$11,395 $6,413 $8,799 $93,533 $13,622 $10,652 $144,413 $4,974 $66,307 $1,499 $20,570 $2,425 $12,864 $2,413 $4,804 $22,415 $26,347 $42,814 $4,954 $23,462 $17,643 $255,246 $527 $4,180 $5,654 $127 $1,331 $10 $116 $2,119 $648 $0 $1,419
Subtotal Other Total
$14,187 $411,708
$1,264 $14,950
$1,051 $8,975
$1,849 $32,453
$18,341 $468,085
$19,612 $419,271
*Administration: Clinical Research Faculty, Division of Comparative Medicine, Experimental Neurol/Neur Surgery, Facilities Management, Health Administration Program, Human Studies Committee, New Parking Garage, Student Affairs, Medical School Administration, MBP-Protein Neucleic Acid Chemla, Neurotrophic Factors.
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 FY02. Table 12 illustrates Washington University ranks 10th in receiving federal funding and 5th in support from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 4th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS Funding for FY02 (table 13). Overall Washington University Medical School ranks 2nd in NIH funding for FY03 (table 14). Table 12 Washington University Ranking Among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support FY2002 Rank Among Top 100 Research Institutions
Institution
Total Federal
Federal Funding From HHS
Johns Hopkins University
1
1
University of Washington
2
3
U of Pennsylvania
3
2
U of Michigan
4
6
U. CA, Los Angeles
5
7
Stanford University
6
16
U. CA, San Diego
7
15
U. WI Madison
8
17
U. CA, San Francisco Washington University St. Louis
9 10
4 5
Columbia University NY
11
13
U. Colorado
12
20
Harvard University
13
10
Duke University
14
11
U. Pittsburg
15
8
Yale University
16
9
U of NC Chapel Hill
17
12
Cornell University
18
28
U. Minnesota
19
18
PA State University Baylor Col of Medicine
20 21
57 14
MA Inst of Technology
22
55
U. Southern CA
23
30
U. AL Birmingham
24
19
Vanderbilt University
25
22
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), “Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2002� (Arlington, VA) 2004.
17
Washington University Rankings Table 13 Washington University Ranking Among Private Universities Receiving Federal Support FY2002 Total Federal Funding
Federal Funding from HHS
Johns Hopkins University
1
1
U.of Pennsylvania
2
2
Stanford University
3
9
Washington University St. Louis
4
3
Columbia University NY
5
7
Harvard University Duke University
6 7
5 6
Yale University
8
4
Cornell University
9
14
Baylor Col of Medicine
10
8
MA Institute of Technology
11
25
U. Southern CA
12
16
Vanderbilt University
13
11
Case Western Reserve U
14
10
U. Rochester
15
18
Boston University
16
15
Scripps Rsch Inst, The
17
12
Emory University
18
13
Northwestern University
19
21
University of Chicago
20
19
CA Institute of Technology
21
34
NY University
22
22
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine
23
17
Yeshiva University
24
20
U. of Miami
25
24
Institution
SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), “Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2002� (Arlington, VA) 2004.
18
Washington University Rankings Table 14 National Institute of Health (NIH) Medical School Rankings Receiving Federal NIH Support FY2003
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Medical School Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Washington University School of Medicine U.of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Uof California San Fran School of Medicine Duke University School of Medicine U. of Washington School of Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Yale University School of Medicine U of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Baylor College of Medicine
Number Awards
Amount
967
$414,225,650
775
$368,355,293
938
$359,344,311
785
$350,786,145
661
$305,405,308
692
$290,097,322
629
$264,873,857
703
$261,706,751
646
$258,276,361
561
$246,410,097
Source Awards to Medical Schools by Rank National Institutes of Health NIH FY2003
19
Technology Management Executive Summary During the year, the Office of Technology Management (OTM) received 102 new technology disclosures. Approximately 84% of the disclosures originated in the School of Medicine, 9% from the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the remainder from the School of Arts & Sciences and the School of Social Work. The Office handled 12 % more disclosures than the year before. The University filed 57 new patent applications, twice the number from the previous year. The United States Patent Office issued 34 patents on behalf of the University. Patents issued with international scope numbered 45. The University generated $ 9.6 M in total technology transfer revenue. This amount is 33% less than the previous fiscal year. Excluding the single largest license, the amount is 12 % less than the previous fiscal year. The University entered into a total of 56 revenue generating license agreements during the year, down 30 % from the year before. Of the total new license agreements, 82 % were non-exclusive licenses. The Office of Technology Management also manages software licenses (many involving gene sequencing and related topics); these licenses numbered 679 for the year, up substantially from previous years. Licensing related distributions to individual inventors, Washington University Schools and third parties totaled $ 7.6 M. Legal expenses totaled $ 1.6 M, of which $ .7 M was reimbursed by licensees. Net operating expenses totaled $ .8 M, which represents a OTM revenue to expense ratio of 9.5 to 1. Technology transfer revenues generated by each School were as follows: FY04 Licensing Revenues by School School of Medicine $ 8.7 M School of Engineering and Applied Sciences $0 .7 M School of Arts and Sciences $ .09 M School of Social Work $ .03 M OTM continues its community involvement through such organizations as RCGA, Research Alliance of Missouri, Danforth Plant Sciences Center Alliance, Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences, Missouri Venture Forum, and Midwest Research Universities Network. Involvement with these various organizations extends to local, state and regional levels. In its relationships with these organizations, OTM works to build the economy and to develop channels for commercializing Washington University technologies. OTM staff members work continuously with the Olin School of Business entrepreneurship program and the larger Kaufmann Foundation entrepreneurship undertaking. OTM has begun to work with undergraduates as well as graduate students. The work by the students contributes to the assessment of ideas within a commercial context, whether start-ups or the licensing of ideas to large, established companies. While students with non-technical backgrounds participate and contribute, the team leaders have advanced technical backgrounds in the life sciences, chemistry, math, physics and the computer sciences. 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. 20
Technology Management Executive Summary The Bear Cub Fund has matured into a well-recognized arm of the University’s commitment to technology development and community growth. During this period, at least two local start-up companies have benefited from Bear Cub proof of concept work. The fund maintains its pace of allotting approximately $250,000 per year to about five award winners in amounts ranging from $20,000 to $50,000. The fund has proved useful in enabling investigators to conduct proof of concept experiments in areas where commercial promise exists. The fund award winners during the last fiscal year were: Robert Pless (Computer Science and Engineering). Robert Pless is developing a prototype system to extend programs originally developed by Pless that distinguish the unusual movement of individuals or objects in videos that are processed through his program. The program filters out movement of objects from the background to flag anomalous patterns that do not fit the background movement. The main applications are for security monitoring to detect unusual movements of people or objects. John Heuser (Cell Biology). John Heuser is using funds to build a prototype of a redesigned “freezing machine” for freezing biological samples under high pressure. The process prevents ice crystal formation and expansion damage to tissue so that very high resolutions of molecular images are obtained. David Zar (Computer Science and Engineering). David Zar’s study deals with the problem of high speed computing involving the temporal control of very large numbers of transistors in an integrated circuit. The proposed study will use a crystal-controlled clock as part of the clock generator circuit to prevent current problems involving the control of very large numbers of calculations in compressed time. This will significantly improve computing reliability. The study will build, optimize and test a clock generator circuit for the use in the control of globally asynchronous and locally synchronous systems (GALS). Arthur Neufeld (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology). This fund will support a proof of concept experiment to determine if an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, a class of compounds that is being widely tested as an anti-cancer agent in the clinic, has the potential as a pharmacological neuroprotective agent for the treatment of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Thomas Baranski (Internal Medicine) and Ross Cagan ( Molecular Biology and Pharmacology). They are using funds to implement a model organism developmental screen for the high-throughput identification of chemical leads and targets (gene products) involved in cancer and diabetes.
21
Technology Management Executive Summary Technology Highlights THERAPEUTICS
Pyridinones to treat and prevent bacterial infections Scott Hultgren (Molecular Microbiology) and a team of researchers are working with compounds capable of preventing bacteria from forming pili. These substances, termed pilicides, may have the potential of being powerful antibacterial agents because bacteria use these pili to attach to host cells during microbial invasion. Development of a cancer cell marker…cell surface inducible heat shock protein Mai Xu (Radiation Oncology) has identified a heat inducible cell surface marker that is specifically induced by raising the temperature of the cell a few degrees using targeted radiation. This new chemical entity offers a novel approach for the imaging and treatment of cancer because it improves the efficiency for delivering therapeutics directly to tumor cells and it sensitizes tumor cells to anticancer agents. Otopetrin gene David Ornitz (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology) has discovered a novel gene that may serve to restore balance in patients who suffer from inner ear problems, and to facilitate work by astronauts in space. Otoconia are biomineral particles in the inner ear and are critical for perception of gravity and linear motion. Otopetrin 1 is a novel gene that may enhance the ability to regenerate otoconia. IDO treatment technology for inflammatory bowel disease Gregory Gurtner and William Stenson (Gastroenterology) have developed a potential new treatment for Crohn’s Disease and possibly a method to increase graft tolerance. This research may also have broader applications in the area of pharmacological immunosuppressants. 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 bacterial vector is a Salmonella strain that has been 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. Prevention and Treatment of stretch-induced inflammation in the lungs Julio Perez-Fontan (Pediatrics Critical Care) has developed a therapy based on the synthesis and release of neurokinins in inflammatory cells. This therapeutic approach may provide a superior means to treat inflammation in the lungs of people—particularly infants—who are maintained on ventilators for extended periods of time.
22
Technology Management Executive Summary Administration of (recombinant human) Regenerating “Reg� Gene Family Proteins as a therapy for diseases involving neuronal/axonal injury including Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Brian Dieckgraefe (Gastroenterology) and Dorothy Anne Cross (Neurology) are working to develop a therapy for the amelioration of multiple sclerosis. This treatment may also be of therapeutic benefit in other diseases where stimulation of axonal and/or neuronal regeneration could be beneficial. TOOLS
High through-put screening for candidate drugs in the field of diabetes Ross Cagan (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology) and Tom Baranski (Endocrinology/Metabolism) have developed a new high through-put screening method to test for therapeutic activity and toxicity of compounds with the potential to block glucose toxicity. This approach uses developmental changes in Drosophila larvae displayed in large numbers to test different drug candidates. Brain - machine interface through electrocorticography Eric Leuthardt (Neurological Surgery) and Dan Moran (Biomedical Engineering) have developed the early stages of a new area of neuroscience which maps and exploits the neural output control centers of the brain. This work serves as the signal output to machines and prosthetic devices that are guided solely through signals from the brain. This brain-machine interface exploits electrocorticography which involves brain mapping methods. Biomarkers for human brain injury Jack Ladenson (Pathology and Immunology) has developed unique reagents (antibodies) for the purpose of detecting human brain injury (e.g. stroke and Alzheimer’s). Human fluids containing higher than normal amounts of the proposed biomarkers (e.g. Visininlike 1 and neuroserpin) may provide an early indication of brain injury. Current stroke biomarkers are not sufficiently specific to the brain. Such an early intervention tool should provide more rapid diagnosis of stroke, and thus a more favorable patient outcome. Method and Apparatus for Compressing Computed Tomography Raw Image Data Kyongtae Bae and Bruce Whiting (Radiology) have developed software to improve results from diagnostic radiology. The algorithms compress tomographic images to enhance images of the abdominal region. Computer aided diagnostics of polyps in the lung and colon is one example of the possibilities for this technology.
23
Technology Management Executive Summary Derivatives of 2,3-dihydroimidazol [1,2-a] pyridine and their use as asymmetric acylation catalysts Vladimir Birman (Chemistry) has created a new composition of matter that can be used in creating new and existing compounds requiring steriochemical derivatives. This compound—2,3-dihydroimidazol [1,2-a] pyridine and its derivatives—is used to catalyze acylation of alcohols with anhydrides. Pharmaceutical and fine chemical manufactures could use these catalysts in the preparation of chiral alcohols and/or their esters in the optically active form. 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 fluorescence based biosensor permits non-destructive assays and, therefore, offers new potential means to conduct drug screening and identification of new drug targets. 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 creates the potential to generate anti-hMPV antibodies and to develop new immunoassays and could help in the diagnosis of this infection. Poly-ubiquitinated firefly luciferase fusion reporter plasmid and cells David Piwnica-Worms (Radiology) has developed an assay to measure 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. New Mouse Calicivirus Herbert Virgin (Pathology and Immunology) has discovered 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.
24
Technology Management Executive Summary Inhibitors of Adipocyte development Richard Gross (Biorganic Chemistry) has found that key phospholipid enzymes function in the transformation of cells into adipocytes, which play a major role in fat metabolism. This research could possibly lead to the creation of drugs that impact fat formation. Stem cells for spinal cord repair Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert (Biomedical Engineering) is developing a matrix/tube delivery system that will allow 50 percent to 75 percent survival of the stem cells introduced into the site of injury. Prior efforts by others have resulted in situations where most of the stem cells die after transplantation. Safely delivered embryonic stem cells can repopulate injured spinal cord and serve as a source of nerve growth factors during regeneration. Enhancing particle charging and collection by using soft X-ray irradiation coupled with unipolar coronas Pratim Biswas (Environmental Engineering) and a team of researchers has devised a new process for effectively charging particles, especially nanoparticles and submicrometer sized particles. This technology might apply in the deactivation of bacteria or viruses suspended in air, oxidation of contaminant gases, or in the cleaning of air generally. Rapid database searches Roger Chamberlain (Computer Science and Engineering) use magnetic sensing systems already present in modern magnetic storage devices to facilitate searches of unstructured databases (80% of all databases are unstructured)using analog signatures. This new approach can search 10 gigabytes in the same time that conventional systems require to search 200 megabytes. This technology will have applications in DNA sequencing, genome assembly and security. Database for Cardiovascular Care Reporting and Tracking Sam Wickline and Lynn Coulter (Cardiology) have created a database that allows the cardiovascular physician to track myriad forms of information on patients, ranging from demographics to scar imaging. The database tracks demographics; cardiac past and current medical history; risk factors; current medications; allergies; nursing history; technical details; echocardiogram; functional MR; perfusion and scar imaging; coronary anatomy; and vascular system.
25
Invention Disclosures by School Under the University IP 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. Figure 11 Invention Disclosures by School – FY00 to FY04 120 100
1
80 60 40 20 0
70
63
4 8
8 5
FY00
0
1
FY01
0
0
62
71
86
10 10
13 7
9 7
FY02
FY03
FY04
Arts & Sciences
Engineering
Medicine
Social Work
Table 15 FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
Arts & Sciences
8
5
10
7
7
Engineering
4
8
10
13
9
Medicine
70
63
62
71
86
Social Work
1
1
0
0
0
Total
83
77
82
91
102
26
Invention Disclosures by School Table 16 Invention Disclosures by School-Department – FY03 and FY04 School -Department Arts & Sciences
Subtotal Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science
Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology Joint Disclosures-Physics/Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics
Biomedical Engineering Chemical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical & Civil Engineering Mechanical Engineering System Science & Mathematics Joint Disclosures-Electrical Engineering/Computer Science Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science Anatomy & Medicine Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Bioorganic Chemistry & Molecular Pharmacology 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 Siteman Cancer Center Surgery Subtotal Medicine Social Work Subtotal Social Work Total New Disclosures
FY03 3 0
FY04 1 1
1 2 1
2 0 2
0 7 0 1 5 6 0
1 7 0 0 5 2 0
0 0 1 13
2 0 0 9
1 2 0 0
2 2 0 6
3 0 2 0 18 4
3 0 3 0 21 3
3 2 1
1 3 3
0 1 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 1
6 10 2 3 11 1 0 71 0 0 91
11 3 1 2 9 0 10 86 0 0 102
27
Patent Applications by School The OTM office filed a total of 117 U.S. provisional and non-provisional patent applications. Patent applications on inventions have potential commercialization 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 OTM 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 investments will perceive unpatented technology as less valuable. The OTM will seek foreign patents if warranted. Figure 12 US Patent Applications by School – FY00 to FY04 120
0
100
80
0
97
0 60 40
0 0
62
52 52
31
3 2
9 5
20 4 6 0 FY00
FY01
Art s & S c ie nc e s
FY02
Engine e r ing
12
7 6 FY03
Me dic ine
8 FY04
S oc ia l Work
Table 17 Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Social Work Total
FY00 6 4 62 0 72
FY01 2 3 52 0 57
FY02 5 9 31 0 45
FY03 6 7 52 0 65
FY04 8 12 97 0 117
28
US Patent Applications by School and Department – FY03 and FY04 Table 18: Total US Patent Applications for FY03 and FY04 School-Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology Subtotal Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Mechanical & Civil Engineering Systems Science & Mathematics Joint US Patent Applications Computer Science & Electrical Engineering Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Bioorganic Chemistry & Molecular Pharmacology 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 Radiation Oncology Surgery Joint US Patent Application Anesthesiology & Pediatrics Internal Medicine & Mol. Bio. & Pharm. Bioorganic Chem. & Mol. Pharm. & Internal Medicine Neurology & Internal Medicine Renal Division & Internal Medicine Subtotal Medicine Social Work Social Work Subtotal Social Work Total
FY03
FY04
6 0 0 0 0 6
6 1 0 0 1 8
0 4 2 0 1 0
0 6 5 0 0 0
0 7
1 12
3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 11 4 3 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 3 1 8 1 0
2 3 2 7 3 0 6 0 11 8 6 2 3 0 0 0 1 18 5 1 7 3 2
0 0
1 3
0 0 1 52
1 1 1 97
0 0 65
0 0 117
29
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 payment and earned royalties on sales. Defined here are 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: grants 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 license 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 – FY00 to FY04 140
120
100 80
59
80
34 26
60
20
40 44
53
56 45
29
20 4
1
0 FY00
FY01
Arts & Sciences
0 FY02 Engineering
3 FY03 Medicine
4 FY04 Social Work
30
Licenses by School
Figure 14 Percent of Licenses by School – FY04 Arts & Sciences 2%
Social Work 48%
Engineering and Applied Science 2%
Medicine 48%
Table 19 Licenses by School – FY00 to FY04
Arts & Sciences Engineering and Applied Science Medicine Social Work Total
FY00 1 4 44 80 129
FY01 1 1 56 59 117
FY02 1 0 45 26 72
FY03 2 3 53 34 92
FY04 3 4 29 20 56
Total 7 11 218 219 455
31
Licenses by School
Table 20 Licenses by School and Department – FY03 and FY04 School/Department Arts & Sciences Biology Subtotal Arts and Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 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 Psychiatry Radiology Surgery Subtotal Medicine Social Work Social Work Subtotal Social Work Total Licenses
FY03
FY04
2 2
3 3
0 0 2 1 3
0 0 4 0 4
0 0 4 0 11 0 9 4 3 1 3 3 8 3 0 4 0 53
2 1 1 0 4 1 5 2 3 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 2 29
34 34 92
20 20 56
32
Licenses by School
Table 21 License Type by School and Department – FY04 Non-Exclusive
Department Arts & Sciences Biology Subtotal Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 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 Psychiatry Radiology Surgery Subtotal Medicine Social Work Social Work Subtotal Social Work
Total
Exclusive
Roy. Bearing
Paid-up
No Fee
1 1
2 2
0 0
0 2
0 0 3 0 3
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6
1 0 1 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 19
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 653 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 677
0 0
0 0
20 20
2 2
10
22
24
679
33
License Revenue 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 reimbursement from some licensees, particularly when the license is exclusive. For technologies that are not yet licensed, patent expenses are recovered from the creator’s departments through expense allocation arrangements. Legal expenses represents 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 50% 45% 5%
Disclosed After 7/1/98 45% 40% 15%
Figure 15 License Revenue by School – FY00 to FY04 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
Arts & Sciences
Engineering
Medicine
Social Work
Table 22 Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Social Work TOTALS
FY00 $ 21,801 $ 2,315,960 $ 5,928,862 $ 222,360 $ 8,488,983
FY01 $ 223,286 $ 840,410 $ 7,938,441 $ 182,055 $ 9,184,192
FY02 $ 171,433 $ 861,541 $ 6,997,028 $ 100,070 $ 8,130,072
FY03 $ 810,051 $ 937,343 $ 12,508,499 $ 70,634 $ 14,326,527
FY04 $ 91,445 $ 764,034 $ 8,689,587 $ 36,520 $ 9,581,586
34
License Revenue Table 23 License Revenue – FY00 to FY04 00
01
02
03
04
Income Licensing Income Misc. Income
$7,259,349
$7,687,256
$6,546,707
$12,815,429
$8,174,816
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Expense reimbursements OTM Current FY (External)
$944,963
$1,080,046
$992,793
$800,900
$719,325
Expense reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External)
$-
$-
$-
$91,349
$(8,041)
$-
$-
$20,503
$15,227
$49,266
$232,412
$367,503
$547,298
$592,687
$638,601
$52,260
$49,390
$22,770
$10,934
$7,620
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.
$8,488,984
$9,184,195
$8,130,071
$14,326,526
$9,581,586
$1,325,939
$1,758,822
$1,696,924
$1,585,941
$1,555,481
$11,857
$44,165
$(105)
$4,284
$3,561
$1,337,795
$1,802,987
$1,696,819
$1,590,225
$1,559,042
$3,270,166
$3,534,864
$2,954,063
$5,625,302
$3,742,581
$2,999,166
$3,147,532
$2,542,439
$5,062,039
$3,276,202
$-
$-
$22,770
$10,934
$7,620
$515,230
$501,508
$579,395
$889,129
$554,331
$-
$-
$10,807
$608
$1,500
$-
$4,887
$8,019
$75,376
$41,107
Expense Reimbursements for Dept. (External)
$-
$-
$20,503
$83,089
$49,266
Expense Reimbursement OTM from Distribution
$-
$-
$-
$65,281
$52,043
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 OTM operations
$-
$11,240
$8,827
$-
$69,998
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$16,647
$-
$(4,615)
-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$6,871,207
$7,188,792
$6,144,621
$11,820,585
$7,724,650
$(0)
$192,416
$288,631
$980,997
$349,937
35
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 the 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). Figure 16 Industry Sponsored Agreements by School – FY04 Social Work 0% Arts & Sciences 3% Arts & Sciences
Engineering & Applied Science 35%
Engineering & Applied Science Medicine
Medicine 62%
Social Work
Table 24 Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Social Work Total
New 1 11 19 0 31
36
Industry Sponsored Research Agreements
Table 25 Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School and Departments – FY04 School-Department 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 & Applied Science Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Biostatistics 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
FY04 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 3 0 0 0 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 19 0 0 31
37
Other Agreements The OTM also processes a portion 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 – FY04 60
0
0
50 40 30
41
20 10 0
10 2 Confidentiality
Arts & Sciences
43 0 15 0 3 0 2
3 1 Evaluation & Option
3 3
Interinstitutional Sales & Service
Engineering & Applied Science
Medicine
Social Work
Table 26 Other Agreements
Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Social Work Total
Confidentiality
Evaluation & Option
Inter-institutional
Sales & Service
2
1
2
3
10 41 0 53
3 15 0 19
0 3 0 5
3 43 0 49
38
Other Agreements Table 27 Other Agreements by School and Department – FY04 School -Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology Subtotal Arts & 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 & Applied Science 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 Subtotal Social Work Total
Confidentiality
Evaluation & Option
Interinstitutional
Sales & Service
2 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
1 2 0 0
2
1
2
3
1 0 4 2 0 3 0 0
0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0
10
3
0
3
1 1 0 0 0 2 0 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 2 5 5 41
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 15 1 43
0 0 53
0 0 19
0 0 5
0 0 49
39
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 – FY04
500 0
0
372
418
1 35
60
400 300 200 100 0
Arts & Sciences
Incoming
Outgoing
Engineering & Applied Science
Medicine
Social Work
Table 28 Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Social Work Total
Incoming 35 1 372 0 408
Outgoing 6 0 418 0 424
Total 41 1 790 0 832
40
Material Transfer Agreements Table 29 Material Transfer Agreements by School and Department – FY04 Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology Subtotal Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Chemical Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Mechanical & Civil Engineering Mechanical Engineering System Science & Mathematics Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Bioorganic Chemistry & Molecular Pharmacology Cardiology 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
35 0 0 0 0 35
5 0 0 0 1 6
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 9 9 1 5 20 0 13 0 118 17 14 11 0 7 0 14 3 5 32 27 6 4 16 15 372
1 1 0 1 9 10 0 1 0 156 76 39 16 0 0 0 4 1 0 65 19 3 0 13 3 418
0 0 408
0 0 424
41