Issuu on Google+


Letter from the Vice Chancellor for Research If there is a common thread amongst the diversity of research at Washington University, it is the passion of our investigators. For some, it is the medical discovery that brings about the cure for a disease or the taming of a chronic condition. For others, it represents the quest for knowledge and understanding about the world. Still others pursue research to discover solutions to societal problems. Each of us has something we want to seek, find, solve, create, or improve. Research is not only a cornerstone of medical and scientific advancement; its companion – innovation – is a keystone in American history, development, prosperity, and way of life. Our nation’s position in the world is due much to our desire for knowledge and our willingness to invest in research, development, and education that continues to make life better for people in this country, as well as globally. Economic and social advancement, and the intrinsic value of new knowledge, are reasons that the federal government continues to be a significant sponsor of research in America. It is the reason that so many individuals, corporations, foundations, and other organizations find ways each year, even in times of economic uncertainty, to generously give to research institutions. The myriad individuals at Washington University who are advancing the research enterprise, and to whom this funding is entrusted, are talented, focused, motivated, and dedicated. In this past year, my first as the Vice Chancellor for Research, I have been fortunate to learn of numerous research programs, meet many more investigators, and experience and share their enthusiasm. It is a privilege to serve and to advocate for the investigators at this world-class institution, and to help maintain and expand the rich research environment. FY10 was a tremendously successful year in terms of both funding and accomplishments. Washington University received $706 million in sponsored research funding, a 24.5% increase from FY09. This record total includes $105M from a full year of American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. This “turbo boost” of funding enabled


new endeavors built on new ideas, accelerated the pace of projects already in critical phases of work, and supported research that otherwise would have fallen victim to declining federal funding rates. Even without the ARRA funding, Washington University’s research community generated 6.9% more funding this year than last, largely due to a 32% increase in support from industry and non-profit sources. Total research expenditures amounted to $604M, an 11% increase from last year. Expenditures of federal dollars ($526M) included $44.7M in ARRA funds and accounted for 87% of total expenditures. Industry-sponsored clinical trials, of drugs, devices, and outcomes, continue to contribute to the advancement of healthcare and society. Over the years 2008 to 2010, the number of new clinical trials has increased 9%. Intellectual property resulting from Washington University research is managed to maximize the societal benefit of our new knowledge. One mission of the University is to promote the public utilization of our innovations through the formation and management of commercial partnerships. This enhances the University’s reputation as a leading research institution, places our intellectual property with entities best positioned to realize its commercial potential, and enables public access to the knowledge gained. Collateral benefits include the generation of revenue that helps seed the next endeavors and adventures, such as the highly successful Bear Cub Fund, which supports research projects that are potential candidates for commercialization or the base for start-up companies. The year ahead will bring special challenges. The boost from research investment via ARRA stimulus funding will wind down. Congress will soon change leadership and federal funding may undergo greater scrutiny, further pressuring the research enterprise. Washington University investigators will face the challenge of maintaining the level of investment, integrity, and positive results that are the hallmarks of our institution’s research. Yet our investigators are intrepid, typically enjoying funding success that exceeds peer averages. Strategic research partnerships, including those with the private sector and foundations, will become increasingly important. While the future may be uncertain, the dedication and innovation of our research community are not, nor are their discoveries and opportunities to change the world. This Annual Report is written to inform the University Community and its partners of our research activities and to share our investigators’ successes. Please, enjoy the fruits of their endeavors. Ask them to tell you their story. Evan D. Kharasch, MD PhD Vice Chancellor for Research


Table of Contents Page Sponsored Research Funding Sponsored Research Funding Executive Summary ........................................................................ 1 Notable Achievements for Fiscal Year 2010 ............................................................................ 5 Funding History by Sponsor Type Figure 1 Funding History by Sponsor Type ....................................................................... 10 Table 1 Funding History by Sponsor Type ....................................................................... 11 Table 1A ARRA Funding ....................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2 Federal Funding ...................................................................................................... 12 Table 2 Federal ARRA Funding ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 State, Local, and International (“Other Government”) Funding .................... 13 Figure 4 Private Funding ....................................................................................................... 15 Funding History by School Figure 5 Arts & Sciences ....................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 Engineering.............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 7 Medicine ................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 8 Social Work.............................................................................................................. 15 Table 2A Funding History by School ................................................................................... 15 Table 2B ARRA Funding by School ..................................................................................... 16 Award Dollar Analysis Table 3 Award Dollars by School and Cost Category ..................................................... 17 Table 3A ARRA Award Dollars by School and Cost Category ........................................ 18 Table 4 Award Dollars by School or Department and Project Type ............................ 19 Table 4A ARRA Award Dollars by School or Department and Project Type ............... 20 Figure 9 Award Summary by Sponsor Type ...................................................................... 21 Figure 9A ARRA Awards by Sponsor.................................................................................... 22 Figure 9B ARRA Awards and WU Total .............................................................................. 22 Table 5 Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category ........................................ 23 Table 5A ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category ........................... 23 Table 6 Award Dollars by Sponsor and Cost Category .................................................. 24 Table 6A ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor and Cost Category ..................................... 25 Table 7 Federal Award Dollars by Sponsor and School ................................................. 26 Table 7A ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor and School .................................................. 27 Table 7B ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor and School .................................................. 27 Table 8 Award Dollars by School or Department and Sponsor Type .......................... 28 Table 8A ARRA Award Dollars by School or Department and Sponsor Type ............. 29

i


Table 9

School of Arts & Sciences – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type .............................................................................................. 30 Table 9A School of Arts & Sciences – ARRA Award Dollars by Department ............. 31 Table 10 School of Engineering – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type ............................................................................................. 32 Table 10A School of Engineering – ARRA Award Dollars by Department .................... 33 Table 11 School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type ............................................................................................. 34 Table 11A School of Medicine – ARRA Award Dollars by Department.......................... 35 Office of Technology Management Office of Technology Management Executive Summary ............................................................ 36 Table 1 OTM Statistics – FY10 through FY08 ................................................................ 36 Technology Highlights for Fiscal Year 2010........................................................................... 38 Bear Cub Fund ............................................................................................................................ 45 Invention Disclosures Table 2 Invention Disclosures by School.......................................................................... 47 Table 3 Invention Disclosures by Department ................................................................ 48 Patent Applications Table 4 US Patent Applications by School ....................................................................... 49 Table 5 US Patent Applications by Department .............................................................. 50 Licenses Table 6 Table 7

Licenses by School.................................................................................................. 51 Licenses by Department ....................................................................................... 52

License Revenue Table 8 License Revenue by School .................................................................................. 53 Table 9 Technology Transfer Activity by School............................................................. 54 Table 10 Technology Transfer Activity ............................................................................... 54 Industry Sponsored Research Agreements Table 11 Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School ...................................... 55 Table 12 Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by Department. ............................ 56 Other Agreements Table 13 Other Agreements by Department ...................................................................... 58 Material Transfer Agreements Table 14 Material Transfer Agreements by Department .................................................. 59 Social and Financial Impact Table 15 Summary of Economic Impact ............................................................................ 60

ii


Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials Center for Applied Research Sciences Executive Summary........................................................ 61 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials by Department of the School of Medicine ............................................................................................ 64 Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials by Division of the Department of Internal Medicine .................................................................... 65 New Contracts Completed .................................................................................... 66

Sponsored Research Expense Sponsored Research Expense Executive Summary ...................................................................... 67 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 4A Figure 1 Table 5 Table 5A Figure 2 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 8A Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12

Direct and F&A Expenditures by Sponsor Type .............................................. 72 Direct and F&A Expenditures by School and Cost Category ......................... 73 Direct and F&A Expenditures by School and Project Type ............................ 74 Expenditures by Sponsor and Agreement Type ................................................ 75 Expenditures by Sponsor Type ............................................................................ 76 Expenditures by Sponsor Type ............................................................................ 77 Expenditures by Sponsor and Project Type ....................................................... 78 Expenditures by Project Type .............................................................................. 79 Expenditures by Project Type .............................................................................. 80 Expenditures by Sponsor Type and School........................................................ 81 Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and Sponsor Type ........................... 82 Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and School ....................................... 83 Expenditures by School ........................................................................................ 84 F&A Expenditures (Recovery) by Sponsor Type and F&A Rate ................... 85 F&A Expenditures (Recovery) by Sponsor Type and Agreement Type ........ 86 Federal Expenditures by Federal Agency and School ....................................... 87 Cost-Sharing Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and School ............... 88

Appendix: The Changing Environment of Federal Research & ...................................................... 89 Development (R&D) Funding

iii


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Sponsored Research Funding Executive Summary Research funding to Washington University (WU) in St. Louis in Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) experienced strong growth in several sectors. In addition to the various investigator-initiated grants that WU researchers pursue and acquire each year, the University experienced several large-dollar awards and continuations from both federal and private sources to make FY10 an exceptional year. Continued funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) made an already successful funding program prosperous; however, the WU sponsored research program grew 6.9% even when excluding ARRA funding. Presented herein is an overview of external funding for sponsored projects at WU during the University’s fiscal year of 2010 (FY10). All references within Tables and Figures to “Fiscal Year” are to WU’s fiscal year, which begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. The awards reported within are those with start dates on or between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, and the associated funds represent new money only (i.e., no carry-over funds from year to year for the same grant award are included). Award data is often impacted by large, multiyear private awards where funding is provided up front. Though the work on these projects is spread over the course of several years, the amount of the total award is registered entirely in one year. For that reason, annual award levels may vary significantly and do not necessarily reflect the amount of funding available for use in any given fiscal year. In addition, the receipt or completion of a single significant award may have a dramatic impact on percentages shown in this report. The Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs, sometimes referred to as “indirect” or “overhead” costs, are at times limited or prohibited by some sponsors, thereby constraining a School’s ability to recover full overhead costs. In some instances, there are references to an agency’s fiscal year, due to the fact that the fiscal years of agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) do not coincide with that of WU’s. The “Funding History” section of this Annual Report includes tables and charts that detail total funding to WU and, where appropriate, breaks out the ARRA funding WU received. Federal Agency Funding As in past years, federal agency support is the leading source of award dollars. Of the $706.3M total funding received in FY10, 75.8% was awarded by federal agencies. Although that percentage is a bit lower than the prior year’s 77.1%, the actual dollar amount is quite a bit higher ($535.0M versus $437.4M in FY09). The slight drop in percentage of federal dollars related to the total is due to a sizable increase in private funding. The University once again benefited from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, wherein the federal government dedicated funds for stimulating the economy. Two 1


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

things should be kept in mind when comparing stimulus funding received in FY10 compared to that received in FY09. •

A full year of stimulus activity occurred in FY10 ($105M), as compared to approximately one to two months in FY09 ($4.7M).

WU received stimulus funds from only federal sources in FY09 (specifically, NIH and NSF), whereas, in FY10, stimulus funding was also received from non-federal sources (local and state government, international organizations, and private donors) as a result of their receiving federal ARRA funds and passing them through to the University.

The total of $105M in ARRA funding for FY10 represents 14.9% of total sponsored research funding to WU. Through FY10, WU has received more than $110M in stimulus funding. Much of the FY10 stimulus funding ($105M) was spent during FY10, and the majority of ARRA funding will be spent by the end of FY11 due to the government’s stipulation that the funds be quickly expended. The importance of ARRA funding can be seen when viewing federal funding levels across fiscal years 2006 through 2010. Although the University showed overall growth in total federal research funding from FY06 to FY10 (18.4%) and from FY09 to FY10 (22.3%), those figures include ARRA funding. Without stimulus dollars, federal funding for FY06 to FY10 would have decreased by 3.4%, and increased by less than 1% from FY09 to FY10. The combination of a slowly-recovering economy, spending concerns in the United States Congress, and the completion of the ARRA stimulus period makes it all the more necessary to diversify funding sources to support University research in a changing environment. The extraordinary efforts of WU faculty and staff toward acquiring project funding, and the establishment of centers making WU an attractive choice for limited funds, led to the overall success of the research program ($706.3M). The spending of ARRA funds can be monitored through the federal government’s website: www.recovery.gov. Key Federal Research Sponsors The number one federal sponsor of University research is the NIH. Its total award obligation of $483.5M to WU (20.6% more than the previous fiscal year) represents 68.5% of WU’s total sponsored project funding and 90.4% of its federal dollars. NIH was also the primary contributor of ARRA funding in the amount of $92.3M, which accounted for 87.9% of total ARRA funding, 19.1% of total NIH dollars, and 13.1% of total funding to WU in FY10. School of Medicine NIH award dollars in FY10 ($447.6M) increased by $78.9M (21.4%) compared to FY08 ($368.7M), which included an ARRA grant for $14.3M toward the construction of a genomics data center and approximately $36M in continuing grant money to the Genetics Sequencing Center.

2


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Total NIH dollars awarded to the School of Engineering in FY10 ($12M) increased by 25% over the previous year; $1.2M of the increase was ARRA funding to purchase a piece of equipment. NIH award dollars in FY10 to the George Warren Brown School of Social Work increased 46.5%, the increase due primarily to a $1.6M grant to a collaborative initiative affecting the social impact of population cancer data. NIH funding to Arts & Sciences was down a bit (17.2%) from the prior year. The National Science Foundation (NSF) remains the number two federal sponsor of University research with obligations of $23.4M, a 43.1% increase over the prior year. NSF funding to the School of Medicine decreased by 13.3% ($300,000) compared to the prior year. NSF funding to the School of Engineering totaled $7.5M in FY10, an increase of $1.3M (20.2%) from FY09. Arts & Sciences received $13.5M from NSF, a significant increase of 83.9% over the prior year. This increase is due not from one single grant but multiple grants spread across several of Arts & Sciences departments. The School of Social Work saw a decrease of 53.6% in NSF funding. Schools other than those previously noted received a total of $.21M from NSF, compared to $.16M the prior year. Department of Energy (DOE) funding increased over the prior year by 115.7% ($9.5M). The most notable contribution to the large increase was funding for the first year of a five-year award, the largest to date in Danforth Campus history, to the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES) for the establishment of an Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC). DOE also awarded Arts & Sciences $3.8M (a 51% increase) and the School of Medicine $2.5M (a 70.8% increase). Federal direct costs increased by about $74.6M (23.1%) in FY10, and federal F&A costs increased by $23.0M (20.1%). Table 6 (page 24) lists the different sponsoring agencies with dollar volume and change from FY09 to FY10. Table 7 (page 26) further breaks out agency funding by School. Private Sources: Industry and Non-Profit Sponsor Support WU has experienced a trend over the last four to five years toward increased funding from private (industry and non-profit) sources. From FY04 to FY10, private funding has increased 160.7%. Private funding in FY10 ($146.4M) was 31.6% more than FY09 ($111.3M). Notable private support includes $12M from Ameren, Peabody Energy, and Arch Coal to I-CARES for the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization; first-year funding from a $20M award from a nonprofit entity to the Department of Genetics; and first-year funding from a $5.5M grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Large Center Funding Observers of federal agency research funding (that of NIH in particular) over the past several years have noted an overall decrease and a rising trend of sponsors shifting dollars away from investigator-initiated applications toward larger interdisciplinary centers and programs. In 2008, Heidi Hamm, then president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

3


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

(ASBMB), wrote that, between 2003 and 2008, NIH funding to centers and research program grants (RPGs) had grown 20% and 13%, respectively, in an otherwise sluggish funding period. 1 WU is a strong competitor in a variety of fields, and is the home to many innovative and vibrant University centers where collaboration across disciplines and institutions is the focus. Strategic creation and placement of such centers are vital to the University’s mission of education, research, and positive community impact, and to its continued success in obtaining funding for those endeavors. Funding to centers can come from any source, whether governmental or private. The objective of the large multidisciplinary and/or multi-institutional center is to concentrate applicable expertise and knowledge in specific areas of research. A list of centers at WU can be found at http://www.wustl.edu/academics/centersinstitutes.html. Performance Among Institutional Peers In its 2009 Annual Report, The Center for Measuring University Performance (published by Arizona State University) ranked WU seventeenth among top American research universities and sixth among top private research universities in 2008. The rankings are based on a number of factors, among them reported research expenditures, number of faculty who are National Academy Members, and doctorates granted (The Top American Research Universities, 2009 Annual Report 2). Funding Trends and Possible Future Scenarios Trends and possible future scenarios in sponsored research funding are discussed in the appendix to this report, based on various published sources. This information is important as it helps to describe the changing environment of research funding, including the apparent continuing decline of NIH funding and how that impacts institutions that receive the bulk of their awards from NIH. The appendix also discusses the Obama Administration’s proposed FY11 budget and how it might affect federal agency funding by shifting priorities. A “Works Cited” section is included for further reading.

1

Hamm, H. “Centers Versus Individuals – Funding Choices at NIH.” ASBMB Today. April 2008. The Top American Research Universities, 2009 Annual Report. The Center for Measuring University Performance. Arizona State University. Capaldi, E, Lombardi, J., Abbey, C., Craig, D. http://mup.asu.edu.

2

4


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Notable Achievements for Fiscal Year 2010 The Washington University (WU) research community is made up of more than 3,000 faculty and staff who work tirelessly to both acquire funding and conduct exciting research. Research that will ultimately benefit society through medical breakthroughs or deepen the understanding of the world that surrounds and impacts our lives is carried out every day on the Danforth and Medical School campuses. Although all research done by WU investigators is critical to the goal of advancing scientific education and clinical missions, a few of the notable achievements for FY10 are highlighted here as examples of excellence in research. Photosynthetic Antenna Research Center The Photosynthetic Antenna Research Center (PARC) was created by the University after being named one of the forty-six Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) established nation-wide at universities, laboratories, non-profit organizations, and private firms by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. The EFRC program “is focused on the scientific groundwork needed to meet the global need for abundant, clean, and economical energy.” With grant support from the Department of Energy (DOE), PARC’s mission will be to explore basic science research to better understand the way natural photosynthetic, biohybrid, and bioinspired antenna systems create energy by gathering light and funneling energy to an organism’s reaction center. PARC is housed in the newly-dedicated Stephen F. and Camilla T. Brauer Hall on Danforth Campus. Its outreach will extend to the K-12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. Read more about PARC at http://icares.wustl.edu/initiatives/parc.php.

Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization The Consortium is the most recent initiative in the University’s dedicated efforts to advance education and research related to energy, environment, and sustainability. According to WU Chancellor Mark Wrighton at the December 2008 press conference announcing the award to establish the Clean Coal Consortium, “…we are forming an international partnership between universities, industries, foundations and government organizations to foster improved efficiency, lower emissions and develop ways to address climate change.” The University has dedicated financial resources to establish the Consortium and make St. Louis and WU the nation’s center for clean coal research. Financial support of $12M was received this fiscal year from three industry leaders – Arch Coal, Peabody Energy, and Ameren – to carry out its mission. Under the umbrella of the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES), the Consortium will strive to foster institutional, regional, and international research and to be a resource for industry in advancing clean coal technologies, addressing carbon dioxide mitigation, and improving public understanding of coal’s role as a major energy source. As will PARC, it will be housed in the Stephen F. and Camilla T. Brauer Hall on Danforth Campus. Read more about the Clean Coal Consortium at http://cleancoal.wustl.edu/.

5


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

The Genome Center One of only three NIH-funded, large-scale sequencing centers, the Genome Center was the first to sequence the complete genome of a cancer patient and trace the disease to its genetic roots. Since that momentous discovery, the Center has sequenced the genomes of many cancer patients and is now applying new sequencing technology to analyze collections of microbes in the human body called “microbiome”. With a four-year $156M grant received from NIH in FY07, the Center has focused, through sequencing, on comparing the DNA of a patient with the DNA of the same patient’s tumor to identify changes. The resultant data is stored in WU’s Genomics Data Center (which received an NIH grant to expand the facility), and the subsequent analysis will possibly lead to new diagnosis and treatments, and perhaps a cure. The Sequencing Center has also become a partner with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital to concentrate on identifying genetic changes common to the development of many deadly childhood cancers. In one of the largest-ever initiatives, an estimated $65M over three years will fund the sequencing, analysis, and publication of data that will ultimately allow physicians to better and more specifically treat their young cancer patients. Read more about The Genome Center and its projects at http://genome.wustl.edu.

The Genome Center’s Data Center With a $14.3 million construction grant from NIH as part of ARRA stimulus funding, WU will expand its high-powered data center for genomics. Massive amounts of genomic data, used to help identify the genetic origins of cancer and other diseases, will be stored on the Center’s sophisticated computer networks. WU researchers who were principal contributors to the Human Genome Project now are sequencing the genomes of cancer patients and producing vast amounts of data. A data center with more capacity and more efficient processing is necessary to store all of the resultant data for analysis. The data center will provide opportunities for scientists around the world to access and analyze an unprecedented collection of information. Expansion construction is expected to create more than 350 jobs, including local construction positions, and is also planned to exceed the standards of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold status already held by the existing data center. Read more about the Genomics Data Center at http://genome.wustl.edu.

The Human Microbiome Project As part of NIH’s $42M expansion of the Human Microbiome Project, WU researchers have received four grants totaling $19M. The Genome Center, which played a central role in the initial phase of the project, received $16M of that amount. A microbiome is a collection of microbes. The DNA of about 400 microbes found in samples from healthy human volunteers will be decoded, with the information cataloged for study and analysis. The remaining $3M was awarded to WU researchers for related work in three pilot demonstration projects. Each oneyear project involves sampling the microbiomes of both healthy and ill volunteers, and comparing differences between the two groups. Researchers hope the differences will guide them to determine how microbes influence the risk of disease. Read more about the Human Microbiome Project at http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/14295.aspx.

6


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Grant Toward Elimination of Tropical Diseases WU received $13M in a five-year grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation toward eliminating tropical diseases, specifically two parasitic diseases: elephantiasis and river blindness. These two diseases, which belong to a group of infections called “neglected tropical diseases”, are considered to collectively have a health impact comparable to HIV and malaria. Because the project will work to optimize existing treatments and systems, and provide mass drug administration toward the goal of eliminating the two diseases, the research conducted will directly impact those who suffer from them. Read more about this project at http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20134.aspx.

Communication-Based Strategies to Eliminate Cancer Disparities A grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for $8.6M was awarded to the George Warren Brown School of Social Work’s Health Communications Research Laboratory (HCRL) in FY09 to explore how improved information and referral systems can help eliminate cancer disparities among minorities and disadvantaged populations. A supplement of $1.6M in ARRA stimulus funding in FY10 will help build a new collaborative team of population cancer surveillance epidemiologists, experts in design and development of visual displays of quantitative information, and cancer communication researchers. Together, this team will break new scientific ground in identifying visual design approaches that maximize the social impact of population cancer data. In addition, the proposed supplement will: (1) Develop a dynamic web application - OziomaOnline - that will generate locally relevant and race-specific cancer data and information for enhancing cancer news stories for the American public; (2) Populate OziomaOnline with state-, county-, and community-level cancer data and resources, as well as online tools for generating data graphics, finding quotes for stories, and a library of cancerrelated images of Americans from diverse populations; and (3) Assess usability of OziomaOnline among potential adopters and evaluate maintenance and sustainability demands of keeping localization datasets current and accurate over time. Read more about this project at http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/12823.aspx.

Diabetes in Rats Cured Scientists at WU announced in June 2010 that using transplants from both embryonic and adult pigs had alleviated diabetes in rats. The rats’ systems accepted the transplants without requiring anti-rejection drugs, and they were able to produce enough insulin to control their blood sugar. Human islet transplants have been used to cure diabetes in some people, but the lack of few human donors and high transplant rejection rates led researchers to seek a different approach other than that of using human islet transplants. Researchers knew that pig insulin had been widely used to treat diabetes in humans until the 1980s, when DNA technology led to the manufacture of human insulin. These findings offer hope that one day diabetes in humans may be cured by the same, or a similar, method. The researchers’ findings were reported in the American Journal of Pathology. Read more about this major advancement at http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20867.aspx.

7


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

MoonRise Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Mission (Proposal Phase) More than 40 years after Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon and Apollo astronauts brought samples back to Earth, researchers at WU would like the opportunity to send a robotically controlled lander to the Moon for the purpose of retrieving new samples. NASA, as part of its “New Frontiers” space science program, awarded WU $257K to prepare a proposal for the project. Two other institutions were also awarded funding to prepare proposals. The successful proposal would receive funding in FY11 for full development and launch. If chosen, WU researchers will use the subsequent funding to create the robotically controlled lander that will scoop up approximately two pounds of pea-sized lunar rocks from the Moon’s surface so that researchers can conduct analysis on the samples, the goal being to determine how old the Basin is and, in turn, to glean new insight into the early Earth-Moon system. MoonRise would be the first NASA mission to robotically retrieve samples from another planetary body and return them to Earth. The target area of the Moon is the giant South Pole-Aitken (SPA) Basin, just south of the Moon’s equator, because rocks and melted materials not found in the lunar samples retrieved by the Apollo missions are thought to exist there.

Read more about MoonRise at http://moonrise.jpl.nasa.gov/ and http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/15260.aspx.

BJC Institute of Health and BioMed 21 The BJC Institute of Health at Washington University, home to the BioMed 21 initiative, was officially dedicated in June, 2010. The BioMed 21 initiative was created to accelerate scientific discovery and the subsequent application of breakthroughs to care for people with the most prevalent diseases. The $235-million, 700,000-square-foot building provides a collaborative environment for physicians, scientists, and researchers working to improve human health. The Institute’s building, an 11-story building located at the heart of the WU School of Medicine campus, will also house university laboratories and departments, and some Barnes-Jewish Hospital functions. Five Interdisciplinary Research Centers (IRCs) have been chosen to occupy a portion of the 11-story building with BioMed 21: the Bridging Research through Imaging, Genomics and High Throughput technologies (BRIGHT Institute), the Center for the Investigation of Membrane Excitability Disorders (CIMED), the Center for Women’s Infectious Disease Research (cWIDR), the Hope Center Program on Protein Aggregation and Neurodegeneration (HPAN), and the Diabetic Cardiovascular Disease Center (DCDC). Complementing the building is a 2.2-acre plaza with a reflecting pool, designed by Maya Lin, the designer of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC, and named for Ellen S. Clark, a passionate proponent of medical research. Read more about the BJC Institute of Health at http://www.bjc.org/News/?nid=69&sid=1

The Neuroimaging Informatics and Analysis Center The Neuroimaging Informatics and Analysis Center (NAIC) received a $3.8M grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to assist researchers in collecting and using data on the brain and central nervous system. The NAIC will consist of three cores: an informatics core, a data analysis core, and an administrative/educational core. Currently, analyzing data from scans of the brain and other central nervous system structures consumes

8


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

significant time. The Center’s goal is to bring cutting-edge techniques for processing the raw data into production. NAIC’s goal is to speed up the computer code and clear the way for researchers to apply the new techniques to the data in their own projects. Read more about this center at http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20514.aspx.

9


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Funding History

The figures and tables in this section present WU’s funding history over five years, including ARRA stimulus funding where appropriate. Unlike FY09, when the federal ARRA was signed and implemented, and WU received stimulus funding directly from only federal agencies, ARRA stimulus funding in FY10 came also from non-federal organizations that passed federal stimulus dollars through to third-party institutions (such as WU). Figure 1 illustrates the total dollars received by three broad sponsor types: (1) Federal, (2) State/Local/International, and (3) Private.

800 700

Dollars ($M)

600 500 400 300

535 452

444

440

437

17 77

21 87

19 111

200 100

19 76

0 FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

Federal State/Local/Int'l Private

25 146

FY10

Figure 1 Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY06 to FY10 The totals for FY09 and FY10 in Figure 1 above include ARRA stimulus funding. Total sponsored research funding for FY10 reached $706.3M, an increase of 24.5% from FY09 to FY10, and an increase of 29.3% over the five years from FY06 to FY10. To understand how impactful the ARRA stimulus program was on sponsored research, consider that without ARRA the increase from FY09 to FY10 would have been 6.9% and the increase over the fiveyear period FY06 to FY10 would have been 10.1%. (See figure on the following page.) Excluding ARRA dollars from both years, total funding at $601.3M would still have been higher than the FY09 total ($562.7M).

10


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Figure 1A Growth (with ARRA vs. without ARRA) – FY06 to FY10

Sponsor Type

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

Federal

$451,874

$444,018

$439,551

$437,435

$535,043

TOTAL

$546,324 $537,474 $548,351 $567,383 $706,288

State/Local/Int'l Private

18,712 75,738

16,765 76,691

21,389 87,411

18,662

111,285

24,805

146,439

Table 1 Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY06 to FY10 (000s) Note, in Table 1A, that ARRA stimulus funding in FY10 was received not only directly from federal agencies but from non-federal agencies that received federal ARRA funding and passed it through to the University. Excluding ARRA dollars, total funding at $601.3M would still have been higher than the FY09 total ($562.7M).

Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

Sponsor Type

FY09

FY10

Federal

$4,730

TOTAL

$4,730 $105,033

State/Local/Int'l Private

0 0

$98,530

2,344 4,159

Table 1A ARRA Funding by Sponsor Type (000s)

11


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Federal Research Funding Federal research funding refers to the dollars awarded by federal agencies to WU for use in its sponsored research programs. Federal funding provided 75.8% of total University award dollars for FY10, compared to 77.1% in FY09. As Figure 2 illustrates, the University demonstrated overall growth in total federal research funding from FY06 to FY10, with slight declines in FY07, FY08, and FY09, correlating to the decline in NIH funding during those years. The significant increase in federal funding for FY10 represents not only a 22.3% increase from FY09 but also an 18.4% increase since FY06. The overall growth from FY06 to FY10, however, is directly due to the influx of ARRA funding in FY10. Without that funding, only $437M would have been recorded in FY10, compared to $433M in FY09, an increase of less than 1%, and an overall decrease of 3.4% from FY06 to FY10.

550 500

Dollars ($M)

450 400 350 300 250

535 452

444

440

FY06

FY07

FY08

200

433

437

437

150 100 50 0

Federal (without ARRA)

FY09

FY10

Federal (with ARRA)

Figure 2 Federal Funding (000s) – FY06 to FY10 As Table 2 shows, stimulus funding received directly from the federal government made up 18.4% of the total federal obligations in FY10.

FY10 Total Federal

ARRA from Direct Federal Sources

Federal ARRA as % of Total Federal

$535,043

$98,530

18.4%

Table 2 Federal ARRA Funding – FY06 to FY10 (000s) 12


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

State, Local, and International (or “Other Government”) Funding

Although commonly referred to as “Other Government”, this category most often includes state universities that subcontract to WU after receiving federal funding. It also includes funding from other U.S. States, international government agencies, and local entities such as the State of Missouri, St. Louis City, and St. Louis County. Of the $24.8M received in FY10, $2.3M was received as a result of other institutions receiving federal ARRA funding and subawarding it to WU.

30

Dollars ($M)

25 20 15 25

10

19

21 17

19

5 0 FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

Figure 3 State/Local/International – FY06 to FY10

13


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Private Funding

Private funding received from companies and organizations fall into two main categories: Industry and Non-Profit. In FY10 this category includes federal ARRA funding passed through to the University by a non-federal entity. Industry typically includes commercial (for-profit) entities such as Ameren, Arch Coal, Peabody Energy, and Monsanto. Non-Profit includes: • Foundations & Trusts: These non-profit entities may include charitable organizations established by family foundations or employees of a company. •

Voluntary Health: Non-profit health- or disease-specific agencies such as the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society.

Other: Non-profit agencies that do not fall into Foundations, Trusts, or Voluntary Health organizations. These may include hospitals, individuals, institutes such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, or organizations such as NFL Charities.

Figure 4 illustrates how the two main components of private funding – Industry and NonProfit – compare to each other in dollars. As in FY09, the University experienced a sizable increase in Private funding during FY10. The dramatic increase overall (32%) is due mainly to $12M in support from corporations to help establish the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization and $20M from a Non-profit entity in a partnership aimed at understanding the genetic origins of childhood cancers (http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20133.aspx). Without these two large receipts, Private funding would have increased by 3% over the prior year, represented by various sponsors (such as The Monsanto Fund, The Ford Foundation, Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation, and other foundations). 160 140

121 146

100

17

19

77 16

20

61

63 76

40

70 87

60

25

93 111

80

13

Dollars ($M)

120

0 FY06

FY07

Industry

FY08

Non-Profit

FY09

FY10

Total Private

Figure 4 Private Funding – FY06 to FY10 14


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Funding by School

50

30

40

25 Dollars ($M)

Dollars ($M)

Figures 5-8 and Table 2A show funding history for the four research-intensive units of the university: the School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Engineering, the School of Medicine, and the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.

30 20 10 0

20 15 10 5 0

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY06

Figure 5 - School of Arts and Sciences

Dollars ($M)

Dollars ($M)

500 300 200 100 0 FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

Total

FY09

FY10

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FY06

FY10

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

Figure 8 - School of Social Work

Figure 7 - School of Medicine

School Administration & Other Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Social Work

FY08

Figure 6 - School of Engineering

600 400

FY07

FY06 $1,938 41,390 21,002 472,635 9,358

FY07 $1,099 44,007 22,103 464,444 5,820

FY08 $3,470 41,278 23,480 471,753 8,370

FY09 $1,798 42,924 24,010 483,915 14,735

FY10 $14,986 46,993 28,624 596,130 19,556

$546,324

$537,474

$548,351

$567,383

$706,288

Table 2A Funding History by School – FY06 to FY10 (000s) Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools.

15


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Table 2B below illustrates the breakdown of total and ARRA award dollars between Schools and the impact of ARRA on the total funding for FY10. As expected, the ARRA funding activity had much more of an impact in FY10 than in FY09, due to ARRA activity occurring the entire fiscal year, as opposed to a brief period at FY09 year end. ARRA funding represented 14.9% of total funding in FY10, while in FY09 it represented less than 1% of the total.

School

Administration & Other

FY10 Total

FY10 ARRA

ARRA as % of Total

$14,986

$467

3.1%

Arts & Sciences

46,993

8,020

17.1%

Engineering

28,624

3,575

12.5%

596,130

90,318

15.2%

19,556

2,653

13.6%

$706,288

$105,033

14.9%

Medicine Social Work TOTAL

Table 2B ARRA Funding by School – FY10 (000s)

Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools.

16


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding The following table compares FY10 award dollars with the prior year, broken out by Direct and F&A costs for each School. The percent of change from one fiscal year to the next is tracked in the far right column of Table 3. The increase in dollars and percentage of “Administration & Other Schools� is due to the $12M received by the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). As a University center, I-CARES subsequently allocated some funds to other Schools and Departments. Table 3A on the next page further breaks down the FY10 awards to show how ARRA funding impacted certain schools.

FY10 School Administration & Other Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine Social Work TOTAL

Award Count

Direct Costs

FY09

F&A Costs

Total

Award Count

Direct Costs

Change

F&A Costs

Total

Dollars

%

27

$13,763

$604

$14,366

24

$875

$64

$939

$13,427 1429.9%

264

34,764

12,230

46,993

251

32,757

10,167

42,924

4,069

9.5%

3

235

115

349

3

181

83

264

85

32.2%

147

21,223

7,401

28,624

131

17,302

6,708

24,010

4,614

19.2%

5

211

60

270

9

565

30

595

(325)

-54.6%

2,050

458,613

137,516

596,130

1,973

368,177

115,738

483,915

112,215

23.2%

103

15,356

4,199

19,555

95

11,559

3,176

14,735

4,820

32.7%

2,599

$544,163

$162,124

$706,288

2,486

$431,418

$135,965

$567,383

$138,905

24.5%

Table 3 Award Dollars by School and Cost Category FY10 and FY09 (000s) Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools.

17


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

FY10 TOTAL

School

Administration & Other Arts & Sciences Business Engineering Law Medicine Social Work TOTAL

Award Count

Direct Costs

FY10 ARRA

F&A Costs

Dollars

Award Count

Direct Costs

F&A Costs

Dollars

ARRA as % of Total Award Count

ARRA as % of Total Dollars

27

$13,763

$604

$14,366

0

$147

$77

$224

0%

1.6%

264

34,764

12,230

46,993

27

5,805

2,215

8,020

10.2%

17.1%

3

235

115

349

1

110

57

168

33.3%

47.9%

147

21,223

7,401

28,624

10

2,900

676

3,575

6.8%

12.5%

5

211

60

270

1

50

26

76

20.0%

28.0%

2,050

458,613

137,516

596,130

109

70,296

20,022

90,318

5.3%

15.2%

103

15,356

4,199

19,555

3

2,042

611

2,653

2.9%

13.6%

2,599

$544,163

$162,124

$706,288

151

$81,350

$23,683

$105,033

5.9%

14.9%

Table 3A ARRA Award Dollars by School and Cost Category – FY10 (000s)

Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools. 3. “Administration & Other” had no direct ARRA stimulus awards in FY10. The dollar amounts represent funding received from Schools and Departments in the form of allocations.

18


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding The term “Project Type” refers to the distinct types of awards received by the University. Table 4 breaks award dollars into three projecttype categories: Research (projects and activities that discover new scientific areas, procedures, and devices), Research Training (support provided to pre/postdoctoral students and fellows involved in research training programs), and Other Sponsored Activities (such as public service, patient service, conference grants, community outreach programs, and student aid). Table 4A on the next page further breaks down the FY10 awards to show how ARRA funding impacted certain schools. Research

Research Training

Other Sponsored Activities

FY10

FY10

School / Department FY10 Administration & Other

FY09

FY09

TOTAL

FY09

FY10

FY09

$13,157

$405

$10

$0

$927

$534

$14,094

$939

43,797

40,867

2,020

1,881

1,176

176

46,993

42,924

Business

330

235

0

0

19

29

349

264

Design & Visual Arts

248

0

10

0

15

0

273

0

26,892

23,365

1,631

608

101

36

28,624

24,010

135

253

7

11

128

331

270

595

540,407

438,790

22,013

19,601

33,710

25,525

596,130

483,915

17,297

13,048

692

702

1,566

985

19,555

14,735

$642,264

$516,963

$26,383

$22,803

$37,641

$27,617

$706,288

$567,383

Arts & Sciences

Engineering Law Medicine Social Work TOTAL

Table 4 Award Dollars by School or Department and Project Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools.

19


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Tables 4A shows the impact that a full year of ARRA stimulus funding had on the different project-type categories for the Schools, expressed as a percentage of total funding dollars. In FY10, ARRA funding accounted for 14.9% of total awards, compared to less than 1% in FY09.

Research School / Department

Administration & Other

FY10

Research Training

FY10 ARRA

FY10 ARRA

FY10

Other Sponsored Activities

Totals

FY10 ARRA

FY10

FY10

FY10 ARRA

ARRA as % of Total

$13,157

$0

$10

$0

$927

$0

$14,094

$0

0%

43,797

8,020

2,020

0

1,176

0

46,993

8,020

17.1%

Business

330

168

0

0

19

0

349

168

47.9%

Design & Visual Arts

248

224

10

0

15

0

273

224

82.0%

26,892

3,575

1,631

0

101

0

28,624

3,575

12.5%

135

76

7

0

128

0

270

76

28.0%

540,407

74,196

22,013

308

33,710

15,814

596,130

90,318

15.2%

17,297

1,509

692

0

1,566

1,144

19,555

2,653

13.6%

$642,264

$87,767

$26,383

$308

$37,641

$16,958

$706,288

$105,033

14.9%

Arts & Sciences

Engineering Law Medicine Social Work TOTAL

Table 4A ARRA Award Dollars by School or Department and Project Type – FY10 (000s)

Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools.

20


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Funding by Sponsor

The graphs and tables in this section provide information about the sources of sponsored projects funding to the University, including: • • • •

All sources from which the University receives sponsored projects funding The sectors from which the University receives the most funding: government, industry, and non-profit The federal agencies that provide the most support to the individual schools within the University The sponsors that have increased or decreased their investments in University research over the past fiscal year

FY10

FY09 92,570

120,971 18,715

25,469 483,455 24,805

20,115

28,158

16,370

23,430

NIH

400,950

18,662

NSF

Other Fed

Other Gov't

Industry

Non-Profit

NIH

NSF

Other Fed

Other Gov't.

Industry

Non-Profit

Figure 9 Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

21


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Figure 9A breaks out FY10 ARRA funding by sponsor type, dollars, and percentage. Unlike FY09, when ARRA funding was received from only federal sponsors NIH and NSF, stimulus funding in FY10 also came from Other (non-federal) Government and Private (Industry or Non-Profit). Figure 9B shows the relationship of ARRA funding to the total amount of research funding WU received in FY10. Of the $706.3M in total research funding awarded to WU in FY10, ARRA funding accounted for 14.9% ($105M). Tables 5 and 5A on the following page further break down funding among sponsor types by Direct and F&A costs.

2,344 2.2%

6,220 5.9%

744 0.7%

3,414 3.3%

105,033 14.9% 601,255 85.1%

92,310 87.9%

NIH

NSF

Other (Non-Federal) Gov't

Industry

Figure 9A ARRA Awards by Sponsor Type – FY10 (000s)

Non-Profit

ARRA

Non-ARRA

Figure 9B ARRA and Non-ARRA Awards – FY10 (000s)

22


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding FY10 Sponsor Type Direct Costs Federal

% of Total Direct

F&A Costs

FY09 % of Total F&A

% Total

Total

Direct Costs

% of Total Direct

F&A Costs

% of Total F&A

Total

% Total

$397,717

73.1%

$137,327

84.7%

$535,043

75.8%

$323,124

74.9%

$114,311

84.0%

$437,435

77.1%

Other Gov’t.

17,683

3.2%

7,122

4.4%

24,805

3.5%

13,442

3.1%

5,220

3.8%

18,662

3.3%

Total Gov’t.

415,400

76.3%

144,448

89.1%

559,848

79.3%

336,566

78.0%

119,531

87.9%

456,098

80.4%

Industry

107,100

19.7%

13,871

8.6%

120,971

17.1%

81,430

18.9%

11,140

8.2%

92,570

16.3%

21,663

4.0%

3,805

2.3%

25,469

3.6%

13,422

3.1%

5,293

3.9%

18,715

3.3%

128,763

23.7%

17,676

10.9%

146,439

20.7%

94,852

22.0%

16,433

12.1%

111,285

19.6%

$544,163

100.0%

162,124

100.0%

706,288

100.0%

$431,418

100.0%

$135,965

100.0% $567,383

100.0%

Non-Profit Total Private

TOTAL

Table 5 Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category FY10 and FY09 (000s) FY10 ARRA Sponsor Type Federal Other Gov’t. Industry Non-Profit

TOTAL

Direct Costs

F&A Costs

Total

$76,512

$22,019

$98,530

1,774

571

2,344

626

118

744

2,439

976

3,414

$81,350

$23,683

$105,033

Table 5A ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category (000s) Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

23


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

FY10 Sponsor

Federal Agencies

NIH NSF NASA DOD EPA DOEd DOE DHHS HRSA LABOR USDA Other

Total Federal Missouri Other States Other Gov’t. Total Other Government Industry Private Sources Non-Profit Other Government

Total Private GRAND TOTAL

FY09

Direct F&A Direct F&A Total Total Costs Costs Costs Costs $359,121 $124,334 $483,455 $295,596 $105,354 $400,950 17,257 6,174 23,431 12,452 3,918 16,370 6,100 2,485 8,585 3,691 1,581 5,273 560 269 829 1,696 483 2,179 156 81 237 7 0 7 756 22 779 661 22 683 7,371 2,084 9,455 3,161 1,222 4,383 2,675 599 3,274 2,421 517 2,937 1,849 797 2,645 2,078 845 2,922 24 7 31 197 0 197 1,848 474 2,322 1,165 370 1,534 397,717 114,311 137,327 535,043 323,124 437,435 2,113 392 2,506 1,732 334 2,066 14,819 6,664 21,483 10,934 4,832 15,766 751 66 816 776 54 830 17,683 7,122 24,805 13,442 5,220 18,662 21,663 3,805 25,469 13,422 5,293 18,715 107,100 13,871 120,971 81,430 11,140 92,570 128,763 17,676 146,439 94,852 16,433 111,285 $544,163 $162,124 $706,288 $431,418 $135,965 $567,383

Change in Total Dollars

%

$82,505 7,061 3,312 (1,350) 230 96 5,072 337 (277) (166) 788 97,608 440 5,717 (14) 6,143 6,754 28,401 35,154 $138,905

20.6% 43.1% 62.8% -62.0% 3285.7% 14.1% 115.7% 11.5% -9.5% -84.3% 51.4% 22.3% 21.3% 36.3% -1.7% 32.9% 36.1% 30.7% 31.6% 24.5%

Table 6 Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category FY10 and FY09 (000s)

Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

24


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Table 6A extracts FY10 ARRA funding from the total funding in Table 6 and separates it into categories of Direct and F&A costs. Stimulus funding in FY10 was received from all the main sponsor types – Federal, Other Government, Industry, and Non-Profit – as opposed to FY09 when all ARRA stimulus funding came from two federal agencies, NIH and NSF. As Table 6A shows, those two federal agencies remain the only federal sponsors and the largest contributors (93.8%) of ARRA funding to the University in FY10. Note that NIH awards alone represent 87.9% of ARRA funding to the University. FY10 ARRA Sponsor Type

Federal Agencies

Total Private GRAND TOTAL

Total

% of ARRA Total

$72,009

$20,301

$92,310

87.9%

NSF

4,502

1,718

6,220

5.9%

76,511

22,019

98,530

93.8%

Missouri

975

169

1,144

1.1%

Other States

799

401

1,200

1.1%

1,774

571

2,344

2.2%

626

118

744

0.7%

2,439

976

3,414

3.3%

3,065

1,094

4,159

4.0%

$81,350

$23,683

$105,033

100.0%

Total Other Gov’t. Private Sources

F&A Costs

NIH

Total Federal Other Government

Direct Costs

Industry Non-Profit

Table 6A ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category – FY10 (000s)

Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

25


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Arts & Sciences % of Change From FY09

Sponsor FY10

Engineering

Medicine

% of Change From FY09

FY10

Social Work

% of Change From FY09

FY10

Other Schools

% of Change From FY09

FY10

FY10

% of Change From FY09

Total University

FY10

% of Change From FY09

NIH

$12,551

-17.2%

$11,987

25.0%

$447,649

21.4%

$10,703

46.5%

$564

182.0%

$483,455

20.6%

NSF

13,489

83.9%

7,537

20.2%

2,127

-13.3%

72

-53.6%

205

29.7%

23,431

43.1%

7,750

50.0%

519

394.3%

216

0

0

8,585

62.8%

DOD

205

-59.0%

592

2.1%

33

-96.9%

0

0

-100.0%

829

-62.0%

EPA

237

3285.7%

0

0

0

0

237

3285.7%

DOEd

314

31.4%

0

0

0

465

4.7%

779

14.1%

3,759

51.0%

500

235.6%

2,542

70.8%

0

2,654

940.8%

9,455

115.7%

0

0

3,274

14.4%

0

0

-100%

3,274

11.5%

342

0

2,303

-20.6%

0

0

-100%

2,645

-9.5%

0

0

-100.0%

31

-100.0%

0

0

31

-84.3%

869

-1.8%

25

-34.2%

1,024

70.7%

0

403

3258.3%

2,322

51.9%

$39,518

23.6%

$21,160

26.5%

$459,199

20.8%

$10,775

44.4%

$4,291

259.4%

$535,043

22.3%

NASA

DOE DHHS HRSA LABOR USDA OTHER TOTAL

Table 7 Federal Award Dollars by Sponsor and School FY10 and FY09 (000s)

Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. No federal funding was received by Administration

26


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Tables 7A and 7B show the schools that received ARRA funding from federal sponsors. As in FY09, NIH and NSF were the only federal agencies that awarded stimulus dollars to WU. Table 7B relates ARRA funding to the total federal dollars each School received.

FY10 Federal ARRA Sponsor

Arts & Sciences

Engineering

Medicine

Social Work

Other Schools

Total University

$92,310

NIH

$2,216

$2,668

$85,527

$1,509

NSF

5,328

308

585

0

$391 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$7,544

$2,976

$86,111

$1,509

$391

$98,530

Other Federal TOTAL

6,220

Table 7A Federal ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor and School – FY10 (000s) FY10 Federal ARRA School

Table 7B Federal ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor and School – FY10 (000s)

Federal Total

Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Social Work Other Schools TOTAL

Federal ARRA

ARRA as % of Federal Total

$39,518 21,160 459,299 10,775 4,291

$7,544 2,976 86,111 1,509 391

19.1% 14.1% 18.7% 14.0% 9.1%

$535,043

$98,530

18.4%

Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. No federal funding was received by Administration

27


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Government School/Dept.

Other Gov’t.

Federal FY10

Private

FY10

FY09

Industry

FY09

FY10

Total

Non-profit

FY09

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

Administration & Other

$3,569

$826

$99

$53

$10,363

$0

$62

$60

$14,094

$939

Arts & Sciences

39,518

31,974

1,246

734

1,073

2,528

5,157

7,688

46,993

42,924

Business

330

160

0

0

0

0

19

104

349

264

Sam Fox - Design & Visual Arts

224

0

0

0

0

0

49

0

273

0

21,160

16,731

1,679

1,796

3,220

1,620

2,565

3,863

28,624

24,010

168

209

0

65

0

4

102

317

270

595

459,299

380,075

20,249

15,613

10,748

14,097

105,833

74,130

596,130

483,915

10,775

7,460

1,531

401

64

467

7,185

6,407

19,555

14,735

$535,043 $437,435

$24,805

$18,662

$25,469

$18,715

$120,971

$92,570

$706,288

$567,383

Engineering Law Medicine Social Work Total

Table 8 Award Dollars by School or Department and Sponsor Type FY10 and FY09 (000s) Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools.

28


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Schools/Dept. Administration & Other Arts & Sciences

Government Other Federal Gov’t.

Private Industry

Non-profit

Total Total ARRA Funding for Department

ARRA as % of Total Dept.

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$14,094

0.0%

7,544

181

0

295

8,020

46,993

17.1%

Business

168

0

0

0

168

349

47.9%

Design & Visual Arts

224

0

0

0

224

273

82.0%

2,976

0

150

449

3,575

28,624

12.5%

0

0

0

76

76

270

28.0%

86,111

1,018

594

2,595

90,318

596,130

15.2%

1,509

1,144

0

0

2,653

19,555

13.6%

$98,530

$2,344

$744

$3,414

$105,033

$706,288

14.9%

Engineering Law Medicine Social Work Total

Table 8A ARRA Award Dollars (All Sources) by School or Department and Sponsor Type – FY10 (000s)

Notes: 1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. 2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers, including the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES). I-CARES received $12M in support from area corporations, some of which was subsequently allocated to one or more Schools.

29


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Department

(1)

Anthropology Applied Statistics (2) Art History & Archaeology Arts & Sciences Asian & Near Eastern Languages & Lit. Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Science Economics (2) Education English Graduate School History International Studies Mathematics Office of Undergraduate Research Performing Arts Philosophy Physics Political Sciences (incl. Weidenbaum Center) Psychology Romance Languages The Center For Humanities The Center for Joint Projects The Center for Materials Innovation The Center for Study of Human Values

Total

FY10 Government Private Federal Other Gov’t. Industry Non-profit 245 0 0 388 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 (259) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 137 9,195 554 675 981 5,715 0 2889 61 5,706 306 49 495 438 0 0 0 (59) 0 0 28 0 0 0 45 442 0 0 50 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 520 30 0 0 246 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 10,292 173 60 330 159 29 0 0 5,738 139 0 2,596 47 0 0 0 218 16 0 0 185 0 0 0 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 55

$39,518

$1,246

$1,073

$5,157

Total FY10 633 3 (259) 100 137 11,405 6,064 6,557 438 (32) 45 492 28 150 550 246 14 123 10,855 188 8,473 47 234 185 262 55

FY09 388 0 300 0 51 14,174 8,456 4,688 262 16 10 537 25 264 260 81 10 181 7,041 127 5,910 52 18 0 0 75

$46,993

$42,924

Table 9 School of Arts & Sciences – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type (000s) – FY10 and FY09 Only departments receiving awards in FY10 and/or FY09 are listed. As a result, some departments listed in the FY09 Annual Report may not be listed in FY10. Negative numbers are due to Department transferring funds to another Department. Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

(1) (2)

30


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding Table 9A shows the distribution of ARRA money to Arts & Sciences departments, and ARRA funding as a percentage of each department’s total funding and as a percentage of total funding to the School of Arts & Sciences.

FY10 Department

Anthropology

Total Department Awards

ARRA Awards

ARRA as % of Total Department

ARRA as % of Total School of A&S

$633

$82

12.9%

0.2%

11,405

1,820

16.0%

3.9%

Chemistry

6,064

725

12.0%

1.5%

Earth & Planetary Science

6,557

1,000

15.2%

2.1%

Economics

438

202

46.0%

0.4%

Mathematics

550

40

7.3%

0.1%

10,855

2,688

24.8%

5.7%

Psychology

8,473

1,464

17.3%

3.1%

Other Departments

2,018

0

0%

0%

$46,993

$8,020

Biology

Physics

Total

17.1%

Table 9A School of Arts & Sciences – ARRA Award Dollars by Department – FY10 (000s)

Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

31


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Government Department

Other Gov’t

Federal

Biomedical Engineering

Private Industry

Total

Non-profit

FY10

FY09

$12,434

$610

$291

$358

$13,693

$9,954

Computer Science & Engineering

4,059

487

940

986

6,472

5,670

Electrical & Systems Engineering

1,883

131

0

142

2,156

1,748

Environmental, Energy & Chemical Engineering

2,915

311

1,797

1,087

6,111

2,891

Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering

(130)

139

192

(9)

192

3,740

0

0

0

0

0

8

$21,160

$1,679

$3,220

$2,565

$28,624

$24,010

Other TOTAL

Table 10 School of Engineering – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type FY10 and FY09 (000s)

Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

32


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Table 10A shows the departments in the School of Engineering that received ARRA funding, and ARRA funding as a percentage of each department’s total funding and as a percentage of total funding to the School.

FY10 Department

Biomedical Engineering

Total Department Awards

ARRA Awards

ARRA as % of Total Department

ARRA as % of Total School

$13,693

$2,135

15.6%

7.5%

Computer Science & Engineering

6,472

465

7.2%

1.6%

Electrical & Systems Engineering

2,156

0

0%

0%

Environmental, Energy & Chemical Engineering

6,111

755

12.4%

2.6%

192

220

N/A See Note

0.8%

$28,624

$3,575

Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering Total School

12.5%

Table 10A School of Engineering – ARRA Award Dollars by Department – FY10 (000s)

Note: No percentage is given for MASE for “ARRA as % of Total Department” due to the Department’s expensing dollars to other Departments.

33


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

Departments Anatomy & Neurobiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Developmental Biology Genetics Molecular Microbiology Subtotal Preclinical Anesthesiology Internal Medicine Neurological Surgery Neurology Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopaedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiation Oncology (1) Radiology Surgery Subtotal Clinical (2) Administration Biology/Biomedical Sciences Biostatistics Center for Clinical Studies Center For Health Behavior Research Center For Study Of Health Policy Div Of Comparative Medicine Emergency Medicine Medical Library Microarray Facility Occupational Therapy Physical Therapy Siteman Cancer Center Subtotal Other Admin/Academic Grand Total

Government Other Federal Gov't $14,419 $88 5,855 453 8,187 0 6,845 0 65,631 990 14,522 0 115,460 1,530 8,733 21 100,245 4,739 964 9 21,496 943 2,426 119 10,503 0 5,743 28 6,222 212 35,204 212 23,397 4,290 39,700 4,712 ,8512 37 26,755 1,502 30,909 741 310,809 17,565 14,353 0 4,827 0 3,358 494 346 0 1,541 0 0 0 0 0 295 0 0 126 75 0 1,479 518 2,201 16 4,227 0 33,030 1,154 $459,299 $20,249

Private NonIndustry profit $0 $596 272 340 0 903 0 1,958 72 21,921 0 839 345 26,558 0 977 3,034 29,986 90 649 1,534 6,068 (1) 5,336 0 2,232 408 1,224 96 203 4,454 8,088 576 8,746 988 2,653 293 537 1,208 2,896 795 7,079 13,475 76,174 (3,108) 83 0 166 27 641 0 13 0 528 0 0 10 0 0 66 0 52 0 0 0 592 0 225 0 735 (3,071) 3,101 $10,748 $105,833

Total FY10

FY09

$15,104 6,921 9,090 8,803 88,614 15,361 143,983 9,731 138,005 1,713 30,041 7,879 12,735 7,403 6,732 47,957 37,010 48,053 9,378 31,861 29,524 418,023 11,328 4,992 4,520 359 2,069 0 10 361 177 75 2,589 2,443 4,963 34,214 $596,130

$11,595 6,675 9,448 7,103 60,176 10,666 105,662 7,393 114,558 2,184 26,255 7,641 9,974 5,329 5,273 37,399 33,221 38,272 6,576 31,411 26,986 352,472 1,921 4,882 4,222 2,339 3,435 124 0 422 107 0 1,651 2,380 4,298 25,781 $483,915

Table 11 School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type FY10 and FY09 (000s) (1) Radiology includes Research Imaging Facilities (2) Administration includes: Continuing Medical Education, Associate Dean Curriculum, Student Support, and Medical School Administration. Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.

34


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Funding

FY09 Departments

Total Awards

ARRA

ARRA as % of Total Awards

Anatomy & Neurobiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Developmental Biology Genetics Molecular Microbiology

$15,104 6,921 9,090 8,803 88,614 15,361

$2,126 620 1,693 891 13,601 2,227

14.1% 9.0% 18.6% 10.1% 15.3% 14.5%

Subtotal Preclinical Anesthesiology Internal Medicine Neurology Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopaedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Surgery Other Clinical Departments Subtotal Clinical Biostatistics Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Medical School Admin. (Administration(1)) Physical Therapy Research Imaging Facilities Siteman Cancer Center Other Admin/Academic Subtotal Other Admin/Academic

143,893 9,731 138,005 30,041 7,879 12,735 7,403 6,732 47,957 37,010 48,053 9,378 31,861 29,524 1,713 418,023 4,520 4,992 11,242 2,443 328 4,963 5,726 34,214

21,158 1,895 18,075 1,631 18 2,858 1,096 1,001 8,150 3,190 7,253 2,808 2,291 1,954 0 52,221 1,033 215 14,273 788 328 250 0 16,939

14.7% 19.5% 13.1% 5.4% 0.2% 22.4% 14.8% 14.9% 17.0% 8.6% 15.1% 29.9% 7.2% 6.6% 0% 12.5% 22.9% 4.3% 127.0% 32.2% 100.0% 5.0% 0% 49.5%

$596,130

$90,318

15.2%

Grand Total

Table 11A School of Medicine ARRA Award Dollars by Department – FY10 (000s) Administration includes: Continuing Medical Education, Associate Dean Curriculum, Student Support, and Medical School Administration. Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total. (1)

35


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Office of Technology Management Executive Summary The mission of the Office of Technology Management (OTM) is to extend the value of Washington University in St. Louis’ (WU) research to the community through a technology management program that stimulates industrial research funding and promotes the commercialization of intellectual property assets through licensing and new venture creation. OTM strives to be a “full service” technology management office by providing the following activities and services: processing and review of invention disclosures; protection of intellectual property and management of the WU patent portfolio; licensing of intellectual property and distribution of licensing revenue; material transfer management; negotiation of industry sponsored research agreements confidentiality agreements and inter-institutional agreements. Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) saw disclosures and patent filings down from FY09, but at the same levels as previous years (Table 1). License Agreements remained similar to past years, however several past licenses were terminated due primarily to the economic downturn, and looking forward it has become more difficult to finalize licenses. Revenue for FY10 was down from previous years due primarily to the patent expiration of the CKMB technologies and loss of the associated royalty revenues and a one-time royalty buy-down payment of $6M in FY08 for tropanon and myoglobin technologies. Invention Disclosures US/PCT Patents Filed License Agreements MTAs -Academic -Industry Revenue Industry Sponsored Research

FY10 104 76 41 718 61 $6.4M 41

FY09 125 106 44 817 62 $7.9M 53

FY08 98 94 42 674 51 $17.0M 72

FY07 101 75 45 749 55 $12.0M 60

Table 1 OTM Statistics – FY10 through FY07 The OTM staff consists of 20 full-time employees. As in years past, this year OTM continued its technology transfer trainee program designed for advanced-degree WU students to acquire a hands-on experience in technology transfer. Four candidates have completed the program and two are currently participating. In FY10, the co-Directorship of OTM ended with the departure of Mike Marrah from WU. Going forward, Brad Castanho is the sole Director of OTM. OTM remains active in the community through its involvement through such organizations as the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association, BioGenerator, Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center Alliance, Center of Research, Technology & Entrepreneurial Exchange, Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences, Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise, Center for Emerging Technologies, MO Bio Laboratories, Inc., Missouri Venture Forum, Midwest Research Universities Network, and the Research Alliance of Missouri. Involvement with these various organizations

36


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management extends the mission of WU to local, state, and regional levels. In its relationships with these organizations, OTM works to build the economy and to develop channels for commercializing WU technologies. In FY10 WU technology was licensed to two start-up companies which are located in the St. Louis area. OTM staff members work continuously with the Business School’s entrepreneurship program and the larger Kaufmann Foundation (e.g., iBridge) entrepreneurship undertaking. Additionally in FY10 OTM participated in The Innovation Acceleration Partnership fellowship program, funded by the National Science Foundation and designed to introduce researchers to aspects of commercialization within an academic/industry partnership environment. OTM, working with the Small Business Association in Missouri, sponsored another FastTrac training program for WU faculty. Nine faculty attended the eight week program and in the last four years nearly forty faculty have been through this entrepreneurial training program developed by the Kaufmann Foundation. OTM also continued its administration of the Bear Cub Fund grant program that WU reinstated in FY08. The fund supports innovative translational research not normally backed by federal grants. Any WU faculty member, post-doctoral fellow, graduate student or employee can apply. In the fall of 2009, WU awarded five Bear Cub Fund grants totaling $165,000 to support innovative research projects that could be attractive for licensing by commercial entities or serve as the foundation for a start-up company. The grants were awarded to: Dennis Hallahan, MD, professor of radiation oncology; Eric Leuthardt, MD, assistant professor of neurological surgery; Jerry Morrissey, PhD, research professor of anesthesiology; Linda Sandell, PhD, professor of orthopedic surgery; and Patrick Crowley, PhD, associate professor of computer science and engineering.

37


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Technology Highlights for Fiscal Year 2010 Brain-Computer Interface This technology and related patents have been licensed to a St. Louis startup: Neurolutions, Inc. Using electrocorticographic (ECoG ) activity, Eric Leuthardt has been able to record much finer analysis of signals from the brain, subsequently using the brain signals to control the cursor on a computer screen or a controller for prosthetics. The system has promise for prosthetic control, epilepsy warning and control, as well as bisomatic control. Primary Investigator: Eric Leuthardt, Neurosurgery. Low-Voltage Cardiac Defibrillation This technology and related patents have been licensed to a St. Louis startup: Cardialen, Inc. By determining the exact positioning of the rotating wave that causes both ventricular and atrial fibrillation, a very low voltage can be applied to decouple the rotating wave and restore the heart to normal sinus rhythm. The first application will be in controlling atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, with planned expansion into ventricular defibrillation. Primary Investigator: Igor Efimov, Biomedical Engineering. Anodized Pedicle Screws By anodizing pedicle screws to a particular pattern, a controlled voltage can be applied in a directional way to promote bone growth and healing after spinal surgery. Primary Investigator: Eric Leuthardt, Neurosurgery. Cardiac Imaging By using new analysis and computation techniques, coupled with existing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) techniques, a clear picture of the expansion and contraction of the heart can be made. The resulting precise image can be used clinically by cardiologists and surgeons to determine the proper type of treatment. Primary Investigator: Michael Pasque, Surgery. Dichromic Fluorescent Compounds It has been discovered that structural asymmetry of chromic compounds results in the generation of dichromic emissions that have distinct lifetimes. Because the fluorescent lifetimes of the two peaks are distinct, the information content may be multiplexed. The dichromic fluorescent compounds may advantageously be utilized for several applications including imaging, diagnostics, to monitor biological events, and for detecting and monitoring molecular processes. Primary Investigator: Samuel Achilefu, Radiology. Novel Treatment for Sepsis and Cancer A large technology estate has been developed for treating sepsis and cancer using siRNA molecules to inhibit or activate certain pro-apoptotic or anti-apoptotic genes. Several collaborations involving WU investigators are currently occurring to study different targets, molecule designs, and delivery techniques. Primary Investigator: Jonathan McDunn, Surgery.

38


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Breast Cancer Prognostic Screen Methods for deriving a minimal "intrinsic" gene set for making biological classifications of breast cancer and using "intrinsic" genes in a real-time qRT-PCR assay for breast cancer classification, prognosis and/or treatment. Primary Investigator: Matthew Ellis, Oncology/Endocrinology Surgery. Novel Murine Norovirus (MNV) This technology has continued to gain traction in mouse diagnostics and is currently being evaluated as a surrogate virus for testing commercial disinfectants. To date, two patents have been issued for detection of MNV antibody in a mouse and a virus culture system. A further set of claims for detection of MNV nucleic acid in mouse tissues is pending. Primary Investigator: Herbert Virgin, Immunobiology. Combination Diagnostic/Therapeutic Nanoparticle Technologies WU holds an estate of patents describing (1) various proprietary nanoparticles that can serve as imaging agents and simultaneous drug delivery vehicles, (2) novel compounds that can be specifically and selectively delivered from lipid bilayer nanoparticles, and (3) attachment ligands that serve to functionalize the nanoparticles with targeted ligands or drug payload. These technologies may provide the basis for a platform system to detect and treat cancer or atheroscerlosis using a number of imaging modalities. Primary Investigators: Samuel Wickline and Greg Lanza, Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Division. Limiting CD47 or Blocking Thrombospondin-1 Reverses the Detrimental Effects on Tissue Healing and Blood Flow This technology has demonstrated that certain monoclonal antibodies and possibly other compounds allow for more effective wound healing and graft survival in animal models. This joint collaboration with the NIH is also ideally positioned for further translational studies to create and identify new therapeutic compounds. Primary Investigator: William Frazier, Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics. Golgicide A (GCA), a Novel Inhibitor of Intracellular Transport GCA is a small molecule compound that was identified in a chemical screening. Surprisingly, there has been no mention of GCA compounds anywhere in the literature. This compound inhibits the transportation of shiga and related toxins into cells. The technology is currently being expanded to identify other compounds and other indications. Primary Investigator: David Haslam, Pediatrics. Neimann Pick C Disease Marker A novel marker to detect Neimann Pick C (NPC), a fatal neurodegenerative disease, has been discovered. This discovery demonstrates the first and only plasma biomarker that has been discovered for this orphan disease. Certain NPC organizations have already shown interest in this technology and have provided funding to further examine NPC. Primary Investigator: Daniel Ory, Internal Medicine - Cardiovascular Division.

39


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management

Natriuretic Peptide-Mediated Imaging and/or Treatment of Atherosclerotic Plaque This invention includes a functionalized peptide that preferentially binds to unstable plaque. Imaging of unstable plaque may identify areas of imminent plaque rupture so that corrective action can be taken before a catastrophic event occurs. Primary Investigator: Pamela Woodard, Radiology. Phosphorylation of Beta-Catenin at Serine-191 and Serine-605 as a Biomarker for Active Wnt Signaling Phosphorylation of beta-catenin on serine residues 191 and 605 controls nuclear localization of beta-catenin during canonical Wnt signaling. Canonical Wnt signaling through beta-catenin plays an important role in development and diseases, for instance in certain types of cancers and other diseases associated with cellular proliferation. Antibodies specifically recognizing these phosphorylation events have been generated and are being tested as an efficient method to identify cells undergoing active Wnt signaling, both in breast cancer cell lines and biopsies. Primary Investigator: Fanxin Long, Internal Medicine, Bone and Mineral Diseases. Method of Treating Pruritus Itch, or pruritus, is an unpleasant sensation that causes the desire to scratch, associated with many conditions such as liver disease or kidney dialysis, can find no relief for the problem. Pruritus is also a serious condition experienced by animals. The present invention provides methods for treating pruritus by providing methods of substantially inhibiting the activation of bombesin receptors or by killing GRPR specific neurons in the spinal cord. Mitigation of itch through either of these mechanisms does not affect motor or sensory functions. Primary Investigator: ZhouFeng Chen, Anesthesiology. Adoptive T Cell Immunotherapy Rapid expansion and selection method that generates highly effective, clonally expanded T cell for use in cancer therapies. The technology is moving toward human clinical trials. The Biogenerator is in discussions to move the technology forward into the commercial field. Primary Investigator: Gerald Linette, Surgery. Novel Virus Discovery Program Several nucleic acid fragments of novel viruses have been discovered in disease samples of unknown etiology. Over the next few years, the study of these novel fragments should result in nearly complete genome and protein characterizations of several novel human viral pathogens. The novel sequences may be used in diagnostic tests or vaccines production. Primary Investigator: Herbert Virgin, David Wang, Pathology.

40


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Blood Brain Barrier Protein used to Image Alzheimer’s Brains This permeant peptide has been successfully shown to bind to plaque in the brains of mice expressing Alzheimer proteins and in post-mortem Alzheimer brains. Current research is using the peptide for nanospect imaging to non-invasively view brain plaque in Alzheimers mice. Primary Investigator: David Piwnica-Worms, Radiology. Effective Anti-integrin Antitumor Reagent for Chrondrosarcoma Chondrosarcoma is a difficult musculoskeletal tumor to treat. Chemotherapy is only somewhat effective in mesenchymal chondrosarcoma and is of uncertain value in dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. Surgical excision is the only tumor treatment, but it leads to severe disability with high rate of local recurrence, often at a higher grade, and can thus be life threatening. Radiation and adjuvant therapy are not effective in differentiated chondrosarcoma. More effective antitumor reagents for chondrosarcoma are needed. The present invention utilizes an anti-integrin reagent which has chondrosarcoma tumor cell killing activity in vitro. Promising animal data indicates that this is also true in vivo. Primary Investigator: Linda Sandell, Orthopaedic Surgery Anticonvulsant And Anxiolytic Lactam And Thiolactam Derivatives This invention relates to lactam and thiolactam derivatives having useful anticonvulsant and anxiolytic activity, pharmaceutical compositions containing these compounds and therapeutic applications using such compositions. Convulsant seizures occur in various chronic central nervous system (CNS) disorders, particularly epilepsies. These seizures are generally correlated with abnormal and excessive EEG (electroencephalogram) discharges. A variety of drugs have been used for treatment of these seizures. The compounds covered under this patent significantly enhance GABA neuronal inhibition and are more active anticonvulsant and anxiolytic agents than prior art lactones and thiolactones. Further, these lactams and thiolactams have been found to have relatively low toxicity and low sedative activity. Primary Investigator: Doug Covey, Developmental Biology Methods Of Prevention And Treatment Of Ischemic Damage The present invention in various embodiments provides methods of treating stroke and conferring protection on a population of cells associated with ischemia in a subject following an ischemic event, comprising: (a) providing an estrogen compound; and (b) administering the effective amount of the compound over a course that includes at least one dose within a time that is effectively proximate to the ischemic event, so as to confer protection on the population of cells. Novel methods are provided for the delivery of an estrogen compound. Examples of ischemic events treatable according to the invention are cerebrovascular disease or stroke, subarachnoid subhemorrhage, myocardial infarct, surgery and trauma. A method of treating ischemic damage utilizing hormones that are non-sex hormones is also provided. A method of treating stroke with ent-17.beta.-estradiol, and a method of synthesis, and compounds produced from the synthesis are provided. Primary Investigator: Doug Covey, Developmental Biology

41


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Neuroactive 13, 24-Cyclo-18, 21-Dinorcholanes And Structurally Related Pentacyclic Steroids The present invention is directed to novel pentacyclic steroids and novel pentacyclic Dhomosteroids that have utility as anesthetics and in the treatment of disorders relating to GABA function and activity. In addition to anesthetic properties, neuroactive steroids may be used to treat disorders related to GABA function. For example, neuroactive steroids may be used as sedative-hypnotics e.g. insomnia, mood disorders, convulsive disorders, anxiety, or symptoms of ethanol withdrawal. These agents act by enhancing GABA.sub.A receptor desensitization and display different degrees of enantioselectivity. These compounds may be useful as memory enhancers and in reversing the anesthetic effects of compounds that potentiate GABA at GABA.sub.A receptors. Primary Investigator: Doug Covey, Developmental Biology Novel genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s Disease progression Researchers at WU have identified a novel genetic variant that strongly correlates with Alzheimer’s disease progression. Dr. Alison Goate and collaborators used an established biomarker for the decline of AD patients (cerebrospinal fluid tau phosphorylated at threonine 181, ptau181) to find genetic variants that influence levels of ptau181 in the cerebrospinal fluid. The study found a highly significant association between ptau181levels and the rs1868402 SNP located within a regulatory subunit of PPP3R1 (calcineurin B), a gene previously linked to AD pathogenesis. Carriers of the rs1868402 risk allele showed a 6-fold faster rate of disease progression than AD patients without the variant. Direct examination of brain samples from AD cases and controls revealed that rs1868402is in fact associated with reduced PPP3R1 mRNA levels and increased tangle formation, providing biological validation for the genomewide association study and further implicating PPP3R1 in disease pathology. As the first genetic variant associated with rate of AD progression to be reported, its use in clinical trial design and patient care will translate into a significant benefit to patients. Primary Investigator: Alison Goate, Psychiatry Blood A production and clearance measurements as a diagnostic test for amyloidosis and Alzheimer's disease Previous work from the Bateman and Holtzman labs have demonstrated clinical utility in measuring the synthesis and clearance rates of the amyloid-beta (Aβ) protein as a biomarker for efficacy of candidate Alzheimer’s drugs that target the protein. In a completely distinct invention, the labs have demonstrated the ability to detect changes in Aβ in blood plasma, an assay that has utility for assessing drug candidates as well as diagnostic applications. Primary Investigator: Randy Bateman, Neurology and Dave Holtzman, Neurology Novel Antithrombin Nanoceutical for Preventing Blood Clots The current invention comprises a first-in-class nanoparticulate antithrombotic that features a potent dual antithrombin/antiplatelet compound linked to a nanoparticle to function as a single unit or drug. Advantages of this novel agent include (1) prolonged activity of drug at the nanoparticle surface and only at the site of active clotting, (2) potential for image-based detection and tracking of the agent and the acute thrombotic process, (3) the elimination of harmful side effects after systemic delivery through the use of smaller drug amounts featuring site-specific 42


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management thrombin targeting and action, (4) well defined pharmacokinetics that are driven by the nanoparticle itself and are independent of a subject’s genetics, and (5) the ability to multiplex any other anticoagulant that is already on the market or in development for combination therapeutics. Studies indicate the nanoceutical outperforms standard heparin treatment, by increasing the time to total occlusion by more than 40%. Primary Investigator: Samuel Wickline, Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Division. Novel Compounds to Treat Urinary Tract Infection Urinary tract infections (UTI) affect a large proportion of the population and account for significant morbidity and high medical costs. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) is responsible for up to 85% of infections and a large percentage of recurrent UTI are caused by the same strain of bacteria as the initial UTI despite the antibiotic regimen; the current gold standard. The annual UTI incidence rate is 12.1% in women and 3% among men. Recurrence rates are high with women having a 25% to 44% chance of developing a second episode within 6 months of the initial UTI. Treatment of UTI like other microbial infections is exacerbated by increasing antimicrobial resistance and there is a huge unmet need for alternative therapies. Novel patented compounds such as Pilicides and Mannosides disrupt pili biogenesis and host-pathogen interaction to effectively block disease progression. Primary Investigators : Scott Hultgren, Molecular Microbiology and James Janetka, Biochemistry Macrocyclic Molecular Beacons The cyclization of fluorescent probes through bioactive molecules creates new compounds with a rigid structural framework. This agent retains the binding properties of the peptide while the photophysical characteristics of the optical probe may be altered. The constrained conformation of the peptide conjugate modifies the selectivity of the receptor. Use of this agent can lend insight into biological activities and facilitate the creation of disease-specific drugs. The current invention describes novel bioactive near infrared (NIR) macrocyclic optical compounds whose biological and spectral properties can be enhanced through bioactive peptide-mediated cyclization. Primary Investigator: Samuel Achilefu, Radiology Fluorescent Polymethine Cyanine Dyes The present invention provides compounds that possess a robust C-C bond containing near infrared chromophore as optical antenna. The C-C bond allows the development of stable dyes for imaging and monitoring biological events such as disease-associated enzymatic activity. This novel molecular design offers superior chemical stability for biomedical and analytical applications. Because of the biological stability, changes in spectral properties can be attributed accurately to target biological processes such as monitoring disease-associated enzymatic activity. The C-C coupled dyes also allows for extended pi-bond conjugation, thereby enabling the use of new designs to obtain diagnostically useful spectral information such as pH-sensitive response in solid tumors. Primary Investigator : Samuel Achilefu, Radiology

43


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Compounds Having Rd Targeting Motifs The present invention provides compounds that have motifs that target the compounds to cells that express integrins. In particular, the compound shave peptides with one or more RD motifs conjugated to an agent selected from an imaging agent and a targeting agent. These compounds may be used to detect, monitor, and treat a variety of integrin-mediated biological processes, including the progression of disease states such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, inflammation and cancer. Primary Investigator : Samuel Achilefu, Radiology Two Novel Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma Urinary aquaporin-I (AQP-1) and adipose differentiation-related protein (ADFP) as biomarkers of kidney cancer. This is a new process, applicable to humans, for 1) early and noninvasive detection of renal cancer, 2) population screening for renal cancer, 3) post-treatment surveillance for recurrence of renal cancer, 4) progression, regression or time-course of disease in untreated, partially treated, and definitively treated patients with renal cancer. The process is noninvasive, using readily available biological fluids such as urine and possibly blood. The proteins AQP-2 and ADFP are over-expressed in renal cancer tissue. These proteins may be shed into urine. The invention, per se, is a method (Western blot analysis or ELISA) for the sensitive detection and quantification of AQP-2 and ADFP in human urine, a readily available biological fluid, and the application of this assay for the detection and diagnosis of renal cancer, population screening for kidney cancer, surveillance for recurrence following or during treatment, and determining success of treatment and assessment of prognosis. Primary Investigator: Evan Kharasch, Anesthesiology

44


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Bear Cub Fund In the Fall of 2009, WU awarded five Bear Cub Fund grants totaling $165,000 to support innovative research projects that could be attractive for licensing by commercial entities or serve as the foundation for a start-up company. The grants were awarded to: Dennis Hallahan, MD, professor of radiation oncology; Eric Leuthardt, MD, assistant professor of neurological surgery; Jerry Morrissey, PhD, research professor of anesthesiology; Linda Sandell, PhD, professor of orthopedic surgery; and Patrick Crowley, PhD, associate professor of computer science and engineering. Dennis Hallahan is studying cancer cells that produce neoantigens after radiation treatment. Over 700 monoclonal antibodies against various neoantigens have been discovered. The lead antibodies target the radiation inducible antigens TIP-1, GP78 and CRT. The goal of this study is to demonstrate that the anti-TIP-1 antibodies specifically bind to cancer cells after glioblastoma, nonsmall cell lung cancer, and pancreatic cancer patients receive radiation treatment. Patients with hydrocephalus often develop a malfunction of cerebrospinal fluid shunts which is a life threatening issue that typically can be difficult to diagnose. Eric Leuthardt is developing a prototype device (Baric Probe) that is an implantable intracranial pressure monitor that can be easily and non窶進nvasively observed by external ultrasound. The goal of this project is to demonstrate that the Baric Probe works in an animal model. Evan Kharasch and Jerry Morrissey have observed that increased levels of aquaporin-1 (AQP-1) and adipophilin (ADFP) in the urine are specific biomarkers and early indicators of kidney cancer. The goal of this work is to develop monoclonal antibodies against AQP-1 and ADFP and to develop a specific ELISA assay for both proteins which could be used to diagnosis patients with early stage kidney cancer. Linda Sandell is exploiting the anti-tumor and anti-angiogenic effects of Chondrostatin in cartilage. A xenograft mouse model for fast-growing breast cancer tumor indicates that chrondrostatin treatment greatly reduces the size of the tumor. In addition, chrondrostatin specifically kills chondrosarcoma cell lines. The goal of this study is to illustrate that commercially produced chrondrostatin will reduce chondrosarcoma and breast cancer tumor size in animals. Patrick Crowley developed several high-speed implementations of a pattern search mechanism, to identify computer viruses and worms. This invention should reduce the memory resources needed to scan for patterns and increase the number of patterns stored in the memory of the system. The goal of this project is to develop an operational system that will integrate the packetsearch subsystem with a known processing platform (i.e., Linux) and demonstrate that the subsystem improves the performance of the processing platform. Since 2008, Bear Cub has reviewed 61 projects and funded 14. Total funding over this period has been $465,000.

45


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management More information about the Bear Cub grants can be found at http://research.wustl.edu/Offices_Committees/OTM/faculty/Pages/TranslationalResearch.aspx #bear_cub.

46


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Invention Disclosures Under the University’s Intellectual Property (IP) policy, creators are required to disclose to OTM inventions made using significant University resources and/or pursuant to a research project funded through corporate, federal, or other external sponsors. OTM evaluates each new disclosure for its potential commercial value and for the best modes of intellectual property protection and commercialization. For some disclosures copyright protection is most appropriate, such as computer software or questionnaires, for others patent protection is sought and still others may be commercialized without filing for a patent. For record-keeping purposes, OTM tracks disclosures as either copyright or inventions. During Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10), OTM received a total of 104 new disclosures from 24 different departments. This was a decrease of 20% from FY09. Of these disclosures, 79% originated in the School of Medicine, 17% from the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and 4% from the School of Arts & Sciences. Table 2 below shows invention disclosures by school, and Table 3 on the following page shows invention disclosures by department.

Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Architecture Law School Total

FY10 4 18 82 0 0 104

FY09 9 17 96 3 0 125

FY08 6 13 79 0 0 98

FY07 6 13 81 0 1 101

Table 2 Invention Disclosures by School – FY10 through FY07

47


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Mathematics Physics Psychology Arts & Sciences Total School of Engineering Biomedical Engineering Computer Science & Engineering Electrical & Systems Engineering Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering Engineering Total School of Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Biostatistics Cell Biology & Physiology Developmental Biology Genetics Internal Medicine Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurological Surgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Physical Therapy Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Siteman Cancer Center Surgery Medicine Total School of Architecture Architecture Architecture Total School of Law Law Law Total Total

FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

2 1 0 0 1 0 4

6 2 0 0 1 0 9

4 0 0 1 0 1 6

3 0 1 0 2 0 6

11 2 2 3 0 18

10 1 0 4 2 17

9 0 0 0 4 13

2 3 1 5 2 13

3 5 4 1 0 2 0 18 4 6 7 1 4 1 1 3 5 1 1 4 6 0 5 82

0 7 2 0 0 4 3 17 3 8 3 1 1 0 4 13 4 0 0 7 13 0 6 96

0 4 4 0 0 5 2 24 0 5 1 0 3 1 1 7 2 0 3 2 10 0 5 79

0 3 3 0 1 7 2 22 3 6 2 0 4 2 1 3 1 2 2 0 5 0 12 81

0 0

3 3

0 0

0 0

0 0 104

0 0 125

0 0 98

1 1 101

Table 3 Invention Disclosures by Department – FY10 through FY07 48


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Patent Portfolio When OTM decides to pursue patent protection for an invention, a U.S. provisional patent application is usually filed. 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. OTM filed provisional patent applications for 33 of the 104 invention disclosures received in FY10. After the one year provisional period, OTM will have the opportunity to file or convert the provisional application into a non-provisional application that will be examined by the patent office before being granted. A non-provisional application can be filed in the U.S. with the World Intellectual Property Organization as a PCT international application and/or in individual foreign countries. The decision of when and where to file such applications are a part of OTM’s management of the University’s IP portfolio. During FY09, OTM filed 26 non-provisional patent applications. OTM’s management of the University’s patent portfolio also includes ongoing communication with external patent counsel and patent office staff while an application is being examined, maintenance of issued patents, and payment of required fees. To date the OTM manages a portfolio of 674 pending patent applications and 1344 issued patents (858 US patents and 486 foreign patents). In FY10 the University had 35 patents issued, 17 issued by the US patent office and 18 issued by foreign patent offices. In total, OTM invested over $2M in the management of the University patent portfolio in FY10.

Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Total

FY10 7 15 54 76

FY09 4 20 82 106

FY08 3 7 84 94

FY07 3 13 59 75

Table 4 U.S. Patent Applications by School – FY10 through FY07

49


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Mathematics Physics Psychology Arts & Sciences Total School of Engineering Biomedical Engineering Computer Science & Engineering Electrical & Systems Engineering Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering Engineering Total School of Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Developmental Biology Genetics Internal Medicine Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurological Surgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Physical Therapy Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Siteman Cancer Center Surgery Medicine Total Total

FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

2 2 0 1 2 0 7

2 0 0 1 0 1 4

3 0 0 0 0 0 3

3 0 0 0 0 0 3

13 0 1 0 1 15

15 0 0 3 2 20

5 2 0 0 0 7

3 4 1 2 3 13

0 2 3 0 5 2 13 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 11 0 4 54 76

1 3 4 0 8 2 21 2 11 2 0 1 0 0 8 1 1 3 1 9 0 4 82 106

2 1 6 2 9 1 18 4 8 7 0 3 1 0 3 5 0 2 0 9 0 3 84 94

0 2 6 0 1 3 18 5 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 10 0 3 59 75

Table 5 U.S. Patent Applications by Department – FY10 through FY07

50


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Licenses OTM seeks to put the University’s inventions and discoveries into the hands of the public. Sometimes this means sharing our inventions with other non-profit organizations for free and other times this means licensing them out to corporate entities in exchange for fees and/or royalties. Patented and unpatented inventions are transferred to industry through a variety of licensing arrangements. Some of the licensing or license-related arrangements OTM enters into are as follows: Evaluation & Option Agreement: • Gives a company a time-limited (generally six months to a year) “preview” of the invention for the purpose of deciding whether to take a license. Non-Exclusive License Agreement: • Fee- and royalty-bearing license: rights are granted to commercialize the technology, may be granted to multiple licensees. • Paid-up license: a non-exclusive license granted 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 that is generally licensed to commercial entities for a fee. Exclusive License Agreement: • A fee- and royalty-bearing exclusive license; grants a licensee the sole right to commercialize a technology (may include sublicensing rights). License agreements may be limited to a particular field of use or geographic area. They also often vary in terms of amount of fees and royalties due, milestones to be achieved by the company, and length of the agreement. While the majority of licenses granted by the University are to existing commercial companies, the University is also actively supporting and encouraging the creation of new business ventures in St. Louis by licensing technology to start-up companies. In FY10 the University entered into 10 Evaluation and Option Agreements. This year the University also granted a total of 41 revenue-generating licenses, 6 exclusive and 35 non-exclusive. The table below shows the number of revenue-generating licenses by School. This result is remarkable considering the downturn in the global economy and continuation of company mergers and downsizing. FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

Arts & Sciences

0

0

0

0

Engineering

3

2

3

0

38

41

38

45

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

41

44

42

45

Medicine Law Social Work Total

Table 6 Licenses by School – FY10 through FY07 51


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Mathematics Physics Psychology Arts & Sciences Total School of Engineering Biomedical Engineering Computer Science & Engineering Electrical & Systems Engineering Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering Engineering Total School of Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Biostatistics Cell Biology & Physiology Developmental Biology Genetics Internal Medicine Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurological Surgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Siteman Cancer Center Surgery Medicine Total School of Law Law Law Total School of Social Work Social Work Social Work Total Total Licenses

FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 1 0 3

2 0 0 0 0 2

0 2 0 0 1 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 1 2 2 0 6 4 1 8 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 38

1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 4 1 0 1 0 5 14 1 1 2 2 0 2 41

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 1 6 15 0 1 0 1 0 1 38

1 0 1 0 1 4 1 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 17 2 2 0 0 0 3 45

0 0

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 0 41

1 1 44

0 0 42

0 0 45

Table 7 Licenses by Department – FY10 through FY07 52


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management License Revenue The OTM staff manages a total of 1892 active license agreements. This includes monitoring the licensee’s business development and compliance of performance milestones, coordinating patent prosecution, processing license income, and distributing revenue according to the University’s IP policy. Under most revenue-generating licenses, OTM receives gross licensing income in the form of license fees, maintenance fees, milestone payments, and earned royalties on sales of products or services. In addition, the University collects patent expense reimbursement from some licensees, particularly when the license is exclusive. The University received $6.4M in total licensing revenue in FY10. Revenues generated by each school were as follows: School of Medicine ..................................................... $4.9M School of Engineering and Applied Sciences .......$1.13M School of Arts and Sciences ...................................... $0.3M

Arts & Sciences Engineering Law Medicine Social Work Totals

FY10 $326,470 1,134,545 0 4,891,770 0 $6,352,784

FY09 FY08 FY07 $437,028 $1,762,509 $312,773 1,064,222 1,291,326 1,054,607 0 8,568 0 6,419,449 13,952,595 10,642,473 0 0 0 $7,920,699 $17,014,998 $12,009,853

Table 8 License Revenue by School – FY10 through FY07

53


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management

Fiscal Year 10 Arts & Sciences

Engineering

Medicine

Total

Income $297,025

$844,236

$3,887,334

$5,028,595

Expense Reimbursements OTM Current FY (External)

31,984

236,528

997,599

1,266,112

Expense Reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External)

(2,540)

53,781

6,837

58,078

326,470

1,134,545

4,891,770

6,352,784

Legal

73,253

320,896

1,669,586

2,063,735

Other

0

14

236

250

73,253

320,910

1,669,822

2,063,984

Distribution to Inventors

110,508

458,883

1,792,134

2,361,526

Distribution to Schools (Lic. Income)

125,730

340,352

1,577,070

2,043,152

42,500

0

116,182

Licensing Income

Subtotal Income Expenses

Subtotal Expenses Distributions

Distribution to Third Parties

Subtotal Distributions Contributions to OTM Operations

278,738 ($25,521)

799,236 $14,399

3,485,386 ($263,438)

158,682

4,563,360 ($274,560)

Table 9 Technology Transfer Activity by School – FY10

FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

Income Licensing Income Expense reimbursements OTM Current FY (External) Expense reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External)

Subtotal Income Expenses Legal

$5,028,595

$6,301,462

$15,715,818

$10,388,459

1,266,112

1,336,650

937,625

1,401,739

282,586

361,554

219,655

58,078

6,352,784 2,063,735

Other

7,920,699 17,014,998 12,009,853 2,206,994

2,271,787

2,113,917

250

520

758

331

2,063,984

2,207,513

2,272,545

2,114,248

Distribution to inventors

2,361,526

2,630,409

7,177,024

4,658,904

Distribution to schools (Lic. Income)

2,043,152

2,527,568

6,787,846

4,172,039

158,682

299,638

759,070

664,687

5,457,615 14,723,940 $255,571 $18,513

9,495,631 $399,974

Subtotal Expenses Distributions

Distribution to third parties

Subtotal Distributions Contribution to OTM operations

4,563,360 ($274,560)

Table 10 Technology Transfer Activity – FY10 through FY07

54


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements by School Industry sponsored research plays a key role in the technology transfer process. OTM negotiates, executes, and manages all industry sponsored research agreements (SRAs) where the sponsor is a for-profit entity and the research does not involve human subjects (i.e., not federally funded or a clinical trial). In FY10, the University entered into 41 industry sponsored research agreements. The number of SRAs is down from previous years most likely due to the economy and the reductions by industry for such funding. A major accomplishment in FY10 was the establishment of a new Pfizer Master Research Agreement. FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

Arts & Sciences

0

3

5

5

Engineering

6

10

15

4

35

40

52

51

0

0

0

0

41

53

72

60

Medicine Social Work Total

Table 11 Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements by School – FY10 through FY07

55


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management

Department/School Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry Earth & Planetary Sciences Physics Psychology Arts & Sciences Total Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering Computer Science & Engineering Electrical & Systems Engineering Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering Engineering & Applied Science Total Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Developmental Biology Genetics Internal Medicine Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurological Surgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Physical Therapy Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Siteman Cancer Center Surgery Medicine Total Total Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements

FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 0 1 0 3

2 3 0 0 0 5

2 3 0 0 0 5

3 2 0 0 1 6

2 0 1 5 2 10

0 0 1 10 4 15

0 2 1 1 0 4

0 0 0 0 0 1 14 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 4 35 41

0 2 0 0 0 3 12 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 7 0 5 40 53

0 2 0 0 0 2 14 1 6 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 0 1 1 8 0 7 52 72

0 2 0 0 4 1 6 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 7 6 0 2 2 9 0 4 51 60

Table 12 Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements by Department FY10 through FY07

56


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Other Agreements by Department OTM also handles other agreements in its promotion of technology transfer including confidential disclosure agreements (CDAs) and inter-institutional agreements (IIAs). CDAs allow for the University faculty to exchange confidential information with outside third parties under obligations to protect and preserve the confidentiality of the information. Generally CDAs are entered into for the purpose of exploring a potential research collaboration or license agreement. In FY10, OTM negotiated and executed a total of 96 CDAs. The University will enter into an IIA when an invention has been created by employees of the University and employees of another institution. Each institution becomes a co-owner of the invention and the IIA determines which institution will take the lead in patenting and licensing activities. In FY10 the University entered into 2 IIAs.

57


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Confidentiality

Inter-institutional

FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07

Department Arts & Sciences Biology Chemistry

1 0

3 0

2 1

5 4

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

Earth & Planetary Sciences

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mathematics

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Physics Psychology

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1

3

3

10

1

0

0

1

Biomedical Engineering

7

6

3

7

0

0

0

0

Computer Science & Engineering

3

4

0

2

0

0

0

0

Electrical & Systems Engineering

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering

4

10

5

9

0

0

0

0

Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

17

21

10

18

0

0

0

0

0 8 0 0 2 1 16 1 10 7 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 9 7 0 11

0 5 0 2 7 2 23 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 9 1 2 0 1 9 0 5

0 7 1 3 7 2 21 0 5 3 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 7 0 5

4 4 2 3 2 3 26 0 13 1 0 3 3 2 4 2 0 2 1 6 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0

78

73

71

81

1

6

2

10

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

96

98

84

109

2

6

2

11

Arts & Sciences Total Engineering & Applied Science

Engineering & Applied Science Total Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology Anesthesiology Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics Cell Biology & Physiology Developmental Biology Genetics Internal Medicine Molecular Microbiology Neurology Neurological Surgery Obstetrics & Gynecology Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Pathology & Immunology Pediatrics Physical Therapy Psychiatry Radiation Oncology Radiology Siteman Cancer Center Surgery Medicine Total Social Work Social Work Total Total

Table 13 Other Agreements by Department – FY10 through FY07 58


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Material Transfer Agreements by Department OTM handles the execution of material transfer agreements (MTAs), required by the University when transferring proprietary materials in and out of WU for research use. Incoming MTAs are no-fee agreements used when the material is received from another non-profit institution or from a commercial third party for the research at WU. Outgoing MTAs are used to distribute WU materials (patented and unpatented) without charge to other non-profit institutions or for-profit companies for their own internal research activities. FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07 Department Academic Industry Academic Industry Academic Industry Academic Industry Arts & Sciences Biology 15 1 31 0 27 2 47 0 Chemistry 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mathematics 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Physics 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psychology 15 1 32 2 28 3 49 0 Arts & Sciences Total Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 4 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 Computer Science & Engineering 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Electrical & Systems Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 2 0 Engineering & Applied Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 19 1 13 2 10 1 25 0 Anesthesiology 11 3 10 2 15 2 11 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 6 0 10 1 11 0 4 0 Cell Biology & Physiology 25 1 25 3 34 0 25 3 Developmental Biology 48 4 88 4 79 6 107 0 17 1 8 0 8 1 9 0 Genetics Internal Medicine 307 23 225 25 164 23 165 16 Molecular Microbiology 42 0 41 2 52 1 45 5 Neurology 47 10 34 2 28 6 34 8 Neurological Surgery 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 Obstetrics & Gynecology 5 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 15 0 26 2 14 0 25 3 Orthopedic Surgery 3 0 5 0 6 0 3 3 Otolaryngology 0 0 2 0 6 0 8 0 Pathology & Immunology 29 1 181 6 110 2 123 2 Pediatrics 25 2 34 3 35 0 41 4 Physical Therapy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 4 1 6 1 Psychiatry Radiation Oncology 5 1 2 1 8 0 7 1 Radiology 56 1 47 3 31 3 33 4 Siteman Cancer Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surgery 35 6 24 2 25 2 22 5 699 57 781 60 645 48 698 55 Medicine Total Total 718 61 817 62 674 51 749 55

Table 14 Material Transfer Agreements by Department – FY10 through FY07

59


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Office of Technology Management Social and Financial Impact OTM extends the University’s research via its involvement with the Biogenerator, local incubators, the Regional Chamber and Growth Association, the Danforth Plant Sciences Center Alliance, the Missouri Venture Forum, the Midwest Research Universities Network, and many other organizations. Together they develop channels for making WU technologies widely available and simultaneously build the economy. In FY10, WU technology was licensed to two start-up companies which are located in the St. Louis area.

Start-up Companies Formed Invention Disclosures US/PCT Patents Filed License Agreements Industry Sponsored Research

FY10

FY09

FY08

FY07

2 104 76 41 41

2 125 106 44 53

4 98 94 42 72

5 101 75 45 60

Table 15 Summary of Economic Impact – FY10 through FY07

60


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Center for Clinical Studies Center for Clinical Studies Executive Summary The industry sponsored trials in this report are performed by numerous faculty throughout the Washington University (WU) School of Medicine. There are also a number of centers dedicated to supporting clinical trials across the School of Medicine. These centers are highlighted below. Center for Applied Research Sciences The Center for Applied Research Sciences (CARS), established in September 2007, represents three units (the Clinical Trials Unit, the Clinical Research Unit, and the Pediatric Clinical Research Unit) at the School of Medicine which support and conduct clinical trials. The establishment of CARS improves access to specialized clinical research units that contain state-of-the-art resources and where studies can be performed safely, ethically, and efficiently across a spectrum of study populations, research designs, and physical sites. The Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) is located on the 11th floor of the Center for Advanced Medicine. The unit is an outpatient research unit that offers dedicated research space, equipment, and nursing support for a wide range of clinical studies, particularly multi-center clinical trials. The CTU generally supports studies that require less sophisticated or intensive measurements and procedures than those conducted in the Clinical Research Unit. The Clinical Research Unit (CRU) is located on the 4th and 5th floors of Barnard Hospital. The CRU operates as an in-patient and out-patient clinical research unit for studies that require more “intense” nursing services than the studies performed in the Clinical Trials Unit or that require an inpatient stay. In addition, this unit provides specialized nutritional services, coordinating with the principal investigator to facilitate a comprehensive experience for their research subjects. Bionutritional services may be obtained separately or as part of the outpatient or extended visits. The Pediatric Clinical Research Unit (PCRU) provides space, nursing and bionutritional support for clinical research projects conducted with children at WU. The current unit is on the 11th floor of St. Louis Children’s Hospital and has exam and interview room space, a procedure area, and a phlebotomy and sample processing area. Siteman Cancer Center The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and WU School of Medicine in St. Louis is an international leader in cancer treatment, research, prevention, education, and community outreach. It is the only cancer center in Missouri and within a 240-mile radius of St. Louis to hold the prestigious Comprehensive Cancer Center designation from the National Cancer Institute. The Siteman Cancer Center offers many different types of clinical trials. At any given time, Siteman has more than 250 clinical studies including many collaborative efforts with other leading cancer centers throughout the country. There are different types of clinical trials performed at Siteman. Therapeutic trials involve some type of treatment such as a new drug, combination of new and/or existing drugs, or a new

61


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Center for Clinical Studies combination of therapies (for example, changing the schedule of the chemotherapy and radiation therapy). They are aimed at patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer. Other trials are designed to prevent cancer in healthy people or control cancer in people who have had curative treatment. Recruitment Enhancement Core (REC) In order to improve patient accrual in clinical trials, The Regulatory Support Center (RSC) has instituted a program called Recruitment Enhancement Core (REC). The goal of the REC is to assist investigators in recruiting potential participants while ensuring compliance with all relevant regulations including informed consent, confidentiality, privacy of health information, and the recruitment of women and underrepresented minorities. The REC provides investigators with pre-qualified and pre-screened potential research participants. The service increases public awareness and knowledge concerning medical research needs and opportunities, and the increasing need for minority participation. This education of the community is done in a variety of ways including radio and print advertising as well as targeted health fair promotion. This paradigm shift has been achieved by utilizing a pre-existing WU medical center resource called Volunteer for Health (VFH). The WU VFH recruitment program was established in September 1998 and has assisted investigators in recruitment of study participants since that time. This program includes a HIPAA compliant database, called the Research Participant Registry, with profiles of potential subjects in a variety of therapeutic areas, as well as assistance with on-campus and/or media advertising. Currently, the database contains more than 10,000 interested, consented volunteers, and the REC is dedicated to developing and implementing university-wide strategic recruitment plans. AIDS Clinical Trials Unit (ACTU) The WU AIDS Clinical Trials Unit (ACTU) was established in 1987 to conduct clinical research and participate in clinical trials for persons with HIV-associated disease. Since 1987, the WU ACTU has been a highly productive participant in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It conducts clinical research trials of potential treatments for HIV and its complications. Well established in the community, the ACTU provides access to research trials, community outreach and education, continuing education, and consultation for health care professionals. Currently, clinical trials at the ACTU are studying treatments in three broad categories: treatments that may stop HIV’s destruction of the immune system; treatments that might help rebuild a damaged immune system; and treatments that may prevent or cure the various illnesses that people get with damaged immune systems. Since 1988, the ACTU has screened approximately 4,200 HIV-infected individuals for possible participation in clinical trials. As of December 1, 2006, 1,800 volunteers have participated in studies offered at our site. Patient Oriented Research Unit (Pediatrics) The Patient Oriented Research Unit (PORU) has dedicated space on the 10th floor of the Northwest Tower and serves as an academic base for the interaction and collaboration of clinical investigators within the Department of Pediatrics. Administrative members of the PORU assist members of the Department with submission of human studies protocols to the Internal Review

62


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Center for Clinical Studies Board (IRB) and with preparation of clinical research grants and contracts. PORU investigators are studying a variety of clinical topics including diabetes, asthma, sickle cell disease, hypertension, cancer predisposition, organ transplantation, smoking cessation, and many others. Beyond physicians, participants in these studies include psychologists, epidemiologists, and biostatisticians. Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials – FY08-FY10 The number of Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials performed at WU has slightly increased over the last three fiscal years yet the revenue received from the trials has seen a rather large increase. Over the three year period, the number of clinical trials performed at the institution has increased from 1,360 trials in fiscal year 2008 to 1,400 trials in fiscal year 2010 (3%). During that same time, the cash receipts from those trials have increased by 11% from $24.1 million in 2008 to $26.7 million in 2010. For a break-down of clinical trials by department of the School of Medicine please refer to Table 1. Of the total trials performed at the School of Medicine in 2010, 794 out of 1,400 or 57% were performed in the Department of Internal Medicine. In dollar terms, this represents 56% of the total clinical trial dollars for fiscal year 2010. For a break-down of clinical trials by Division of the School of Medicine’s Department of Internal Medicine, please refer to Table 2. Also, during the period fiscal years 2008 to 2010 the number of new clinical trial contracts increased by 9%, as is shown in Table 3.

63


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Center for Clinical Studies

Department

FY 2010 #'s

FY 2009

$

#'s

% Inc / (Dec) FY 08 - FY 10

FY 2008

$

#'s

$

#'s

$

Internal Medicine

794 14,942,065

724 13,420,533

717 10,679,081

11%

40%

Neurology

144

1,917,933

124

1,989,327

128

2,787,969

13%

-31%

Surgery

117

1,673,053

136

1,749,474

139

1,908,198

-16%

-12%

Pediatrics

93

1,329,103

86

1,031,996

88

918,258

6%

45%

Radiology

63

1,364,864

62

2,182,770

71

1,517,708

-11%

-10%

Pathology & Immunology

33

763,462

44

1,158,274

38

664,041

-13%

15%

Obstetrics & Gynecology

29

713,199

28

479,948

20

568,178

45%

26%

Psychiatry

22

1,598,850

28

2,066,684

32

1,057,192

-31%

51%

Orthopedic Surgery

19

426,628

24

1,116,948

21

843,870

-10%

-49%

Siteman Cancer Center

17

562,889

13

503,802

15

708,225

13%

-21%

Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences

15

294,342

13

382,366

13

214,336

15%

37%

Emergency Medicine

14

257,622

17

162,430

15

73,972

-7%

248%

Radiation Oncology

12

747,059

7

847,618

9

757,416

33%

-1%

Otolaryngology

9

7,570

10

53,158

14

155,596

-36%

-95%

Neurological Surgery

6

60,574

16

60,110

10

102,418

-40%

-41%

Anesthesiology

3

39,680

7

33,148

15

83,367

-80%

-52%

Occupational Therapy

2

16,316

2

10,000

3

28,387

-33%

-43%

Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics

2

-

2

-

2

-

0%

0%

Health Administration

2

-

0

-

0

-

100%

0%

Physical Therapy

1

14,684

0

-

0

-

100%

100%

Developmental Biology

1

1,500

3

28,500

5

890,192

-80%

-100%

Molecular Microbiology

1

-

1

-

3

108,260

-67%

-100%

Biostatistics

1

-

1

-

1

-

0%

0%

Health Behavior Research

0

-

0

-

1

-

-100%

0%

3%

11%

Total

1,400

26,731,393

1,348

27,277,086

1,360

24,066,664

Table 1 Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials by Department of the School of Medicine FY10 – FY08 Notes: 1. The majority of industry sponsored clinical trials for the Siteman Cancer Center are accounted for in other departments. 2. The dollar totals contained in this chart are based on cash receipts from industry sponsors. 3. Industry sponsored clinical trial dollars are not included in the tables and figures in “Sponsored Research Funding” section of this Report.

64


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Center for Clinical Studies

Divisions of Internal Medicine Medical Oncology

FY 2010 #'s $

FY 2009 #'s $

% Inc / (Dec) FY 08 - FY 10 #'s $

FY 2008 #'s $

218

4,884,925

198

3,543,442

177

2,528,834

23%

93%

Endocrine / Metabolism

99

983,757

89

712,489

66

511,958

50%

92%

Cardiology

93

1,013,017

87

1,089,613

97

1,175,680

-4%

-14%

Pulmonary

65

1,103,919

64

1,292,873

57

1,502,925

14%

-27%

Bone Marrow Transplant

62

2,488,557

42

2,272,333

34

902,021

82%

176%

Gastroenterology

49

1,286,933

41

924,649

46

291,582

7%

341%

Renal

37

423,992

27

242,110

38

525,103

-3%

-19%

Chrom Kidney Center

31

300,439

24

675,271

55

202,241

-44%

49%

AIDS Clinical Trial Unit

24

116,519

18

302,855

16

166,865

50%

-30%

Center for Human Nutrition

22

894,117

23

1,182,340

19

1,210,184

16%

-26%

Lipid Research

20

362,933

22

219,175

37

597,851

-46%

-39%

Infectious Diseases

18

415,671

18

208,003

17

291,179

6%

43%

Hematology

14

108,487

14

178,395

11

61,927

27%

75%

Dermatology

13

197,425

20

228,409

8

161,013

63%

23%

Rheumatology

13

166,036

14

160,885

18

211,971

-28%

-22%

Bone & Mineral Diseases

8

112,907

11

74,162

11

140,171

-27%

-19%

Immunology

4

17,445

5

48,264

5

50,555

-20%

-65%

Geriatrics / Gerontology

3

64,985

6

65,265

3

147,022

0%

-56%

General Medical Sciences

1

-

1

-

1

-

0%

0%

Applied Physiology

0

-

0

-

1

-

-100%

0%

11%

40%

Total

794 14,942,065

724 13,420,533

717 10,679,081

Table 2 Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials by Division of the Department of Internal Medicine FY10 – FY08

Notes: 1. The dollar totals contained in this chart are based on cash receipts from industry sponsors. 2. Industry sponsored clinical trial dollars are not included in the tables and figures in “Sponsored Research Funding” section of this Report.

65


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Center for Clinical Studies

Fiscal Year

% Change

FY10

FY09

FY08

Clinical Studies

247

288

279

14%

Confidentiality Agreements

185

144

139

10%

Amendments (all types)

257

254

233

10%

77

36

49

13%

766

722

700

12%

Other TOTAL

FY08-FY10

Table 3 New Contracts Completed FY10 – FY08

66


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense Sponsored Research Expense Executive Summary This report presents an overview of expenditure activity for sponsored research projects at Washington University (WU) during the fiscal year of 2010 (FY10). The expense dollars reported are for all transactions that occur on or between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Data Sources The data presented in this report was obtained from the WU Financial Information System (FIS) and it reflects the expenditure activity incurred during the performance of sponsored projects. Expenses associated with projects supported by sales and service agreements and clinical trials are excluded from this report. Expenditure Activity The University’s total research expenditures for FY10 amounted to $604 million, an 11% increase over FY09. This percentage increase was driven primarily from additional dollars expended under grants funded via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Total expenses increased by $61 million from the prior year, with $44.7 million in costs under ARRA projects and the remaining $16 million from other federal and private granting agencies. The NIH continues to provide the single largest funding stream, thus the costs for those projects represented 77% of total expenditures during the fiscal year. In addition to the NIH, the University also saw a modest increase in expenses from projects funded by private sources. The University continued to maintain a strong position in sponsored research during FY10. Detailed schedules regarding this activity have been compiled in several formats (see Tables 1 through 12). Noted below are definitions and descriptions of the key expenditure categories. Sponsor / Sponsor Type Federal Direct Agreements

Expenditures incurred under sponsored agreements awarded by a federal agency directly to the University. •

DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services (Agencies other than HRSA and NIH)

DOD - Department of Defense (Includes Air Force, Army, Navy, DARPA, and ARPA)

DOE - Department of Energy

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

67


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense •

HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration (A division of DHHS)

NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NIH - National Institutes of Health (A division of DHHS)

NSF - National Science Foundation

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

USDE - United States Department of Education

Federal Subagreements

Expenditures incurred under a subagreement from another entity (usually another university) that has received an award directly from a Federal agency. The University is considered a subrecipient of federal funds.

Total Federal

Expenditures incurred under direct agreements with Federal agencies and subagreements with other entities (that have received a direct award from a federal agency). The figure(s) is the total of the Federal and Federal Subagreements categories noted above.

Other Government

Expenditures incurred under sponsored agreements with other city, county, state and international government agencies.

Private Sources

Expenditures incurred under sponsored agreements from industry, foundations and trusts, voluntary health agencies and other entities. •

Industry – Typically commercial (for-profit) entities that fund hardware, software, fabrication, and clinical device projects. Entities would include companies such as Monsanto, Lockheed Martin, and Hoffman La Rouche. Foundations & Trusts – Sponsored agreements from non-profit entities, such as the James S. McDonnell Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Voluntary Health – Sponsored agreements from nonprofit health/disease specific agencies, such as American 68


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

•

Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Other – Sponsored agreements and subagreements (excluding federal pass-thru funding) from other non-profit agencies, such as Shriners Hospital for Children, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the St. Louis Zoo. Project Type

Research

Projects and activities that discover new scientific areas, procedures, and devices.

Research Training

Support provided to pre/postdoctoral students and fellows involved in research training programs.

Other Sponsored Activities

Other activities such as public service, patient service, conference grants, community outreach programs, and student aid. Schools

School of Medicine School of Arts & Sciences School of Engineering George Warren Brown School of Social Work Other Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts John M. Olin School of Business School of Law Cost Category Direct Costs

Expenditures incurred that can be specifically identified to a particular sponsored agreement/project. Costs of this nature would include those such as; faculty & staff salaries (and applicable fringe benefits), consultants, consumable supplies, travel, subagreements, and equipment. Direct costs are booked to the general ledger on a daily basis.

69


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense F&A Costs

Abbreviated term for Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs (also known as indirect/overhead costs). F&A costs are defined as expenditures incurred for common or joint objectives which cannot be specifically identified with a particular agreement/project. Costs of this nature would include: utilities and building services, building and equipment depreciation, university/school/ department administration, research administration, and the library. The University has negotiated F&A rates with our cognizant federal agency (the Department of Health and Human Services). The F&A costs are posted to the general ledger monthly, based upon the project’s direct or modified direct costs (excludes capital equipment, subcontract expenses > $25,000, patient care costs, tuition, and off-campus rent) and the applicable F&A rate.

Cost Sharing

Defined as costs incurred under a specific cost objective which are not supported by the sponsoring agency. Cost sharing can be described as the dollar amount the University provides to support a sponsored project. The University will commit resources to support a project under the following conditions: The University monitors and maintains cost sharing expenditures by establishing separate accounts/funds in the general ledger. For each sponsored project, a specific cost sharing account will be established based upon the terms and conditions of the award. See Table 12 for a summary of the University’s cost sharing contributions. Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Rates

Sponsored projects awarded to the University provide funding for direct and F&A costs (see above). A percentage rate is applied to the direct costs in order to determine the F&A funding/expenses for the project. The Federal F&A rate for on-campus research can change at the start of a fiscal year, based upon our current rate agreement. Federal F&A rates are applied based on the competitive start date of the project. Non-federal sponsors will also provide funding for F&A costs, but the rates can vary based upon the internal policies of the sponsor. Noted below is a brief description of the major F&A rates. •

54%

Federal on-campus research rate for projects awarded during the period 7/1/01 – 6/30/02. Applied to modified total direct costs.

53%

Federal on-campus research rate for projects awarded during the period 7/1/02 – 6/30/06. Applied to modified total direct costs.

52%

Federal on-campus research rate for projects awarded during the period 7/1/07 – 6/30/10. Applied to modified total direct costs.

26%

Federal off-campus research rate. 70


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

25.8%

Federal on-campus research rate for genome sequencing center projects awarded during the period 7/1/06 – 6/30/10. Applied to modified total direct costs.

8%

Federal rate for research training and fellowship projects.

Other

Includes various rates from federal, private, and other government sponsors.

Sponsored Projects Accounting The mission of Sponsored Projects Accounting (SPA) is to provide consistent and high quality financial stewardship, policy interpretation, and compliance assurance to the University's research community and the sponsoring agencies. Members of the department strive to perform accurate and timely transaction approvals, financial analysis, and reporting of costs incurred for sponsored projects. We monitor and maintain the accounting structure involved with revenue, expense, and receivable transactions for sponsored projects so that these amounts are properly stated in the University's financial statements. In conjunction with the Office of Sponsored Research Services (OSRS), SPA develops a coordinated and consistent approach on institutional issues involving sponsored projects. The office of Sponsored Projects Accounting reports to Barbara Feiner, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Chief Financial Officer. This report and other data is available on the SPA website, see http://www.spa.wustl.edu/

71


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

FY10 Sponsors

Federal* Private Sources Other Government TOTAL

Direct Costs

% Total Direct

F&A Costs

FY09 % Total F&A

Total

% Total

Direct Costs

% Total Direct

F&A Costs

% Total F&A

Total

% Total

$391,549

85%

$134,686

94%

$526,235

87%

$345,696

85%

$122,173

94%

$467,869

87%

67,048

15%

8,972

6%

76,020

13%

64,697

16%

7,556

6%

72,253

13%

1,630

0%

190

0%

1,820

0%

2,840

1%

299

0%

3,139

1%

$460,227

100%

$143,848

100%

$604,075

100%

$413,233

100%

$130,028

100%

$543,261

100%

Table 1 Direct and F&A Expenditures by Sponsor Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

*Includes $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY10, and $367K of ARRA expenses in FY09

72


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

DIRECT COSTS

FY10 F&A COSTS

TOTAL

DIRECT COSTS

FY09 F&A COSTS

$388,452

$121,956

$510,408

$350,425

$110,520

$460,945

$49,463

10.7%

Arts & Sciences

33,273

10,903

44,176

33,019

10,237

43,256

920

2.1%

Engineering

17,993

6,979

24,972

15,300

6,201

21,501

3,471

16.1%

Social Work

12,543

3,373

15,916

8,906

2,625

11,531

4,385

38.0%

7,966

637

8,603

5,583

445

6,028

2,575

42.7%

$460,227

$143,848

$604,075

$413,233

$130,028

$543,261

$60,814

11.2%

SCHOOLS Medicine

Other TOTAL

CHANGE TOTAL

$$

%

Table 2 Direct and F&A Expenditures by School and Cost Category – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

*Includes $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY10, and $367K of ARRA expenses in FY09

73


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

Research

Research Training

SCHOOLS FY10

FY09

$448,798

Arts & Sciences

Other Sponsored Activities

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

$399,355

$41,539

$41,032

$20,071

38,789

38,795

2,251

1,796

Engineering

23,077

19,807

1,683

Social Work

13,709

9,757

3,518 $527,891

Medicine

Other TOTAL

Total FY10

FY09

$20,558

$510,408

$460,945

3,136

2,665

44,176

43,256

1,417

212

277

24,972

21,501

1,390

654

817

1,120

15,916

11,531

1,533

23

6

5,062

4,489

8,603

6,028

$469,247

$46,886

$44,905

$29,298

$29,109

$604,075

$543,261

Table 3 Direct and F&A Expenditures by School and Project Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

*Includes $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY10, and $367K of ARRA expenses in FY09

74


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

DIRECT AGREEMENTS

FY10 SUB AGREEMENTS

$430,134

$32,139

$462,273

$382,351

$27,385

$409,736

$52,537

13%

18,410

1,829

20,239

17,625

1,225

18,850

1,389

7%

USDE

6,957

469

7,426

5,941

553

6,494

932

14%

NASA

6,947

1,288

8,235

7,928

1,341

9,269

DOD

4,939

2,286

7,225

5,143

2,001

7,144

EPA

91

139

230

10

225

235

DHHS OTHER

5,116

2,391

7,507

3,837

2,224

6,061

1,446

24%

DOE

5,991

895

6,886

3,480

828

4,308

2,578

60%

DHHS HRSA

FEDERAL AGENCIES* NIH NSF

TOTAL

FY09 DIRECT SUB AGREEMENTS AGREEMENTS

CHANGE TOTAL

$$

%

(1,034)

-11%

81

1%

(5)

-2%

3,245

1,746

4,991

2,853

1,699

4,552

439

10%

USDA

105

37

142

185

86

271

(129)

-48%

OTHER

770

311

1,081

686

263

949

132

14%

482,705

43,530

526,235

430,039

37,830

467,869

58,366

12%

1,820

0

1,820

3,139

0

3,139

(1,319)

-42%

INDUSTRY

11,442

0

11,442

10,521

0

10,521

921

9%

FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS

40,472

0

40,472

40,836

0

40,836

(364)

-1%

VOL HEALTH

10,265

0

10,265

11,347

0

11,347

(1,082)

-10%

OTHER

13,841

0

13,841

9,549

0

9,549

4,292

45%

TOTAL PRIVATE

76,020

0

76,020

72,253

0

72,253

3,767

5%

$560,545

$43,530

$604,075

$505,431

$37,830

$543,261

$60,814

11%

TOTAL FEDERAL OTHER GOVERNMENT PRIVATE SOURCES

TOTAL

Table 4 Expenditures by Sponsor and Agreement Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s) *Includes $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY10, and $367K of ARRA expenses in FY09

75


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

Tables 4A Expenditures by Sponsor Type – FY06-FY09 (000s) 76


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

Figure 1 Expenditures by Sponsor Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

77


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense Research

FEDERAL AGENCIES* NIH NSF USDE NASA DOD EPA DHHS OTHER DOE DHHS HRSA USDA OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL OTHER GOVERNMENT PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS VOL HEALTH OTHER TOTAL PRIVATE TOTAL

Research Training FY10

FY09

Other Sponsored Activities FY10 FY09

Total

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

$422,293 17,230 468 8,129 6,832 230 5,972 6,768 1,259 142 781 470,104 1,290

$371,920 16,480 553 9,120 7,077 225 4,954 4,308 1,067 271 598 416,573 2,447

$35,061 2,821 0 106 143 0 861 118 16 0 0 39,126 0

$33,526 2,053 0 149 60 10 531 0 12 0 0 36,341 0

$4,919 188 6,958 0 250 0 674 0 3,716 0 300 17,005 530

$4,290 317 5,941 0 7 0 576 0 3,473 0 351 14,955 692

$462,273 20,239 7,426 8,235 7,225 230 7,507 6,886 4,991 142 1,081 526,235 1,820

$409,736 18,850 6,494 9,269 7,144 235 6,061 4,308 4,552 271 949 467,869 3,139

10,897 26,748 6,774 12,078 56,497

9,972 24,573 7,605 8,077 50,227

452 3,459 3,306 543 7,760

512 3,931 3,583 538 8,564

93 10,265 185 1,220 11,763

37 12,332 159 934 13,462

11,442 40,472 10,265 13,841 76,020

10,521 40,836 11,347 9,549 72,253

$527,891

$469,247

$46,886

$44,905

$29,298

$29,109

$604,075

$543,261

Table 5 Expenditures by Sponsor and Project Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s) *Includes $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY10, and $367K of ARRA expenses in FY09

78


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense RESEARCH TRAINING

SPONSORED RESEARCH

Dollars (in thousands)

50,000

525,000

450,000

40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000

375,000 Research

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

459,261

462,823

452,318

469,247

527,891

Research Training

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

40,765

43,824

46,880

44,905

46,886

OTHER SPONSORED ACTIVITIES 30,000 Dollars (in thousands)

Dollars (in thousands)

600,000

24,000 18,000 12,000 6,000 -

Other Sponsored Activities

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

19,845

22,550

26,496

29,109

29,298

Table 5A Expenditures by Project Type – FY06 – FY10 (000s) 79


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

Figure 2 Expenditures by Project Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s) 80


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

School of Medicine FY10 TOTAL FEDERAL* OTHER GOVERNMENT

446,744

Arts & Sciences

$ Change from FY09 47,408

621

(770)

$ Change from FY09

FY10 38,838

1,657

412

(159)

School of Engineering FY10 21,875 113

$ Change from FY09 2,928 (108)

GWB School of Social Work

Other Schools

$ Change from FY09

FY10 11,400

3,799

7

4

Total University

$ Change from FY09

FY10

FY10

$ Change from FY09

7,378

2,574

526,235

58,366

667

(286)

1,820

(1,319)

PRIVATE SOURCES Industry

9,405

1,968

1,301

(435)

733

(607)

0

3

(5)

11,442

921

Foundations & Trusts

34,384

(768)

1,746

267

125

(138)

3,992

311

225

(36)

40,472

(364)

Vol Health

10,068

(818)

67

(57)

129

(208)

1

1

0

-

10,265

(1,082)

9,186

2,443

1,812

(353)

1,997

1,604

516

270

330

328

13,841

4,292

63,043

2,825

4,926

(578)

2,984

651

4,509

582

558

287

76,020

3,767

510,408

49,463

44,176

920

24,972

3,471

15,916

4,385

8,603

2,575

604,075

60,814

Other TOTAL PRIVATE

TOTAL ALL SOURCES

0

Table 6 Expenditures by Sponsor Type and School – FY10 (000s)

*Includes $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY10, and $367K of ARRA expenses in FY09

81


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

FEDERAL

OTHER GOVERNMENT % Of Change from FY09

% Of Change from FY09

% Of Change from FY09

% Of Change from FY09

DETAILED COST CATEGORY

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

$71,797

$68,785

4%

$113

$74

53%

$11,274

$11,410

-1%

$83,184

$80,269

4%

Staff Salaries

80,297

74,225

8%

343

477

-28%

14,294

13,980

2%

94,934

88,682

7%

Grad Assistant

24,469

21,412

14%

141

140

1%

4,509

3,920

15%

29,119

25,472

14%

378

0

100%

0

0

100%

13

0

100%

391

0

100%

176,941

164,422

8%

597

691

-14%

30,090

29,310

3%

207,628

194,423

7%

Fringe Benefits

38,342

34,570

11%

141

161

-12%

6,902

6,338

9%

45,385

41,069

11%

Stipends/Health Allowance

13,910

13,055

7%

0

0

0%

3,473

3,405

2%

17,383

16,460

6%

1,464

1,310

12%

44

60

-27%

782

424

84%

2,290

1,794

28%

Consumable Supplies

43,340

39,212

11%

65

284

-77%

11,383

9,668

18%

54,788

49,164

11%

Other

43,170

38,065

13%

119

127

-6%

9,446

9,433

0%

52,735

47,625

11%

Subtotal Salaries

Consultants

Travel

FY09

TOTAL

Academic Salaries

Undergraduate Student Wages

FY10

PRIVATE SOURCES

5,260

4,988

5%

13

14

-7%

1,355

1,219

11%

6,628

6,221

7%

Subcontracts

41,142

33,138

24%

624

845

-26%

2,656

2,304

15%

44,422

36,287

22%

Equipment

27,880

16,936

65%

27

658

-96%

961

2,596

-63%

28,868

20,193

43%

100

0

100%

0

0

100%

0

0

100%

100

0

100%

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

391,549

345,696

13%

1,630

2,840

-43%

67,048

64,697

4%

460,227

413,236

11%

F&A Costs

134,686

122,173

10%

190

299

-36%

8,972

7,556

19%

143,848

130,028

11%

$526,235

$467,869

12%

$1,820

$3,139

-42%

$76,020

$72,253

5% $604,075

$543,264

11%

Building

TOTAL

Table 7 Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and Sponsor Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

82


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

School of Medicine DETAILED COST CATEGORY

FY10

School of Engineering

Arts & Sciences

$ Change from FY09

$ Change from FY09

FY10

GWB School of Social Work

$ Change from FY09

FY10

$ Change from FY09

FY10

$ Change from FY09

FY10

Academic Salaries

69,321

2,713

6,778

(156)

4,141

(162)

2,662

418

282

Staff Salaries

85,359

5,093

3,825

220

1,141

332

3,577

884

Grad Assistant

16,725

1,933

6,027

480

4,879

701

740

108

108

127

127

5

5

1

Undergraduate Student Wages Subtotal Salaries

Total University

Other Schools

FY10

$ Change from FY09

102

83,184

2,915

1,032

(277)

94,934

6,252

166

748

367

29,119

3,647

1

150

150

391

391

171,513

9,847

16,757

671

10,166

876

6,980

1,469

2,212

342

207,628

13,205

Fringe Benefits

39,563

3,486

3,042

250

1,356

192

1,230

324

194

64

45,385

4,316

Stipends/Health Allowance

14,704

570

1,503

166

775

111

387

62

14

14

17,383

923

1,117

280

557

140

98

(48)

431

145

87

(21)

2,290

496

Consumable Supplies

51,316

5,060

2,105

412

1,160

55

177

79

30

18

54,788

5,624

Other

44,839

3,604

5,110

Travel

3,891

Consultants

(197)

2,677

(108)

865

625

926

83

3,428

906

52,735

1,582

235

529

69

500

240

126

60

6,628

407

405

1,493

282

1,885

1,208

1,338

463

44,422

8,135

0

50

50

28,868

8,678

Subcontracts

36,822

5,777

2,884

Equipment

24,880

9,793

2,487

(1,596)

1,451

431

0

100

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

100

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

388,745

38,320

33,594

575

17,893

2,593

12,516

3,610

7,479

1,896

460,227

46,994

F&A Costs

121,956

11,436

10,903

666

6,979

778

3,373

748

637

192

143,848

13,820

Building

TOTAL

$510,701

$49,756

$44,497

$1,241

$24,872

$3,371

$15,889

$4,358

$8,116

$2,088

$604,075

$60,814

Table 8 Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and School – FY10 (000s)

83


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

Table 8A – FY06-FY10 Expenditures by School (000s)

84


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense F&A RATE PERCENTAGES 54% / 53% /52% FY10 FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH NSF

25.8%

26%

8%

Total F&A Costs

OTHER

FY09

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

FY10

FY09

FY10

$105,989

$95,656

$1,506

$1,930

$9,302

$7,963

$2,119

$2,050

$1,496

$1,055 $120,412 $108,654

4,384

4,064

191

109

152

345

41

32

67

77

4,835

FY09

4,627

USDE

214

216

57

75

0

0

22

21

4

238

297

550

NASA

2,556

2,402

6

36

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,562

2,438

DOD

1,729

1,910

186

102

0

0

12

5

87

130

2,014

2,147

EPA

79

76

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

79

76

DHHS OTHER

1,508

1,231

279

210

0

0

74

52

123

65

1,984

1,558

DOE

1,391

1,084

103

114

0

0

9

0

0

0

1,503

1,198

293

233

303

349

0

0

100

65

107

84

803

731

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

36

12

36

DHHS HRSA USDA OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL OTHER GOVERNMENT PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS VOL HEALTH OTHER TOTAL PRIVATE TOTAL

113

86

57

30

0

0

0

0

15

42

185

158

118,256

106,958

2,688

2,955

9,454

8,308

2,377

2,225

1,911

1,727

134,686

122,173

0

0

22

22

0

0

5

5

163

272

190

299

261

577

5

3

0

0

25

18

3,064

2,270

3,355

2,868

197

127

0

0

0

0

49

43

2,872

2,839

3,118

3,009

0

0

0

0

0

0

47

44

595

720

642

764

79

49

26

22

0

0

23

27

1,729

817

1,857

915

537

753

31

25

0

0

144

132

8,260

6,646

8,972

7,556

$118,793

$107,711

$2,741

$3,002

$9,454

$8,308

$2,526

$2,362

$10,334

$8,645 $143,848 $130,028

Table 9 F&A Expenditures (Recovery) by Sponsor Type and F&A Rate – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

85


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense FY10

FY09

DIRECT AGREEMENT S

SUB AGREEMENT S

NIH

$110,454

$9,958

NSF

4,410

425

TOTAL

CHANGE

DIRECT AGREEMENT S

SUB AGREEMENT S

$100,177

$8,477

$108,654

$11,758

11%

4,256

371

4,627

208

4%

TOTAL

$$

%

FEDERAL AGENCIES $120,41 2 4,835

USDE

239

58

297

454

96

550

(253)

-46%

NASA

2,178

384

2,562

2,040

398

2,438

124

5%

DOD

1,382

632

2,014

1,566

581

2,147

(133)

-6%

EPA

31

48

79

0

76

76

3

4%

DHHS OTHER

1,167

817

1,984

988

570

1,558

426

27%

DOE

1,313

190

1,503

1,007

191

1,198

305

25%

585

218

803

515

216

731

72

10%

5

7

12

20

16

36

(24)

-67%

85

100

185

101

57

158

27

17%

121,849

12,837

134,686

111,124

11,049

122,173

12,513

10%

DHHS HRSA USDA OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL OTHER GOVERNMENT PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY

190

0

190

299

0

299

(109)

-36%

3,355

0

3,355

2,868

0

2,868

487

17%

FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS

3,118

0

3,118

3,009

0

3,009

109

4%

642

0

642

764

0

764

(122)

-16%

OTHER

1,857

0

1,857

915

0

915

942

103%

TOTAL PRIVATE

8,972

0

7,556

0

7,556

1,416

19%

$131,011

$12,837

8,972 $143,84 8

$118,979

$11,049

$130,028

$13,820

11%

VOL HEALTH

TOTAL

Table 10 F&A Expenditures (Recovery) by Sponsor Type and Agreement Type – FY10 and FY09 (000s)

86


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

FEDERAL AGENCIES

School of Medicine $ Change from FY09

FY10

School of Engineering

Arts & Sciences $ Change from FY09

FY10

GWB School of Social Work

$ Change from FY09

FY10

Other Schools

$ Change from FY09

FY10

Total University

$ Change from FY09

FY10

FY10

$ Change from FY09

NIH

$427,428

$46,754

$14,026

$426

$12,483

$2,704

$7,955

$2,436

$381

$217

$462,273

$52,537

NSF

2,578

(954)

10,314

864

6,701

1,321

159

24

487

134

20,239

1,389

USDE

663

(16)

1,918

368

58

(3)

115

22

4,672

561

7,426

932

NASA

101

(2)

7,733

(771)

401

(261)

0

0

0

0

8,235

(1,034)

DOD

5,128

411

540

264

1,557

(594)

0

0

0

0

7,225

81

EPA

0

0

91

81

139

(86)

0

0

0

0

230

(5)

DHHS OTHER

4,434

183

2

2

31

0

3,020

1,241

20

20

7,507

1,446

DOE

1,205

573

3,594

502

464

(78)

0

0

1,623

1,581

6,886

2,578

DHHS HRSA

4,887

391

0

0

0

0

104

48

0

0

4,991

439

34

(50)

75

(13)

33

(66)

0

0

0

0

142

(129)

286

118

545

(66)

8

(9)

47

28

195

61

1,081

132

$446,744

$47,408

$38,838

$1,657

$21,875

$2,928

$11,400

$3,799

$7,378

$2,574

$526,235

$58,366

USDA OTHER TOTAL FEDERAL*

Table 11 Federal Expenditures by Agency and School – FY10 (000s) *Includes $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY10, and $367K of ARRA expenses in FY09

87


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Sponsored Research Expense

DETAILED COST CATEGORY

School of Medicine $ Change from FY09

FY10 Academic Salaries Staff Salaries Grad Assistant Undergraduate Student Wages

School of Engineering

Arts & Sciences $ Change from FY09

FY10

$ Change from FY09

FY10

$16,158

$1,318

$1,986

2,759

1,058

62

10

0

33

30 1

211

(170)

($189)

GWB School of Social Work

$155

$0

FY10

Total University

Other Schools

$ Change from FY09

$ Change from FY09

FY10

$ Change from FY09

FY10

$130

($16)

$115

$110

$18,544

$1,223

(1)

0

(12)

88

21

2,909

1,076

25

(18)

0

0

0

0

269

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

(158)

0

0

1

19,128

2,206

2,082

(148)

180

(19)

130

(28)

203

131

21,723

2,142

3,418

462

405

(23)

29

(3)

15

(5)

42

23

3,909

454

78

13

26

21

0

0

0

(6)

0

0

104

28

9

6

7

6

5

5

0

0

0

0

21

17

2,879

(42)

30

(25)

3

1

0

0

0

0

2,912

(66)

Other

773

(10)

210

168

52

24

0

(1)

21

21

1,056

202

Travel

33

22

14

2

4

2

0

0

7

7

58

33

Subcontracts

18

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

18

438

103

167

35

18

18

0

0

0

0

623

156

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

26,775

2,779

2,941

36

291

28

145

(40)

273

182

30,425

2,985

8,523

442

1,156

(31)

131

23

62

(18)

45

35

9,917

451

$35,298

$3,221

$4,097

$5

$422

$51

$207

($58)

$318

$217

$40,342

$3,436

Subtotal Salaries Fringe Benefits Stipends/Health Allowance Consultants Consumable Supplies

Equipment Building TOTAL DIRECT COSTS F&A Costs TOTAL

Table 12 Cost-Sharing Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and School – FY10 (000s)

88


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix Appendix The Changing Environment of Federal Research & Development (R&D) Funding This appendix to the OVCR Annual Report contains information regarding trends and possible future scenarios in federal R&D funding, and is compiled from various sources, including data from sponsoring agencies, publications, and presentations from members of the research community. Many of the charts and graphs following are based on data collected by the NIH, NSF, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Please see the “Works Cited” page at the end of this appendix for more information. While every effort was made to provide the most recent information, in many cases the reporting of data lags behind the actual collection of data by quite a bit. Historically, agency information in the form of tables and charts has been available as many as two years behind the Washington University (WU) fiscal year, and sometimes is designated as “preliminary”. Therefore, although the Annual Report reflects WU funding and expenditures for FY10, this appendix may contain data from the 2008 fiscal years of external sources such as NIH or NSF. Any discussion of 2010 or 2011 funding or expenditures in this appendix is often based on estimates relative to federal budget actions. Trend and future scenario points of interest include: •

The U.S. Federal government continues to fund the bulk of R&D at Universities, but federal funding as a percentage of total (all sources) R&D funding is shrinking.

The field of life sciences receives the most R&D support, with $32.8B in 2009 expenditures. Engineering follows with $8.7B in 2009 expenditures.

The proposed 2011 federal budget appears to keep overall discretionary spending flat, but shifts priorities to reflect President Barack Obama’s desire to renew the federal role in cutting-edge research.

The U.S.’s R&D investment as a percentage of GDP is being outpaced by other nations.

The second year of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulated research activity, but, as funded projects end, institutions will have to find other sources.

The new-investigator success rate caught up to that of experienced funding, even while the overall NIH success rate continues to decline.

The Obama administration, as part of its effort to require openness, transparency, and oversight in government, promises to enforce reporting and regulations.

(A brief discussion about foundation giving is presented as Trend G. In a post-stimulus scenario where federal funding continues to decline, private giving will become even more critical.)

89


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix TREND A:

The U.S. Federal Government continues to be largest provider of support for R&D at Universities, but its share is diminishing compared with other sources of funds.

According to the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges for FY09, the federal government remains the largest supporter of academic research and development in Science and Engineering fields. However, between 2005 and 2009, the government’s share of total F&D funding at Universities has decreased by 5% (Britt, Ronda). The data below indicates that industry and other private sources are increasing their funding of universities and colleges, and also that colleges and universities are providing more of their own funds for R&D activities.

90


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix As of FY 2009, the life sciences continued to garner the largest share of support with $32.8B, compared with the next largest area of scientific funding, Engineering, at $8.7B. Between FY08 and FY09, all R&D expenditures increased by 5.8%, with Life Sciences at 5.1%. The largest annual increases were in physics (16.4%) and aeronautical/astronautical engineering (14.2%), while expenditures in the fields of mathematics (-10.9%) and economics (-4.8%) suffered declines.

91


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix TREND B:

FY11 federal budget proposes three-year freeze on overall federal discretionary spending while simultaneously shifting R&D priorities and recognizing the importance of basic science R&D funding.

Note: Trend B is based on the proposed FY11 federal budget submitted in by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Election results from November 2010 could affect the data, stated priorities, and outcome of the finalized FY11 federal budget. In June/July 2010, the OMB requested FY11 budgets from federal agencies that showed budget cuts of 5%. In order to keep overall funding flat over the next three years as set forth in the President’s Budget, while still funding the President’s priorities, the 5% cuts would allow for the shifting of funding to priority areas (Lempinen, Edward W.) According to Patrick Clemens, Director of the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy program, “the administration is seeking to renew the historic federal role in cutting-edge research that drives innovation and economic growth”. In support of the following priority areas Obama’s budget lays a course to doubling the budgets of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) laboratories by 2017 (Lempinen). Priority areas include: • • • • • • •

Research in cancer, autism, AIDS, Nanotechnology applications and Rare and Neglected Diseases (Overall NIH increase of 2.6%) Science education (undergrad diversity and grad fellowships at NSF, NIH, DOD and DOE) U.S. manufacturing (NIST +21.7% including Competitive Manufacturing and Construction in a Clean-Energy Economy Initiative) Far-reaching R&D in clean energy (DOE Office of Science +4.4% and ARPA-E Initiative) Basic cutting-edge defense research (DARPA increase of 3.7% and basic defense increase of 6.7%) Computing/technologies (NIST and NSF overall increase of 8%) Basic space science (+18.3%). 92


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix Meanwhile, research in fossil fuels and nuclear energy would be reduced, and private sector funding would replace federal funding for much space travel development over the next five to ten years. The budget request also includes a proposed funding shift from Defense R&D, with a decrease of 4.8% ($4.1B), to Nondefense R&D, with an increase of 5.8% ($3.6B). While Obama’s budget shows large cuts throughout the Defense R&D portfolio, there are increases in the funding of basic research. The FY11 budget requests that basic research see a 6.7% increase to $2.0B and a 5.0% decrease in development, although the majority of funding to the DOD remains in development (Clemens, Patrick J.).

Source: R&D in the FY 2011 Budget Request (Clemens, March 2010)

93


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix

Source: Update on the R&D Enterprise (Clemens, October 2010)

94


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix TREND C:

U.S. R&D investment in dollars is highest in the world, but is shrinking as a percentage of national GDP

The United States continues to lead the world in amount of R&D investment ($369B in 2007) and percentage (35.7% of world), but R&D investment as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) continues to decrease, while several other nations’ investment as a percentage of their economies is growing. As the table below illustrates, while the U.S. investment as related to GDP has been flat or declined during the years 2002-2007, those of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China have risen. Only the European Union has a flatter investment pattern than the U.S. Patrick Clemens, writing in the AAAS Report XXXIV, Research and Development, FY 2010, states that, when “adjusting for the much lower costs for R&D talent and equipment there, China is now the third largest R&D performer in the world.” Cuts in the U.S. federal budget, especially to the DOD, will continue this trend into 2011 and 2012 (Clemens).

Source: R&D in the FY 2011 Budget Request (Clemens, March 2010)

95


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix

TREND D:

After an infusion of stimulus funds in 2009-2011, federal funding could return to a decline like that experienced in 2004-2008

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided approximately $21.5B for scientific research and development, capital equipment purchase, and science-related construction projects. Although the investment in research represented less than 3% of the entire $787B stimulus package, it provided opportunity for new ideas and impetus to current critical work. In a panel discussion with Vice President Joe Biden and the presidents of several research universities and higher-education associations, examples of cutting-edge biomedical research and research focusing on energy and environment were cited to demonstrate the impact of ARRA funding, including (ScienceWorksForUS.org). There is no indication that there will be a continued boost beyond the statutory lifecycle of grants and contracts provided as of September 30, 2010. In fact, experts are concerned that there will be a post-ARRA slowdown, also called a “stimulus hangover” or “post-burst hangover”. Harvard economist Richard Freeman, contributing to a Nature.com opinion piece, likens the possible scenario to “what happened when…(NIH) spending dropped after the 1998-2003 budget doubling,” and cautions that “Even a strong economic recovery will not increase non-federal spending enough to offset the loss of stimulus monies in 2011” (Nature). Bloomberg columnist Pat Wechsler writes, “Once the act’s statutory life ends on Sept. 30, the NIH’s yearly grant and contract budget may drop by about 15 percent, based on this year’s $26.2 billion appropriation.” Interviewed for the article, Steve Fluharty, Senior Vice Provost for Research at the University of Pennsylvania maintains that the 15 percent may be the difference between “a business-as-usual science agenda and one flexible enough to seek out young researchers with unique ideas.” Robert Alpern, Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, states, “Without the money from the recovery act, it’s very possible we’ll see a falloff in research…Common sense will tell you that there will have to be layoffs.” (Wechsler) Additional information regarding ARRA funding can be found at www.recovery.gov and http://research.wustl.edu/arra/pages/default.aspx.

96


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix TREND E:

NIH success ratios continue to decline, while new-investigator success ratios now match seasoned-investigator ratios.

President Obama’s 2011 proposed budget requests a 3.2% increase of funding for NIH ($1B increase for a total of $32.2B). A February 2010 Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Libby Nelson provides insight into funding priorities for NIH: “Among the president's priorities for distributing research money through the NIH are the study of genomes and the application of that research to medicine, as well as the development of scientific approaches to global health and healthcare reform. The NIH budget also includes more than $6-billion for cancer research, including 30 new drug trials in 2011.” (Nelson, Libby) Since the midterm elections were held, federal rhetoric indicates a push to reduce federal discretionary civilian spending back to 2008 levels. In a keynote address to the American Society of Human Genetics on November 6, 2010, Francis Collins, NIH Director, addressed this, cautioning that rolling the NIH’s budget back to 2008 level could result in the success rate of grant applicants dropping from about 20% to as low as 10%, due to the bulk of NIH’s budget already being tied up in ongoing 4-year grants (Kaiser). Furthermore, while the President’s proposed budgets seem to paint a positive picture of funding for certain prioritized areas of funding, the NIH Data Book provided by the Office of Extramural Research (OER) includes information suggesting that base NIH budgets (not including the impact of ARRA funds continue to decrease in relation to inflation for biomedical research. For example, for RO1

Note: The NIH chart shown above does not include awards made under ARRA and, beginning with FY09, awards made under reimbursable agreements, appropriations to NIH for Superfund-related activities, gift funds, and Breast Cancer Stamp funds (NIH Data Book).

97


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix Equivalent grants, as the number of grant submissions remained relatively steady, the success rate percentage declined between Federal FY08 and FY09 from 23% to 22% (NIH Data Book). Of interest, however, is the apparent decrease in the gap in success rates between first-time and established investigators during the last few years, as the chart below illustrates.. The graph suggests that part of this gap decrease is due more to a lowering of success rates for seasoned investigators overall than a significant rise in first-time investigators.

Note: The NIH chart shown does not include awards made under ARRA and, beginning with FY09, awards made under reimbursable agreements, appropriations to NIH for Superfundrelated activities, gift funds, and Breast Cancer Stamp funds (NIH Data Book).

Additionally, information in the NIH Data Book shows that, when ARRA funding is removed from the analyses, the overall number of awards by most institutes and centers have been flat or declining since 2004 (see chart following).

98


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix Institute / Center FIC

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

145

150

178

203

266

283

303

283

269

248

226

209

31

115

178

220

230

276

309

318

306

275

277

5,290

5,536

5,846

6,153

6,376

6,717

6,711

6,697

6,736

6,631

6,336

48

85

102

133

125

114

135

164

NCCAM NCI

4,774

NCMHD NCRR

700

755

838

870

1,126

1,147

1,052

1,069

1,105

1,060

900

902

1,240

1,283

1,340

1,379

1,417

1,472

1,522

1,475

1,431

1,387

1,306

1,278

NHGRI

196

201

210

208

232

270

305

322

329

341

351

354

NHLBI

3,851

4,189

4,477

4,763

5,011

5,163

5,223

4,966

4,794

4,723

4,738

4,856

NIA

1,341

1,380

1,428

1,590

1,645

1,725

1,776

1,847

1,848

1,965

1,935

1,897

NIAAA

669

708

767

819

848

876

901

895

904

915

915

902

NIAID

3,361

3,547

3,781

3,850

4,094

4,613

4,848

4,850

4,804

4,928

4,881

4,615

957

991

1,050

1,145

1,181

1,224

1,272

1,259

1,250

1,273

1,291

1,287

287

732

743

764

766

792

741

676

NEI

NIAMS NIBIB NICHD

1,733

1,813

1,933

2,081

2,264

2,343

2,338

2,382

2,333

2,370

2,341

2,253

NIDA

1,318

1,412

1,506

1,655

1,745

1,845

1,863

1,860

1,840

1,932

1,969

1,925

NIDCD

688

772

824

906

986

1,018

1,026

999

966

982

939

926

NIDCR

603

601

671

739

747

799

839

847

791

778

788

753

NIDDK

2,799

3,009

3,240

3,393

3,560

3,905

4,116

4,144

4,043

3,942

3,793

3,638

NIEHS

622

632

707

754

797

792

786

750

767

791

788

759

NIGMS

3,932

4,069

4,195

4,369

4,534

4,536

4,588

4,627

4,572

4,657

4,626

4,538

NIMH

2,042

2,200

2,435

2,653

2,838

2,980

3,093

3,084

2,974

2,990

2,976

2,873

NINDS

2,425

2,518

2,726

2,885

3,122

3,230

3,319

3,291

3,395

3,425

3,338

3,220

228

255

277

312

332

359

359

357

340

331

342

315

76

68

67

66

67

78

88

99

101

118

119

104

9

22

35

77

93

113

47,464

47,345

46,797

47,181

46,437

45,170

NINR NLM OD NIH Total

33,700

35,874

38,301

40,664

43,520

46,081

Source: NIH Data Book, NIH IMPAC, Pub File

99


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix

Though too large to include in this appendix, an extensive chart showing funding for 218 specific “Research/Disease Areas” can be found here. When viewing that table, keep in mind that the RCDC system does not treat research categories as mutually exclusive. Individual research projects may be included in more than one category, resulting in columns not adding up to 100% of the stated NIHfunded research (NIH Data Book). TREND F:

Federal Openness, Transparency, Oversight and the “Age of Enforcement”

According to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of the Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress March 31, 2010, “OIG’s investigative, audit, evaluative, and legal activities have evolved at a remarkable pace.” The OIG’s internal assessment of HHS to prevent fraud, waste and abuse are now being transitioned to “work that assesses the quality of data reported by recipients and the appropriate use of Recovery Act funds” as well as implementing “the President’s Executive Order on reducing improper payments government-wide” (Levinson, Daniel R.). Furthermore, in July 2010, President Obama signed the “Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act” Bill designed to cut waste, fraud, and abuse due to improper payments by federal agencies. In his remarks, the president stated that “earlier this year, I directed our federal agencies to launch rigorous audits conducted by auditors who are paid based on how many abuses or errors they uncover -– the more they find, the more money they make. So they are highly incentivized.” (Sabochik, Katelyn). The President’s FY11 budget suggests that more funding will be made available for budget priorities through more robust audits and reduction of fraud and abuse of federal funding. The FY10 budget included increases in agency budgets for Inspector General Activities. Similarly, ARRA funding included funding for audit and investigation (Office of Management and Budget). Reinforcing the President’s message on oversight, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan called for an “age of enforcement” in her keynote speech to USDA employees in November 2009 (USDA), and announced in May 2010 the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is stepping up enforcement efforts, including new procedures intended to be “tougher on repeat offenders”. The May announcement was made during a conference call that included members of both the research community and animal advocacy groups (American Physiological Society).

100


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix

As of October 1st 2010, the Government will be implementing the Federal Funding Accounting and Transparency Act (FFATA) requiring reporting on subcontract and subgrant activities of federal prime recipients. The purpose of the Act is to make it easier for taxpayers to see how their money is being spent (FFATA Information Center). Thus, we see that increased scrutiny, additional audits, and new enforcement areas will be on the rise for the immediate and long terms, especially when federal funding is utilized for research. TREND G:

Foundation support for research declined, but is better than expected.

Private giving, particularly foundation-based, becomes more critical each year. However, when the lack of federal funding puts a strain on funding recipients, foundations must make difficult decisions on what to fund. On its website, Foundation Center states that “The recent economic crisis caused the nation's more than 75,000 grantmaking foundations to cut their 2009 giving by an estimated 8.4 percent-by far the largest decline ever tracked by the Foundation Center. Grant dollars fell from $46.8 billion to $42.9 billion.” However, as noted in the Center’s Foundation Growth and Giving Estimates Current Outlook (April 2010 Edition), the cutback “totaled less than half the 17 percent loss in foundation assets recorded in the prior year” (2008). Though there were several factors that helped to alleviate the overall decline in 2009, the main factor seemed to be “the decision of a significant number of funders to reduce their operating expenses and/or draw upon their endowments…” in order to be able to maintain their level of giving during the economic crisis. Nearly two out of five grantmakers used endowments to shore up their grantmaking budgets. Other factors that influenced the impact of the decline were increased giving by some foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which increased its giving from $2.8B in 2008 to $3B in 2009, and the practice of asset-averaging by which year-to-year giving fluctuations are minimized as much as possible.

Key findings from Foundation Center for 2009: • Of a record 214 grants of $10M or more, the Gates Foundation sponsored 6 of the top 10, most focusing on health and international development. • International giving, including awards to U.S.-based international programs and overseas recipients, reached a record 24.4% of total grant dollars.

• The largest share of grant dollars (a record $6.9B) went to the economically disadvantaged as foundations found ways to maintain their levels of giving.

101


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix

In the June 2010 Edition of Foundation Giving Trends, it was noted that in 2008 “health and education benefited from the largest shares of foundation grant dollars”. Science and technology experienced a double-digit decline; in fact, excluding giving from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, science and technology received only 5.3% of foundation giving. Foundation Center expects foundation giving to remain flat through 2010, but it believes that grantmakers are increasingly optimistic. In the “Foundation Giving Forecast Survey” conducted by the Center, 8.3% of respondents expect to reduce their giving in 2011, 47.3% expect to hold at the same level, and 25.9% responded that they anticipating giving more. However, 19% admitted to uncertainty and “nervousness regarding the sustainability of the economic recovery” (Foundation Growth and Giving Estimates). Both reports cited in this section are found here at the Foundation Center website.

102


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix Works Cited The American Physiological Society. “USDA Announces Enhanced Animal Welfare Act Enforcement.” Policy Action Center. Theaps.org. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from website: http://www.the-aps.org/pa/policy/animals/AWAEnforcement.htm. Britt, Ronda. “Universities Report $55 Billion in Science and Engineering R&D Spending for FY2009.” National Science Foundation. September 2010. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10329/. Clemens, Patrick J. “Historical Trends in Federal R&D.” AAAS Report XXXIV, Research & Development FY 2010. AAAS.org. Retrieved December 8, 2010 from AAAS website: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2010/. Clemens, Patrick J. “R&D in the FY 2011 Budget Request.” Presentation to the Congressional R&D Caucus. AAAS.org. 16 March 2010. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/presentations/aaasrd20100316.pdf. Clemens, Patrick J. “Update on the R&D Enterprise.” Presentation for the AAAS Board of Directors. AAAS.org. 15 October 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/presentations/aaasrd20101015.pdf. FFATA Information Center Search Portal. Ffata.org. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from the website: http://www.ffata.org/ffata/. Foundation Center. “Foundation Giving Trends.” Foundationcenter.org. June 2010. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from the Foundation Center website: http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/fgt10highlights.pdf. Foundation Center. “Foundation Growth and Giving Estimates, Current Outlook.” Foundationcenter.org. April 2010. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from the Foundation Center website: http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/fgge10.pdf. Freeman, Richard. (2009). “Is the stimulus working for you?” Nature. Volume 461. 15 October 2009. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/pdf/461876a.pdf. Kaiser, Jocelyn. “Federal Budget Rollback Could Slash NIH Grant Success Rates.” Science Insider. Sciencemag.org. 8 November 2010. Retrieved on December 8, 2010 from Sciencemag.org website: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/11/federal-budgetrollback-could.html. Lempinen, Edward W. “Obama 2011 Budget proposal Details Range of New R&D Priorities, AAAS Analyst Says.” AAAS.org. 18 March 2010. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0318rd_clemins_briefing.shtml. 103


OVCR Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Appendix Works Cited (cont.) Levinson, Daniel R. “Message from the Inspector General.” Semiannual Report to Congress. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Spring 2010. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from website: http://oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/semiannual/2010/semiannual_spring2010.pdf. Nelson, Libby. “Despite Spending Freeze, Obama Proposes More Money for Research in His 2011 Budget.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Chronicle.com. 1 February 2010. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from the Chronicle.com website: http://chronicle.com/article/Despite-Spending-Freeze-Obama/63849/. NIH Data Book. “Research Project Grants: Applications, Awards, and Success Rates.” NIH.gov. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/Default.aspx?catid=13. NIH Data Book. “Research Grants: Awards by Institute/Center.” NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. NIH.gov. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/Charts/Default.aspx?shown=Y&chartId=205&catId=2. NIH. “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories.” NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. Report.nih.gov. 1 February 2010. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/. Office of Management and Budget. “The Budget.” Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview. Sabochik, Katelyn. “Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act: Cutting Waste and Fraud in Government.” The White House Blog. Whitehouse.gov. 22 July 2010. Retrieved on November 30, 2010, from website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/22/improper-payments-elimination-and-recovery-act-cutting-waste-and-fraudgovernment. Science Works For Us (2010). “Vice President Biden, University Leaders Discuss Impact of Stimulus on Research and Innovation.” Press Room. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from the ScienceWorksForUS website: http://scienceworksforus.org/press-releases/vicepresident-biden-university-leaders-discuss-impact-of-stimulus-on-research-and-innovation. Wechsler, Pat. “Yale Labs Seeded by Stimulus Act Threatened by Program’s Demise.” Bloomberg. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-31/yale-labs-seeded-by-stimulus-act-threatened-by-program-s-demise.html.

104


FY10 Annual Report