Managing the University
Research Enterprise
Juan M. Sanchez
Vice President for Research
August 19, 2014
Topics

Overview of Research at UT Austin

Selected Policies Overview:



Objectivity in Research Policy (Conflict of Interest)
Research Misconduct
Intellectual Property
President
William C. Powers
Vice President for Research
Juan M. Sanchez
Research Integrity Officer
Robert Peterson
Associate Vice President
Federal Relations
Ellyn Perrone
Associate Vice President
ACES
Kurt Bartelmehs
Assistant Vice President
Michelle Lee, Admin Associate
Rebecca Knape, Admin. Associate
Finance and Administration
Cindy Brown
Assistant Vice President
Awards and Programs
Liza Scarborough
Coordinator
Terisha Thomas, Executive Assistant
Rachel Ginsberg, Admin. Associate
.
Organized Research
Centers
Support Units
Animal Resources Center
Glen Otto
Director
Office of Research Support
Wayne Patterson
Associate Vice President and Director
Office of Industry Engagement
Bill Catlett
Director
Office of Tech. Commercialization
Dan Sharp
Associate Vice President and Director
Office of Sponsored Projects
Susan Sedwick
Associate Vice President and Director
Applied Research Laboratories
Clark Penrod
Executive Director
Center for Agile Technology
David Brant
Director
Center for Electromechanics
Robert Hebner
Director
IC² Institute
Robert Peterson
Director
Center for Identity
Suzanne Barber
Director
Institute for Computational Eng &
Science
J. Tinsley Oden
Associate Vice President and Director
Texas Advanced Computing Center
Dan Stanzione
Executive Director
Updated 6.10.2014
Trends in R&D Expenditures
(Source: NSF Academic R&D Expenditures)
Total R&D Expenditures
Expenditures ($MM)
650
632
622
634
590
600
553
566
550
503
500
477
450
400
2006
2009
2010
2011
2012
80
400
373
350
350
355
355
Expenditures ($MM)
352
Expenditures ($MM)
2008
2013
Business Financed
Federally Financed
336
314
300
2007
295
250
70
68
2011
2012
71
56
60
49
50
40
68
43
33
36
30
20
200
2006
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2007
2008
2009
2010
2013
Federal Funding by Agency
UT Austin
NASA
4%
UC Berkeley
NASA
4%
Others
8%
DOD
34%
DOE
12%
Others
9%
DOE
13%
DOD
10%
NSF
24%
HHS
20%
NSF
22%
FY 2011 Total = $ 355 million
HHS
40%
FY 2011 Total = $ 336 million
R&D Expenditures by Field
Social Sciences, 2.7%
Psychology, 1.6%
Medical Sciences, 3.8%
Educa on,
4.9%
Others, 6.5%
Engineering, 33.4%
Biological and Other Life
Sciences, 10.4%
Computer Science/Math,
11.6%
Physical Sciences, 13.0%
Environmental Sciences,
12.2%
National Rankings by Non-Medical R&D
Expenditures
Expenditures at top 20 institutions, ranked by all non-medical school R&D expenditures: FY 2011
Rank
Institution
1
Johns Hopkins U. a
2
U. WI, Madison
3
U. MI, Ann Arbor
4
MA Institute of Technology
5
U. CA, Berkeley
6
TX A&M U., College Station
7
PA State U.
8
M. D. Anderson Cancer Ctr.
9
GA Institute of Technology
10 U. TX, Austin
11
U. MN, Twin Cities
12
Purdue U., West Lafayette
13
U. CA, Davis
14
U. IL, Urbana-Champaign
15
U. WA, Seattle
16
U. CA, Los Angeles
17
U. CA, San Diego
18
Cornell U.
19
U. MD, College Park
20
OH State U.
(Dollars in thousands)
All non-medical school
R&D expenditures
All medical school
R&D expenditures
1,498,845
766,796
734,294
723,610
707,945
705,720
698,031
663,279
655,375
632,171
586,191
578,231
546,878
545,669
545,391
542,640
542,407
511,194
495,382
492,914
646,463
344,846
544,829
0
0
0
96,815
0
0
0
261,228
0
161,018
0
603,142
439,717
466,971
270,457
0
339,212
All R&D
expenditures
2,145,308
1,111,642
1,279,123
723,610
707,945
705,720
794,846
663,279
655,375
632,171
847,419
578,231
707,896
545,669
1,148,533
982,357
1,009,378
781,651
495,382
832,126
Top 10 Institutions without a Medical School
(FY 2011)
Ranking by
Total
Total
expenditures
Expenditures
Rank
Ranking by
Federal
Federal
Expenditures
Ranking by
Business
Business
Expenditures
Expenditures
Ranking by
Nonprofit
Non Profit
Expenditures
Expenditures
Ranking by State, State, Local
Local & Inst.
& Inst.
Expenditures Expenditures
MD Anderson
98,151
TAMU
318,466
1
MIT
723,610
MIT
489,080
MIT
110,006
2
Berkeley
707,945
GA Tech
427,867
Berkeley
86,769
Berkeley
84,443
MD Anderson
269,146
3
TAMU
705,720
UT Austin
355,437
UT Austin
68,479
MIT
73,453
Purdue
249,999
4
MD Anderson
663,279
U of MD
338,780
MD Anderson
59,582
Purdue
37,717
VA Poly
216,451
5
GA Tech
655,375
Berkeley
336,191
TAMU
54,880
TAMU
35,839
Berkeley
181,691
6
UT Austin
632,171
Illinois
323,454
GA Tech
42,190
UT Austin
31,031
UT Austin
170,202
7
Purdue
578,231
TAMU
291,812
Illinois
34,639
VA Poly
19,019
GA Tech
168,884
8
Illinois
545,669
Purdue
259,948
Purdue
28,656
GA Tech
12,728
Illinois
168,782
9
U of MD
495,382
MD Anderson
236,400
VA Poly
22,777
Illinois
8,094
U of MD
140,576
10
VA Poly
450,058
VA Poly
189,198
U of MD
6,133
U of MD
2,597
MIT
17,056
Total R&D Expenditures in the Physical Sciences
(FY 2011)
Rank
1
Ranking by Total
expenditures in the
Physical Sciences
Caltech
2
Johns Hopkins
3
U. AZ
4
MIT
5
U. MD, College Park
6 U. TX, Austin
7
Stanford U.
8
U. CO, Boulder
9
Cornell U.
10
Berkeley
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Astronomy
225,641
176,047
175,930
115,445
104,202
97,738
97,040
96,858
93,632
90,463
U. AZ
Berkeley
Johns Hopkins
U. CO, Boulder
U. HI, Manoa
U. MD
MIT
U. CA, Santa Cruz
U. TX, Austin
U. Chicago
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Chemistry
131,509
49,819
43,370
42,275
36,411
26,269
20,336
19,951
16,923
14,199
Rutgers
Calterch
Northwestern U.
GA Tech
U. IL,
Harvard U.
U. CA, San Diego
U. TX, Austin
U. NC, Chapel Hill
MIT
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Physics
37,302
35,393
32,213
31,424
29,306
29,007
27,326
26,985
26,806
26,376
Caltech
Johns Hopkins
MI State U.
U. MD, College Park
MIT
FL State U.
U. CA, Los Angeles
U. TX, Austin
Cornell U.
U. WI, Madison
179,284
90,028
66,999
64,154
61,334
57,570
54,117
51,496
43,711
36,655
Total R&D Expenditures in Engineering
(FY 2011)
Rank
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Engineering
1
Johns Hopkins
2
GA Tech
3
MIT
4
PA State
5
TX A&M
6
SUNY, Albany
7
Purdue
8
U. MI, Ann Arbor
9 U. TX, Austin
10
VA Polytechnic
11
OH State U.
12
Berkeley
13
U. IL
14
Stanford U.
15
U. MD, College Park
16
U. WI, Madison
17
NC State U.
18
U. CA, San Diego
19
U. WA, Seattle
20
U. MN
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Aerospace enginering
854,997
451,494
305,042
276,101
263,765
246,554
216,949
205,299
204,701
194,811
166,439
164,287
147,255
121,699
116,928
116,207
113,678
109,397
107,059
97,401
Johns Hopkins
UT State U.
GA Tech
Wichita State U.
U. CO, Boulder
U. AL, Huntsville
MIT
TX A&M
U. MD, College Park
PA State
U. MI, Ann Arbor
SUNY, Albany
Stanford U.
Purdue
U. TX, Austin
Princeton U.
U. TN, Knoxville
U. FL
U. WA, Seattle
U. IL
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Chemical engineering
105,406
61,238
55,762
42,242
41,196
22,479
22,326
20,060
18,639
16,837
11,601
11,155
11,090
10,991
10,626
10,564
10,354
9,751
9,624
9,586
U. TX, Austin
MIT
OK State
GA Tech
TX A&M
SUNY, Albany
OH State U.
NC State U.
Johns Hopkins
U. CO, Boulder
PA State
U. SC, Columbia
U. MA, Amherst
U. DE
Purdue
MI State U.
U. Akron
U. CA, Davis
U. WI, Madison
Stanford U.
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in Civil
engineering
36,931
32,138
31,108
28,053
27,683
26,401
25,225
22,043
18,955
18,775
16,613
16,450
15,724
15,557
14,322
13,994
13,398
13,191
12,990
12,823
TX A&M
VA Polytechnic
SUNY, Albany
Purdue
U. CA, Berkeley
U. TX, Austin
U. CA, Davis
GA Tech
U. IL
U. IA
Rutgers
U. FL
U. MN
PA State
U. South FL
U. UT
UT State U.
MIT
U. MI, Ann Arbor
IA State U.
Ranking y Total
Expenditures in
Electrical engineering
67,352
53,684
47,227
40,563
38,013
33,085
26,880
26,071
25,027
21,115
20,879
20,607
20,363
18,509
17,912
17,338
16,073
15,551
15,446
15,334
Johns Hopkins
GA Tech
U. CA, Berkeley
PA State
U. CA, San Diego
U. MI, Ann Arbor
MIT
SUNY, Albany
U. IL
Purdue
AZ State U.
U. TX, Austin
VA Polytechnic
OH State U.
Stanford U.
U. WA, Seattle
U. CA, Santa Barbara
U. CA, Los Angeles
Vanderbilt U.
MS State U.
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in Mechanical
enfineering
245,330
167,938
88,793
80,731
67,742
51,217
49,054
46,266
43,016
42,370
40,216
39,402
38,452
31,939
31,730
31,429
30,887
23,765
23,016
21,919
Johns Hopkins
GA Tech
U. Rochester
PA State
OH State U.
MIT
U.S. Air Force Academy
Purdue
VA Polytechnic
TX A&M
U. MI, Ann Arbor
SUNY, Albany
Stanford U.
U. MD, College Park
U. IL
U. SC, Columbia
FL State U.
U. MN
U. TX, Austin
MI Technological U.
Biomedical Engineering: # 31; Total Expenditures ~ $ 10 million
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Materials engineering
171,794
74,832
69,865
66,372
57,650
49,716
48,406
42,996
39,298
39,154
36,878
33,719
27,512
27,044
26,617
22,824
19,368
17,962
16,088
14,907
PA State
U. Dayton
Princeton U.
GA Tech
U. ME
MIT
U. CA, Santa Barbara
OH State U.
U. TX, Austin
Northwestern U.
SUNY, Albany
NC State U.
U. IL
Clemson U.
VA Polytechnic
U. TN, Knoxville
U. FL
CO School of Mines
U. MD, College Park
U. DE
74,256
45,009
31,608
27,795
26,991
26,930
26,468
24,380
22,926
18,296
18,022
17,580
16,364
14,641
12,717
11,493
11,377
11,262
11,106
10,274
R&D Expenditures in Math and Computer Sciences
(FY 2011)
Rank
Ranking by Total
Expenditures in
Mathematics
1
Johns Hopkins
2
U. WA, Seattle
3
M. D. Anderson
4 U. TX, Austin
5
NC State U.
6
Rutgers
7
U. MI, Ann Arbor
8
Brown U.
9
PA State
10
TX A&M
11
U. MN
12
IA State U.
13
NY U.
14
Stanford U.
15
Duke U.
Total
expenditures
32,764
29,706
20,185
19,814
18,202
17,011
14,148
13,059
11,732
11,719
11,130
11,083
11,077
10,170
9,581
Federally
financed
expenditures
30,318
27,972
5,999
12,808
10,548
11,993
7,484
9,243
8,815
5,586
8,338
4,220
10,643
7,890
7,067
Ranking by Total Expenditures
in Computer Sciences
U. Southern CA
Carnegie Mellon U.
Johns Hopkins
GA Tech
U. IL
U. TX, Austin
U. Chicago
MIT
PA State
U. MD, College Park
U. CA, San Diego
OR Health and Science U.
OH State U.
U. TN, Knoxville
U. UT
Total
expenditures
100,668
95,836
95,389
77,966
69,426
62,366
51,948
50,127
41,648
39,215
35,918
33,863
33,426
25,965
24,172
Federally
financed
expenditures
96,637
84,913
87,812
57,370
46,060
52,665
49,498
35,120
32,822
25,572
16,797
29,478
9,445
22,894
15,577
Total R&D Expenditures in Environmental Sciences
(FY 2011)
Rank
Ranked by total
All environmental
expenditures in all
sciences
environmental sciences
1
U. WA
2
Woods Hole
3
U. CA, San Diego
4
TX A&M
5
CO State, Ft. Collins
6
U. CO, Boulder
7
U. HI, Manoa
8
Columbia
9 U. TX, Austin
10
U. NH
Atmospheric
sciences
179,584
149,491
139,142
131,467
126,631
94,557
86,166
80,567
70,809
68,712
25,270
0
15,431
5,531
37,895
32,619
1,380
18,428
0
40,664
Earth
sciences
6,971
0
31,949
5,510
88,736
51,268
17,056
62,139
59,241
10,590
Oceanography
78,990
149,491
91,755
105,296
0
244
63,152
0
9,294
17,458
Other Science Fields ranked by NSF:
•
•
Social Sciences: #30, Total Expenditures approx. $ 17 million
Psychology: #42, Total expenditures approx. $ 9 million
Total R&D Expenditures in Non Science & Engineering
(FY 2011)
Rank
Institution
1
Brown U.
2
U. MO, Columbia
3
U. WI, Madison
4 U. TX, Austin
5
U. MI, Ann Arbor
6
Purdue
7
U. FL
8
U. South FL, Tampa
9
U. AK, Fairbanks
10
U. CA, Los Angeles
11
Stanford U.
12
GA State U.
13
OH State U.
14
Columbia
15
U. CA, Berkeley
16
U. WA, Seattle
17
TX Tech U.
18
U. PA
19
AZ State U.
20
Vanderbilt U.
All non-S&E
fields
120,635
100,688
88,919
73,794
66,133
58,230
53,883
51,597
42,638
39,907
39,578
38,504
38,103
37,727
37,019
36,007
34,751
34,514
31,648
31,225
Business
2,865
140
30,127
8,986
10,129
11,940
3,107
5,749
2,856
5,932
855
7,991
1,930
2,846
3,750
1,310
8,787
11,906
2,039
36
Communication,
journalism, and
library science
Education
801
224
2,918
5,831
1,572
2,226
3,536
5,404
22
156
791
48
908
7,117
1,570
485
14,104
6,573
1,080
11,544
7,837
3,190
35,924
31,084
17,918
5,689
8,002
23,167
2,286
24,865
34,542
11,156
29,394
728
18,102
10,830
6,894
7,415
2,601
17,182
Humanities
15,865
50
12,665
1,637
15,516
3,623
1,139
884
180
5,486
431
2,974
3,319
4,553
3,726
1,799
2,011
2,720
4,135
1,026
Law
0
1
2,124
95
3,722
0
126
0
0
1,939
487
1,354
1
6,283
9,545
632
585
1,038
623
1,159
Social
work
0
0
469
4,408
5,597
0
50
2,791
0
0
0
609
1,375
9,538
0
18,679
650
4,223
2,625
0
Visual and
performing
arts
3,116
0
1,034
409
1,440
446
265
1,307
0
1,529
0
692
236
357
326
293
1,720
639
1,252
36
Other
90,151
97,083
3,658
21,344
10,239
34,306
37,658
12,295
37,294
0
2,472
13,680
940
6,305
0
1,979
0
0
17,293
242
Trends in Commercialization
Disclosures Filed
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
188
Patents Issued (US+ Foreign)
120
179
157
154
168
161
139
129
100
72
80
99
93
40
2007
2012
2013
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
30
50
25
32
40
24
11
12
0
2004
13
10
0
2005
26
0
2006
12
11
1
2007
2009
2010
2011
10
20
20
17
10
10
8
2
7
6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
7
3
18.3
14.3
15
9
9
11
4
25.6
20.3
22
16
30
2008
Licensing Revenues ($MM)
60
0
2006
32
Licenses
10
43
20
2004
20
43
101
68
61
54
53
60
97
11.6
10
5.4
6.7
8.4
10.9
6.8
5
0
Op ons
Non-Exclusive
Exclusive
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Strategic Goals for Commercialization
• Sustain current focus on due diligence and deal quality
– Focus on Industry friendly practices (e.g. use of “Technology Validation
Agreements”)
• Sustain current investment in IP protection
• Develop deep relationships with top-tier counsel
– Leverages counsel’s relations with potential licensees
– Allows counsel to develop familiarity with UT rules & practices
• Leverage Licensing opportunities to generate research funding
– Helps sustain faculty’s research program
– Strengthen licensee’s commitment to the technology
– Focuses on licensees with the resources for successful commercialization
• Facilitate startup formation
– Nurture relationships with VC and Angel Investors
Selected Policies Overview

Objectivity in Research/Conflict of Interest:
“Promoting Objectivity in Research by Managing,
Reducing or Eliminating Financial Conflicts of Interest”

Research Misconduct
“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”

Intellectual Property
“Regent’s Rules and Regulations: Series 90000”
Objectivity in Research or UTS-175
(Conflict of Interest)
Policy at http: //www.policies.utexas.edu/policies
Search for “Objectivity in Research”
Elements of the Policy:
•
Policy applies broadly to ALL research, whether externally funded or not.
•
Requires training every 4 years
•
Individual must identify ALL research in which in the individual is engaged
•
Sponsored project: Easy (preloaded on electronic system from OSP).
•
Research Gifts
•
Institutionally Funded
Objectivity in Research or UTS-175
(continued)
•
Financial Interest Disclosure (FI)
–
•
•
Includes spouse, dependent children, and adults who reside in the same
household … and “financially interdependent…”
Determination of Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) by “COI
Official”
If FCOI, must develop “management plan”
–
–
–
Meet Chair/Director as appropriate to discuss FCOI
In some cases disclose to students
Disclose FCOI in publications
•
All kept in electronic database
•
Policy calls for periodic audits
Objectivity in Research or UTS-175
(continued)
What to Disclose:
•
PUBLICLY TRADED ENTITY:
– Payments and/or equity interest of more than $5,000 (aggregated over 12 months)
•
NON-PUBLICLY TRADED ENTITY:
– Payments of more than $5,000 (salary, consulting fees, paid authorship)
– Any equity interest
•
•
•
•
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ROYALTIES (not paid by the University)
TRAVEL (with some exceptions)
GIFTS (that aggregate to more than $250 from a single organization)
FIDUCIARY POSITIONS (in a for-profit or nonprofit entity in the preceding twelve
months; such as a member of the board of directors, an officer, or other executive or
management position, for which the individual received any form of remuneration or
reimbursement for expenses)
Objectivity in Research or UTS-175
(continued)
Exclusions:
• Salary, royalties, or other remuneration paid by the University
• Income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by a
federal, state, or local government or a U.S. institution of higher education
• Income from service on an advisory committee or review panel for a
federal, state, or local government or a US institution of higher education
• Income from investment vehicles, such as mutual funds or retirement
accounts
• Travel reimbursed or sponsored by a federal, state, or local government
agency, or a US institution of higher education
Scientific Misconduct or Misconduct in
Other Scholarly Research
First academic in the U.S. to be jailed (in 2006) for falsifying data in
a grant application:
Prof. Eric T. Poehlman, University of Vermont
On sentencing, Judge William Sessions III said "I generally think deterrence is significant,
perhaps more so in this case. The scientific community may be watching." Sessions
reprimanded Poehlman for his misconduct, saying he had "violated the public trust."
Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters
By ADAM MARCUS and IVAN ORANSKYJULY 10, 2014
• Dr. Dong-Pyou Han: NIH grant for AIDS vaccine development (spiked rabbit
blood with human antibodies to fake response).
• Predictably, Dr. Dong-Pyou Han gets caught.
• Dr. Han resigns, Iowa State returns $500k of Dr. Han’s salary to NIH, NIH
rescinds rest of the grant ($1.4M) and imposes three-year ban on funding.
• BUT, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley finds out (”seems like a light
penalty…”)..
• So, Dr. Dong-Pyou Han gets arrested and charged with four felony counts…
Scientific Misconduct or Misconduct in
Other Scholarly Research
Policy:
http://www.policies.utexas.edu/policies/misconduct-science-and-otherscholarly-activities


YES — Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (plus other serious
deviations from ethical standards for proposing, conducting, or
reporting research)
NO — Ordinary errors, good faith differences in interpretations or
judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good faith
personal or professional opinions, or private moral or ethical
behavior or views
Scientific Misconduct or Misconduct in
Other Scholarly Research





Report ALL allegations (oral or written) to VPR or to the Research
Integrity Officer (RIO).
RIO conducts “inquiry” to determine if an “investigation” is needed.
If research is Federally funded, then the Agency is notified (Office of
Research Integrity for NIH, etc.)
Investigation Report submitted to the Provost for final
decision/adjudication.
If Federally funded research, decision, report, etc. sent to Feds
Critical Issue: Confidentiality.
Scientific Misconduct or Misconduct in
Other Scholarly Research
As a Department Chair, What Should YOU Do?

Take time to read the policy.

Notify your faculty of policy and reporting requirements.

Notify the Office of VPR (RIO) immediately of any allegation.

Respect strict confidentiality.
Intellectual Property
Full Policy: http://www.utsystem.edu/bor/rules/#A10
Plain English:
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/IntellectualProperty/IPpolicy_english.htm
 Encourages “development of inventions…” for “the best interest of the public, the creator,
and the sponsor, if any…”

Applies to all employees: faculty, postdocs, and students (graduates and undergraduates).

Board of Regents owns IP in some cases.

Provides exemptions for “scholarly works.”

Establishes royalty sharing with inventor.
Intellectual Property
Board Owns IP if:
(typically inventions, discoveries, trade secrets, trade & service marks, software)

Created by an employee within the course and scope of employment.

Created using University facilities or state financial support.

Commissioned by University (work for hire).

Results from research supported by Federal funds or third party
sponsorship.
Intellectual Property
Author/Researcher Owns IP if:

IP is unrelated to the employee's job responsibilities and the
employee made no more than incidental use of University
resources.

The invention has been released to the inventor.

If the intellectual property is embodied in a scholarly, educational,
artistic, musical, literary or architectural work in the author's field
of expertise, even though such a work may be within the scope of
employment and even if System resources were used.
Possible Changes
UT System Task Force
Recommendations (draft):
1. Re-write IP policy to “..enhance brevity, simplicity of language, and clarity of
intent.”
2. Policy “should affirm student ownership of student created IP.”
3. “…commercialization and discovery efforts should be consider in institutional
processes related to promotion and tenure.”
4. Flexibility in royalty sharing between institution and faculty (30% to 50%).
5. UT System should be charged to assess commercialization on the campuses.
6. UTS should “appraise” strategies for a more aggressive use of facilities in
university-industry partnerships.
7. UT System Institute for Transformational Learning should be charged to assess
educational technologies and how IP and commercialization are managed at UT
institutions.
Contacts for High Level Assistance
Robert Peterson, Office of the Vice President for Research

Scientific Misconduct
Wayne Patterson, Office of Research Support

Human Subjects, Bio-Safety, Research with Animals

Conflict of Interest
Dan Sharp, Office of Technology Commercialization

IP, Technology licensing and commercialization issues
Bill Catlett, Office of Industry Engagement

Research Contracts with Industry
Susan Sedwick, Office of Sponsored Projects

Proposals, Contracts & Grants, Material Transfer Agreements,
Restricted Data Use Agreements, Export Controls
Or Me on all of the above…
Questions?
Thank you.