Description
Entrepreneurship Words
UCLA Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
March 2014
FORWARD
Nearly four years ago, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research took on the task of evaluating UCLA’s
approach to entrepreneurship. This examination included a review of our current successes, an analysis of
approaches taken by peer institutions, and recommendations for enhancement. This evaluation produced two
pivotal reports: An Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship Part I and An Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship Part II:
Transition to a New Technology Transfer Process.
These two reports catalyzed a new entrepreneurial culture at UCLA; they provided a strategic framework to
advance university-based innovation and introduced progressive views of the roles and responsibilities of
academic institutions to encourage and foster an entrepreneurial environment. Anchored by a separate
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization formed to provide guidance and initiate greater opportunities for
entrepreneurship across the UCLA campus, this proposed framework garnered enthusiastic support and was
brought before the UC Regents for consideration. In May 2013, the UC Regents approved the adoption of this
new framework unanimously. This nonprofit organization, led by a Board of Directors comprised of
individuals possessing extensive experience in bridging the worlds of academia and business, will be created
and will formally begin its duties by the end of 2014.
In this third and final installment, we want to share the perspectives from faculty interviews conducted over the
last four years – over 100 in all – on what entrepreneurship means to them, and what are the desirable effects of
continued expansion of this entrepreneurial culture. There was not always clear agreement, and this report
reflects the diversity of those opinions. It is our hope that this final report will not end this dialogue, but will,
instead, encourage continued discussion.
William Ouchi Brendan Rauw
Sanford and Betty Sigoloff Chair in Corporate Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and
Renewal, Anderson School of Management Executive Director of Entrepreneurship, OIP-ISR
Entrepreneurship
en·tre·pre·neur·ship
noun \?ä?n-tr?-p(r)?-?n?r\?ship, -?n
u? r\?ship
Definition (as construed by UCLA): The passionate determination to translate a vision into reality
for the greater good of society; the creation of new knowledge for practical benefit.
1
UCLA ECOSYSTEM FOR ENTREPRENEURS, PART III:
A STRATEGIC BLUEPRINT FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AT UCLA
SUBMITTED FOR CAMPUS DISCUSSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 4
1. HISTORY AND CONTEXT ................................................................................................................ 4
2. STATUS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS AND RESOURCES ............................................... 5
3. OBJECTIVES AND PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 7
MEANING OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACROSS CAMPUS ..................................................................... 7
FACULTY ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ...................................................... 9
PROCESS AND NAVIGATION OF UCLA RESOURCES FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP ............................10
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ......................................................10
CAMPUS CULTURE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP..................................................................................11
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE ACADEMY AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES .........................12
1. REAL ESTATE ................................................................................................................................ 12
2. REPUTATION ................................................................................................................................. 16
NAVIGATION OF CONFLICTS ..........................................................................................................17
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UCLA’S ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM ..........................................19
1. CREATION OF A 501(C)(3) NONPROFIT TO OVERSEE OIP-ISR ............................................. 19
2. A SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL MODEL TO SUPPORT OIP-ISR .................................................. 20
3. BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARDS SERVING INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND DIVISIONS ................ 21
4. ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ................................................................................................ 22
5. ENHANCING HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY ...................................................... 24
6. USE OF CAMPUS SPACE FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL VENTURES ................................................ 27
7. VENTURE PHILANTHROPY .......................................................................................................... 27
8. NAVIGATING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .................................................................................... 28
9. BETTER NAVIGATION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS ................................................. 28
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................29
APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................................................ 31
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A new entrepreneurial culture has emerged and is taking shape on UCLA’s campus. This
cultural movement was catalyzed by a report entitled An Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship at
UCLA: An Invitation for Campus-wide Input. Now referred to as Ecosystem I, this report
focused externally on what other institutions were doing to cultivate entrepreneurship and
compared it to what was being done at UCLA. A second report, Ecosystem for Entrepreneurs II:
Transition to a New Technology Transfer Process, now referred to as Ecosystem II, took a closer
look at the structure of the Office of Intellectual Property and Industry Sponsored Research
(OIP-ISR), and its entrepreneurial activities. Many of the programs and actions defined in these
two reports have already been implemented across campus, while others are still in progress.
Most recently is UCLA’s request and the UC Regents’ unanimous approval of a new, non-profit
corporate entity with a Board of Directors (OIP-ISR Board) to oversee UCLA’s tech transfer
program. Such efforts undertaken to foster entrepreneurship and innovation have been met with
great support and excitement, reinvigorating faculty, students and staff across campus, as well as
the community at large.
Apart from the opportunities identified in Ecosystems I and II, there are several more key
components, opportunities, and questions pertinent to the growth of this Ecosystem model,
which we seek to address in this third and final report. This report focuses on UCLA faculty
members’ perspectives on the most important concerns and areas for improvement to
entrepreneurship on campus. The methodology for gathering information for this report was
straightforward: through a series of one-on-one interviews, faculty members were asked
questions relating to the use of campus space, academic-industry relations, education, culture and
conflicts, all of which allowed us to better understand what would foster entrepreneurship and
innovation.
How faculty members from across campus define entrepreneurship not only shaped their
answers but further reinforced a common view that success as an entrepreneurial university is not
solely defined by the commercialization of its inventions. The humanities, liberal arts and social
sciences, for example, have been fueling innovation for hundreds of years through their
examination of the human condition. The Grand Challenges of society initiative tackled by the
University resonates with faculty values and allows them to support the campus’ social mission
and connect with the outside world on innovative solutions. UCLA’s Ecosystem for
Entrepreneurs involves a campus-wide culture of entrepreneurship and innovation that
transcends technology transfer.
Entrepreneurship is not synonymous with commercialization; rather, it is an approach to
increase the impact of a discovery or innovation, the translation of a good idea into real benefit.
The vast majority of discoveries and innovations made by UCLA faculty and students are never
intended to be of commercial value, but are expressions of creative scholarship and individual
passions that may serve society in small or large ways. Significant financial value will be found
3
in fewer than one in a thousand of these discoveries, but, if properly managed, those that do can
return licensing income that will support many campus priorities. From UCLA’s perspective, an
entrepreneurial university must continue to deliver innovative ideas to society for the public
good. At the same time, it must strive to realize the benefits of the occasional financial successes
to assist in continuing to provide creative scholarship for the public good.
To achieve those goals, UCLA must enhance the culture of entrepreneurship on our
campus. UCLA is an engine of innovation and discovery, where knowledge is both created and
disseminated; our campus is cohabited by outstanding faculty and motivated students who want
to make a difference. We have a critical mass of human capital and research tools with an
almost unlimited capacity to address society’s pressing problems. Our graduates will fill the
ranks of public service, healthcare, education, business, and industry. Our students will identify
and analyze society’s Grand Challenges in areas as diverse as the environment, social inequality,
health and education – and help to solve them. To do so, they will need to have the range of
learning experiences that are an essential foundation in a complex industrialized democracy.
One of those skills will be the ability to think entrepreneurially, and UCLA will need to provide
them with opportunities to do so.
With this report, we identify where immediate changes can be made, and in some cases
are already being made, to support the Ecosystem model. Though consensus did not emerge
around every issue, we tried to address as many opinions as possible in the recommendations of
this report. Feedback supported the creation of an OIP-ISR Board of Directors populated by
individuals with extensive industry experience who could help guide important decisions around
patent investment and licensing strategies. It was also recommended that individual schools build
their own business advisory boards to promote translational research and potentially raise proof
of concept funds and venture philanthropy. It was well recognized that campus would benefit
from expansion of entrepreneurial educational programs and courses which are already
numerous on campus. However, as entrepreneurial resources proliferate, facilitating the
navigation of those resources will be necessary as confusion already abounds on campus. It was
broadly acknowledged that campus would benefit from improved relationships with industry,
and that expanding industry use of campus space merits further consideration by a campus
committee. However, with increased entrepreneurship and industry relationships, educating
faculty on conflict of interest issues and facilitating the CIRC process will be more important
than ever.
As the Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship forges ahead, there will be new issues and
opportunities that will be continuously assessed. Yet, with this third and final report we hope to
provide a promising blueprint to frame the discussion of entrepreneurship that can be shared by
the entire campus.
4
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
1. HISTORY AND CONTEXT
In J uly 2010, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) initiated a review
of entrepreneurship at UCLA. On the recommendation of Anderson School of Management
Dean J udy Olian, Professor William Ouchi, Sigoloff Chair in Corporate Renewal, Anderson
School of Business, led this initiative. The first campus report, Ecosystem I, was distributed
March 10, 2011. This report involved a study of our current method of fostering
entrepreneurship; a review of the entrepreneurial initiatives at other leading research universities;
and recommendations to improve our current strategies for handling entrepreneurship on
campus. Ecosystem I focused on three essential components for success: (1) appropriate
organizational structure; (2) educational programs that foster and support entrepreneurship and
(3) business advisory boards.
A second report, Ecosystem II, was authored by Professor Ouchi and published in
September 2011. This report took a closer look at the structure of the Office of Intellectual
Property and Industry Sponsored Research (OIP-ISR), and its entrepreneurial activities. It
revealed that while the UCLA technology transfer office was relatively successful, its historic
licensing revenues fell short of top peer research universities. The report also observed that three
crucial elements necessary to taking tech transfer to the next level were missing, including: (1)
business judgment as to which inventions were best suited for commercialization; (2) financial
capital to invest in the patent process and start-up companies: and (3) market-based
compensation for staff. To meet these needs, the report recommended the formation of a new
nonprofit, wholly-owned subsidiary that would oversee all technology transfer activities,
managing for the benefit of UCLA and the University of California, the intellectual property
created by UCLA faculty, students and staff and owned by the Regents.
To meet these needs, the report recommended the formation of a new 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, wholly-owned subsidiary, governed by a Board of Directors (OIP-ISR Board)
comprised primarily of individuals possessing extensive experience in the business of
commercializing research. On May 16, 2013, the UCLA campus received unanimous approval
from the University of California Board of Regents to reorganize the governance of our Office of
Intellectual Property and Industry Sponsored Research (OIP-ISR) in alignment with the
recommendations of Ecosystem II. This important effort to enhance UCLA’s technology transfer
function is designed to protect the intellectual property and the reputation of UCLA while
improving sponsored-research relations with the business community. The OIP-ISR Board will
bring a new level of professional capabilities to assist campus with decisions about patenting,
licensing and industry-sponsored research contracts. It is anticipated that the governance
structure will be operational by J uly 2014 (see Recommendations, Section 1).
5
The previous Ecosystem papers presented the current state of UCLA technology transfer,
capturing one particularly inventor-driven form of entrepreneurship on campus. In spite of the
barriers to entrepreneurship identified by the preceding analysis, UCLA has had an impressive
entrepreneurial track record in recent years. This report attempts to synthesize the campus views
on what is required to make UCLA a leader in facilitating entrepreneurship.
2. STATUS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS AND RESOURCES
UCLA has proven to be one of the top universities for startup creation over the past few
years. Since the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) began reporting
individual campus startup numbers in 2009, UCLA consistently generated more startups than
any of its UC counterparts. Over the last five fiscal years through FY2013, UCLA launched
between 15-25 technology-based startups per year. These numbers place UCLA in the top three
institutions in North America in number of startups generated across institutions reporting to the
Association of Technology Managers (AUTM). These startups are an important driver for
advancing UCLA technologies to market. For example, in J une 2013 a UCLA startup, Aragon
Pharmaceuticals, was acquired by J ohnson & J ohnson for $650 million, plus additional
contingent payments of up to $350 million based on reaching predetermined milestones.
Part of what facilitated the growth of startups at UCLA in recent years is the increased
availability of incubator space and resources on campus. Every year, The California
NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) aims to provide flexible lab space to 8-10 early stage incubation
projects in health, energy, the environment, and information technology. Since its founding in
2009, the CNSI incubator has graduated six startup companies. At the School of Engineering
and Applied Sciences (HSSEAS), the Institute for Technology Advancement (ITA) provides
technology development services for faculty research, helping to secure project funding and
defining paths to commercialization. Three UCLA startups have spun out of ITA’s program, and
others have also benefited from its services. Finally, the summer of 2012 saw the successful
launch of Startup UCLA, a student-focused accelerator based in the social sciences, which
graduated nine student-initiated internet and mobile application-based startups after ten weeks of
mentor-guided development. Startup UCLA just finished incubating their second class of 10
startup teams.
Recognizing the importance of startup-focused programming and especially dedicated
space, UCLA leadership has committed to identifying and developing further real estate ready
for startup incubation on or near campus. The UCLA Medical Center is currently planning the
development of additional incubator space in the Center for Health Sciences South Tower (the
old hospital) which is currently under renovation. Startup UCLA has also spawned a proposal to
dedicate space and programming for entrepreneurship in the undergraduate dormitories.
In addition to incubators, UCLA departments host a series of academic and
extracurricular programs aiming to bolster entrepreneurship on campus. The Price Center for
6
Entrepreneurial Studies in the Anderson School of Management oversees all teaching, research,
extracurricular, and community activities related to entrepreneurship at Anderson, as well as new
undergraduate courses in entrepreneurship. Notable of Price’s activities, the Technology &
Innovation Partners (TIP) Program brings together multidisciplinary teams of graduate students
to assess the feasibility and market potential for UCLA intellectual property (IP), collaborating
with OIP-ISR to aid in technology transfer. Toward similar ends, the Business of Science Center
(BSC), which sprang from the Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, organizes
student-run assessments of UCLA IP, as well as graduate school courses and venture
competitions across campus with the goal of training graduate students for careers in the private
sector and assisting campus faculty and clinicians in technology transfer. In J anuary of 2013,
BSC, the David Geffen School of Medicine, and the Henry Samueli School of Engineering
launched the Advancing Bioengineering Innovations (ABI) Program with the purpose of
inventing, developing and commercializing devices that address pressing unmet needs in
medicine. The Technical Entrepreneurial Community at UCLA (TEC) also hosts entrepreneurial
events for undergraduate and graduate students from technical fields. OIP-ISR joined most of
the groups above as well as others in convening an Entrepreneurship Council which now meets
monthly to coordinate entrepreneurial initiatives.
To further promote entrepreneurship on campus, OIP-ISR launched a number of new
initiatives since the summer of 2012. On the first Friday of every month, OIP-ISR hosts an
informal networking session inviting guest speakers involved in various aspects of
entrepreneurship (e.g., incubators, startup executives, etc.). OIP-ISR recently launched an
Entrepreneurs-in-Residence (EIRs) Program allowing PIs to gain personalized advice and
feedback on entrepreneurial endeavors from entrepreneurs with experience in their fields. This
year’s EIRs hosted a “Startups 101” seminar to educate the UCLA community on how to form a
company and see it through to success. Separately, a series of workshops were initiated by OIP-
ISR to educate faculty members on how to best utilize the valuable federal funding programs:
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR).
In March of 2013, OIP-ISR hosted its first in a series of planned industry partnering events
which showcased UCLA medical device technologies for industry representatives interested in
licensing the technology or sponsoring research opportunities. A second event for cleantech and
advanced material technologies brought industry leaders and investors to campus in September
of 2013. In addition, seventeen UCLA startups and technologies were showcased for
entrepreneurs and investors at the annual First Look Los Angeles event in J une 2013. These
initiatives and others are discussed at further length below.
Though UCLA has seen significant excitement and activity around entrepreneurship in
recent years, this has not been a coordinated effort. Individual professors, departments, and
divisions have championed these programs with insufficient collaboration, often leading to
programmatic redundancy. Communication between organizations is not optimal, sometimes
leading to duplicative efforts across campus. Moreover, due to the growing number of resources
7
across campus, faculty members have found it more difficult to navigate and optimally use the
appropriate resources for the given situation.
3. OBJECTIVES AND PROCESS
This report identifies the opportunities, barriers, best practices, and concerns related to
entrepreneurship on campus, as expressed by faculty. It considers all aspects and manifestations
of entrepreneurship across campus and also puts more emphasis on the relationship UCLA and
its faculty have (or should have) with industry. The objective of this paper is to build a
consensus for recommendations around these areas– some of which will be implemented
immediately, others in due course, in addition to other areas which will require further analysis.
This document will be used to facilitate further discussion around these topics, inform strategic
direction, and provide a foundation for an ever-changing blueprint that can be modified as
hypotheses evolve.
The input of over 100 individuals has been incorporated in this report. Building on the
seventy (70) interviews conducted by Professor William Ouchi from J uly 2010 to March 2011,
37 faculty members across campus, schools, and divisions were interviewed from May 2012
through February 2013, including deans from 13 schools. These interviews were conducted by
2-3 representatives of OIP-ISR and OVCR. The interviewees were advised that their comments
would remain confidential, except with their permission. Emerging themes were then compared
and contrasted with other peer research universities: and including other UC campuses, Stanford,
Columbia, Caltech and University of Wisconsin.
MEANING OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACROSS CAMPUS
Early in our faculty interview process it became clear that definitions of entrepreneurship
varied quite widely across campus. The most significant differences emerged between “North”
and “South” Campus (UCLA colloquialisms referring to the liberal arts and hard sciences,
respectively), where the goals, forms and outputs of research differ. However faculty across
campus seemed to agree that university entrepreneurship involved translating research and ideas
formulated on campus into the real world. Ecosystem I eloquently put forth this idea earlier:
“entrepreneurship is the passionate determination to translate a vision into reality for the
greater good of society – the creation of new knowledge for practical benefit.” Translation
though, is not always obvious and can occur in both direct and indirect ways. Opinions, or rather
perceptions of entrepreneurship, diverge around the nature of translation, largely due to
differences in research outputs and their perceived values.
The most obvious form of research translation is commercialization of inventions. Even
professors with quite alternative views of entrepreneurship acknowledged this form first. It is
more common for faculty from the South Campus to search for and/or recognize commercial
potential for their research, collaborate with the Office of Intellectual Property and Industry
8
Sponsored Research to secure IP rights, and then license out the technology to either a startup or
an existing company. Sometimes the research will originate with an industry partnership, with
the end goal of commercialization in mind. Though this path to translation can be simply
described, in reality it is anything but linear. One professor who successfully launched a
company pointed out that true entrepreneurship lies in overcoming the many hurdles in the
translation process. On South Campus this predominantly occurs with inventions in medicine
and engineering, such as new pharmaceuticals and new technologies. However we have seen
increased licensing activity from North Campus as well, particularly in copyrightable works such
as educational tools. The value of this entrepreneurship is clear as the work product may be used
for societal benefit and often produces quantifiable proceeds.
Direct translation of university ideas can have non-commercial or non-revenue-
generating outputs, making this form typically less obvious. In the public policy space, faculty
collaborate with governments, businesses, and organizations to implement their proposed
policies. Artists display their works in museums and other public forums across the world. Non-
licensable ideas are translated through conference presentations, which in turn change ways
organizations and individuals operate on a daily basis.
Other interactions with industry lead to more indirect translation, without necessarily
resulting in material or monetary outputs. This includes formal university-industry research
collaborations, both funded and unfunded, event sponsorships, and consulting agreements.
Partnerships with industry allow for professors’ research to have an impact and audience. The
benefit goes the other way as well. Professors feel that even without clear outputs, interaction
with industry can lend to more interesting and meaningful research experiences, as it allows for
real-world engagement. Companies also often have data, equipment, materials, and other useful
research tools which academics would not be able to access otherwise.
These various forms of entrepreneurship are all rooted in creative problem-solving, which
was another common definition that emerged from the interviews. Professors explained that
finding ways to solve complex problems using creative, nonconventional approaches is
entrepreneurial. Some professors believe that asking difficult questions is entrepreneurial in the
first place. Typically the need to find creative solutions arises in environments with limited
resources, though often results with more interesting and valuable outputs.
How faculty members define entrepreneurship also has some implication on the role they
expect campus to take with respect to encouraging entrepreneurship as well as the types of
problems they believe are obstructing the entrepreneurial environment. This paper seeks to
address all forms of entrepreneurship on campus, including those outside the purview of
licensing and industry sponsored research.
9
FACULTY ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND AWARENESS
Perhaps one of the most frequently raised concerns was the lack of educational platforms
and understanding about entrepreneurship, and more specifically, what resources and services
have been available to help faculty become more entrepreneurial. Independent of their
entrepreneurial venture experience, faculty members expressed a need for further education via
training sessions, presentations, workshops, forums and individual meetings.
The type of information sought by faculty members often varies from department to
department. Most of the disciplines within the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences do not
have a tradition of entrepreneurship in the commercial sense. As one dean explained, they have
not been able to see how their work can add value to the private sector or even that their ideas
may be protected under intellectual property law. Some professors have had entrepreneurial
ideas but lacked experience in business planning nor any understanding of how to take their
ideas through to fruition. Others were unaware that UCLA has a technology transfer office on
campus that can assist them with intellectual property matters. This lack of information may
have resulted in hundreds of missed opportunities by the University.
Unapprised of the University’s services, professors have reached out to external
organizations for assistance. “It never crossed my mind that UCLA could have had a role” in my
entrepreneurial ventures, remarked one professor who has now been involved in two startup
companies. “The University has lost ideas because people haven’t known what to do with them
or where to go.” Several faculty members also expressed the fear that they might lose control
over their discoveries if they notified UCLA officials. As explained by a number of professors,
this fear has derived from their lack of understanding over the campus IP ownership policy. The
faculty in these schools strongly believed that in order to improve entrepreneurship, they need
more instruction on what is possible in the realm of entrepreneurship; clear communication of
intellectual property law and policy; and information about existing services on campus,
specifically those provided by OIP-ISR.
Other areas on campus, particularly the “hard” sciences, have a greater understanding of
intellectual property law and entrepreneurial pursuits because their work is often tied to creating
physical inventions that can be brought to market. Yet, they too expressed a desire for further
education to enhance their entrepreneurial opportunities. They felt it would be helpful to have
more instruction and guidance on topics like product development, business plans, and
determining market potential. Several faculty members suggested that entrepreneurial mentors
be assigned to junior faculty. The message was clear that further guidance, instruction, and
mentorship would be valuable to faculty, no matter where they fall on the spectrum of the
entrepreneurial experience.
10
PROCESS AND NAVIGATION OF UCLA RESOURCES FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Over the last several years, the enthusiasm for entrepreneurship on campus has resulted in
an incredible proliferation of organizations and resources designed to support faculty, students
and postdoctoral scholars (post-docs) in their entrepreneurial pursuits. A number of these
organizations, such as the Business of Science Center, the Institute for Technology
Advancement, the Entrepreneur Association, and Startup UCLA, provide a host of services to its
target groups, from mentorship, to facilitation with industry, to funding. Campus also provides
services through various internal institutions, including its administrative offices, campus
counsel, OIP-ISR, and the Conflict of Interest in Research Committee (CIRC).
Campus has embraced these organizations and resources, and recognizes that they are
essential components of UCLA’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. However, as these organizations
continue to expand and multiply without any formal coordination between them, the frictional
costs also increase. As an example, faculty members are more frequently reporting confusion as
to whom they should turn to about licensing and intellectual property issues. Several academic
departments have complained of a similar problem when trying to get business ideas involving
industry approved by Murphy Hall. There has been no defined process or person to call when
pursuing a project. Instead they have been bounced back and forth between various
administrative and legal offices and deals have been lost or delayed by issues like IP or risk
management and insurance. “We need a pathway where intellectual property and liability are
covered without having to reinvent the wheel every time we engage a company.”
In addition, this lack of coordination between the organizations leads to redundancy and
conflicting information and processes between the organizations and OIP-ISR. These conflicts,
in turn, put UCLA’s IP at risk. There is a need to improve coordination, reduce redundancy and
conflicting information, and provide clear direction to resolve issues.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Launching a successful entrepreneurial culture requires long-term investment and the
path begins with patience and unfettered support for research and discovery. Research drives
innovation and innovation drives long-run economic growth, creating jobs and improving living
standards in the process. University-based research is of particular importance to innovation, as
the early-stage research that is typically performed at universities serves to expand the
knowledge pool from which the private sector draws ideas and innovation.
All innovation begins with basic research, which aims to increase understanding and is
undertaken out of curiosity rather than a specific commercial application. Basic research is not
intended to generate commercial revenue; it is typically funded by government agencies,
foundations, industry, and philanthropic initiatives which recognize its vital role in building
knowledge that sparks technological advances. Research only begins to turn profitable on its
11
own during commercialization, when new discoveries become products and can be monetized.
Between these stages, however, there is a point where traditional sources of funding taper off but
risk remains too high and rewards too obscure for private funding to kick in to bring it to market.
This point in research is considered the “Valley of Death” because so many potential innovations
fail here, no longer cutting edge enough for government support but not yet sufficiently viable
for profit-maximizing investors.
UCLA faces critical issues in addressing the Valley of Death to bridge the funding gap.
Funding is needed to allow researchers to build a prototype or otherwise prove the viability of
the innovation (also known as a “proof of concept”). This enables both campus and potential
investors to move the innovation to a decision point about business potential and possible options
such as seeking license agreements or creating a startup company. To address the gap, UCLA
must find funding resources that can provide critical, necessary development between the
research lab and the potential marketplace.
Many faculty members expressed great concern and frustration with finding funding to
continue their research that has reached this juncture. For them, funding at this point is critical –
it can mean the difference between nurturing worthwhile, but unproven technology to a point
that it develops into products benefitting millions and killing off promising research prematurely.
Faculty shared several ideas for obtaining additional funding for these purposes. One idea was
for the campus to make more efforts to “tap into alumni better.” Another strategy is to go
straight to donors for gifts. As one professor in the Humanities Division explained, it is often
easier to obtain gifts than secure industry funding or grants in the soft sciences. Having more
industry leaders sit on various campus boards that make contributions to faculty projects was
presented as another possible fundraising tactic.
Some faculty members felt that the campus should focus on showcasing UCLA’s
research to investors and key players by giving them access to professors and a database that
included descriptions of each faculty member’s research interests. Faculty members pointed to
Stanford and Caltech as two universities which successfully employed this method of
showcasing their research capabilities to obtain funding. Some of this information is already
available via the OIP-ISR website, and there are further efforts underway to make this
information more easily accessible.
CAMPUS CULTURE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Faculty members from across campus agreed that all the efforts taken over the last few
years to improve the entrepreneurial environment on campus have made a significant and
noticeable difference. Yet, many also felt that despite these changes UCLA has not sufficiently
shown it truly values entrepreneurship, and that real transformation would require a cultural shift
in how campus leadership views and treats entrepreneurship.
12
The absence of explicit institutional support and encouragement for entrepreneurial
activity in campus policies, many faculty argued, is indicative that it is academically
undervalued. As one faculty member explained, “for promotion and other purposes, publishing
is what counts; being entrepreneurial does not count.” As expressed by some faculty members,
the campus needs to realign the faculty incentive structure to reward entrepreneurship. A
number of the faculty members interviewed believed that this can be accomplished by including
entrepreneurship as a metric in hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions. This would allow
faculty to pursue innovative ideas without concern that it would affect their advancement. These
issues are not unique to UCLA, and other universities have begun making policy changes in
response to similar challenges. The concept of permitting course reductions in exchange for
entrepreneurial endeavors was proposed as another solution. Yet, some faculty members at
UCLA expressed concerns about such policy changes, arguing that, at minimum, junior faculty
should focus on proving academic rigor.
The faculty also spoke of their own cultural barriers to entrepreneurship. There are
faculty members on campus who saw an inherent conflict between entrepreneurship and pure
academia, as well as those who think “industry is evil” and that it is “offensive to make money
off academic research.” These faculty have expressed their difficulty reconciling how
entrepreneurship can coexist with UCLA’s mission to promote education and public service. For
others it is simply difficult to think of their work as a discovery. They do not believe they are
trained, or that it is their role to solve these problems. As they see it, entrepreneurship is
inapplicable to their work. There are also some professors who are too busy to take on
entrepreneurship.
A common view emerged from interviews that a balance of incentives, mentorship, and
other educational measures are needed to change the faculty mindset and advance a more
progressive culture on campus.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE ACADEMY AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES
1. REAL ESTATE
Real estate on the UCLA campus is a precious commodity. While it is not surprising that
faculty often request newer, bigger, and better space on campus to grow and expand their offices
and labs, there has also been a dramatic increase in requests from industry to have space on the
UCLA campus where they can conduct company activities. This includes requests from startup
companies asking UCLA to create more incubator space on campus to house and assist with the
operations of these small businesses.
Currently, UCLA provides 2,000 square feet of lab space dedicated to housing startup
companies in the California Nanosystems Institute (CNSI). Companies housed in CNSI pay a
fee to obtain access to lab space, a suite of core facilities, general lab instrumentation, and
13
meeting facilities. In addition, several departments on campus have also housed industry for
short periods of time to work on specific company projects. While there is no established
mechanism or program for hosting industry in buildings outside of the CNSI, requests have
steadily grown.
Through our interviews, we learned that there were three primary points of view with
respect to housing industry on campus: (1) some faculty believe UCLA should create more
incubators and provide industry with more access to campus space; (2) some faculty believe that
the risks caused by industry’s presence on campus – such as conflicts of interest, inadvertent loss
of intellectual property rights, perception that revenues generated from taxes are being used to
benefit private interests – outweigh the benefits gained by UCLA; and (3) some faculty do not
oppose the presence of industry on campus but are mindful of the potential problems and the
importance of setting appropriate standards that will be enforced.
View 1: Providing on-campus space to industry can promote further entrepreneurship
Many of the faculty members we interviewed were in favor of allowing companies onto
campus to conduct company activities, thus creating a larger industry presence at UCLA.
Believing this would be good for UCLA “because [companies] stimulate the translational
mindset, even from a learning perspective,” faculty were in support of allocating more on-
campus space to both established companies and incubating startup companies. Other supporters
commented that renting space to industry could “help with the [financial] bottom line and
enhance UCLA by supporting campus pursuits and interests.”
Location was a key factor for these faculty members. They felt strongly that companies
had to reside on campus as those off campus did not derive nearly as much benefit. In addition
to laboratory facilities, companies located on campus also enjoy a unique ecosystem comprised
of faculty and scientists from a cross section of UCLA departments. This proximity facilitates
company employees, faculty, and students to exchange ideas, link talent, technology, and know-
how, and help bridge the gap in the misalignment of cultures between academia and industry.
Companies directly benefit from the nurturing environment created on campus, and faculty and
students benefit from gaining industry perspectives on research and employment opportunities.
In contrast, some faculty members believe that companies located off campus struggle to gain
entrance into this ecosystem because of the geographic barrier. As one faculty member stated,
“o even if it’s Westwood, it’s not as good as if it’s here on campus. If you can’t walk to it, it
might as well be in Pasadena.”
Moreover, these faculty members expressed there are other advantages to having
companies reside on campus: incubators and other on-campus space generate both immediate
and long-term revenue including rental income, possible equity in companies, partial ownership
of new IP developed through collaborations, royalties from successful companies, downstream
gifts, and many other mechanisms both direct and indirect. One faculty member commented that
14
companies could be charged a premium on rent and UCLA equipment could be leveraged. And,
if successful, these companies might become large donors to UCLA.
View 2: Allocating space on campus for industry creates many conflicts
Some faculty members were against ceding campus space to companies. They believed
that the risks associated with hosting companies on campus outweigh the benefits to UCLA. As
one faculty member explained, too many unmanageable problems arise when industry is
physically operating their own businesses on campus, especially if that space could be used by
UCLA faculty. The proposed solution is to have companies reside off, but close to campus.
Ample benefit could be derived from companies located nearby without invoking the myriad of
problems associated with on-campus industry residents.
One concern that faculty members had was that campus would be influenced to shift
priorities to benefit those companies on campus. If these companies were charged rent, campus
might decide it was more advantageous to charge companies for space than provide it to faculty.
Another example given by one faculty member involves the use of core facilities on campus that
are open to industry users. These facilities could charge industry as much as three times more
than they charged UCLA faculty. As the costs to operate these facilities increases, operators of
these facilities might be motivated to set aside more time for industry members over UCLA
faculty, thus essentially prioritizing the needs of industry over campus needs.
Campus is especially at a high risk of running into problems if faculty members and their
startup companies are allowed to co-locate within the same lab. As explained by one faculty
member, co-location of academic and private research in the same laboratory would challenge
even the most scrupulous attention to conflict of interest.
Another issue cited by several faculty members was the risk of cross pollination from
communal workspace and shared instruments. The close proximity between companies and
UCLA faculty, personnel, and students increases the chances that intellectual property could be
inadvertently lost to a company that resides on campus. One faculty member cited this concern
as a reason for excluding established companies on campus. He explained that startup
companies are here because they need facilities; they are concentrating on their own research and
intellectual property, “[t]here’s not too many people snooping around and the people in there are
gonna be pretty much focused on what they’re doing.” In contrast, established companies have
their own facilities and the primary reason these companies want to be on campus is to gain
some sort of competitive edge. They may want to hear about research and development that is
coming out of our labs. The potential to lose intellectual property to them is high. The risk of
loss escalates when students who might not have the experience to distinguish what they can and
cannot share with a company interact frequently with company employees. Some faculty
members relayed stories they heard where company employees “stole” research results and
intellectual property from the University and published or patented before the University.
15
Additional issues that confront and confound faculty members include: conflicts arising
from the use of campus laboratories as workspace for companies, conflicts of interest and
commitment for faculty, staff, fellows and student entrepreneurs, in which the latter almost
become de facto company employees, there would need to be a fair selection process, leasing of
state property at a fair-market rental price in conformity to state law, research compliance, and
an acknowledgement of the stress on under-resourced offices of technology commercialization.
A simple way to alleviate and, in some cases, resolve these conflicts is to have companies
reside off campus. As one faculty member expressed, “it is better to have a privately funded
business park off, but close to campus.” Other faculty members agreed that there was no
problem in having one’s startup off-campus. Ideally, as one faculty member suggested, campus
could facilitate the development of space near campus for startup companies. The often cited
example is the creation of the incubator near UC Irvine where UC Irvine took the initiative to get
a technical park built near the campus.
View 3: Appropriate standards and guidelines are needed if industry is allocated space on
campus
The third point of view came from faculty members who were not opposed to increasing
industry’s physical presence on campus, but were wary of the inherent problems that would need
to be resolved. These faculty members recognized the benefits for companies on campus: access
to advanced facilities at a reasonable price, legitimacy from having a UCLA address, direct
access to UCLA scientists, opportunities to learn about the research and technologies coming out
of UCLA labs. They recognized the benefits for UCLA – additional income through space and
equipment rental, employment opportunities for its students, opportunities to foster relationships
for future collaborations and funding, facilitation of the commercial development of University
intellectual property, and an overall boost to the entrepreneurial spirit on campus.
At the same time, there was also no hesitation in voicing concerns about having industry
on campus. In particular, these faculty were mindful of the potential problems associated with a
growing industry presence. These faculty members stressed the importance of implementing
procedures that took into account ways to (a) ensure the integrity of how space is used and
allocated, (b) protect against threats to the fundamental core values of the campus, and (c) avoid
loss of intellectual property. Some faculty wanted to be certain that the benefits to the campus
affected the entire campus and did not privilege only the “hard” sciences.
To address the allocation of space, some faculty recommended that a faculty committee
be formed to make this decision. Others suggested that the Chancellor or his designee should
decide. “Space should always be allocated based on agreed upon priorities and principles,
defined by faculty and administration, including representatives from the Deans’ office,
departments, research units, and junior faculty. There should be a well defined scope for
interaction between academia and industry on campus,” suggested one faculty member.
16
2. REPUTATION
A healthy Entrepreneurial Ecosystem requires a positive perception and good relations
with outside industry. Faculty and administration agreed that this is one component of UCLA’s
ecosystem that required significant improvement. “UCLA has had a reputation for being the
worst institution to work with both within the UC system and beyond.” UCLA’s reputation has
been blamed on numerous factors, including the following:
• UCLA’s conflict of interest policy has been too restrictive. As discussed below,
faculty members felt that historically UCLA’s default position has been not to trust
the investigator and to simply avoid the conflict rather than manage it.
• UCLA has been a hard nose negotiator of intellectual property terms. Faculty
members spoke about deals they believe were lost because of UCLA’s inflexible
approach to IP ownership rights.
• UCLA has not been helpful with people who want information about what is going at
UCLA. According to faculty, there has been very little effort by the campus to reach
out and establish relationships with industry, and when industry has made efforts to
engage UCLA, often they were not provided with quality customer service and as a
result industry quickly lost interest.
• UCLA has made it difficult for faculty to navigate how to receive money from
companies and individuals seeking to support their research. Faculty complained that
the amount of time, confusion, paperwork and back-and-forth discussions necessary
to identify how to label money (i.e., as a gift, sponsored research, etc.) has been
frustrating to companies that want to deal with UCLA.
• Sales and Services – the method currently most commonly used for collaboration
with businesses – is an antiquated system that no longer works, particularly in cases
involving partnered business deals between academic departments and outside
companies. As stated by one dean, “systems need to be revised to enter a new world
order.”
• Smaller companies that want to engage in small scale sponsored research have not
been able to afford to work with UCLA because the indirect fees leave little money
for actual research.
These factors have hindered the negotiation process and overall experience that industry
has working with UCLA, and ultimately deters industry from UCLA. As one faculty member
put it, “companies tend to go back where they are successful and we are not one of them.” What
we need is an “industry welcome sign.”
17
NAVIGATION OF CONFLICTS
The complex and demanding nature of academic research today inevitably gives rise to
competing obligations and interests. Faculty members are expected to serve on committees, to
train young researchers, to teach, and to review grants and manuscripts while simultaneously
pursuing their own research and outside interests, including outside activities that may relate to
research conducted on campus. However, to preserve the integrity of the University, UCLA
researchers, and the research conducted therein, special steps should be taken to assure that
conflicts do not interfere either with the responsible conduct of research or with the faculty
member’s primary obligations to the University .
A robust Entrepreneurial Ecosystem will give rise to conflicts in two key areas: (1)
financial conflicts of interest, including conflicts of interest in research, and (2) conflicts of
commitment. While a conflict in one area often coincides with conflicts in another area,
financial conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment are governed by separate policies and
are handled by different campus organizations.
Conflicts of commitment arise from situations that place competing demands on a faculty
member’s time and loyalties. It is not atypical for faculty to be working concurrently on campus
research, teaching and advising students, participating in peer review panels, sitting on industry
advisory boards, and/or serving as a paid consultant or as an officer of a private company. Each
of these activities place demands on a faculty member’s time and energy. Care needs to be taken
to assure that these commitments do not inappropriately interfere with one another. Financial
conflicts of interest arise in situations that create perceived or actual tensions between the
possibility of personal financial gain and the important value of maintaining objectivity in
research and keeping the public trust. Reviews of financial conflicts related to research are not
only required by law but they are also important parts of the entrepreneurial landscape.
At UCLA, determining what policies apply and which office has jurisdiction to review a
particular conflict is not always intuitive. For example, the UC Office of General Counsel is
responsible for collecting and reviewing financial disclosures from all UC employees deemed,
by their title and job function, “designated officials.” UCLA’s purchasing department reviews
conflicts that may arise from a request to purchase items or services from a company in which a
UCLA employee has a financial interest. Most issues relating to conflict of commitment and
outside activities of faculty members are reviewed by the Vice Chancellor of Academic
Personnel. And the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, with support from the Office of
Research Policy and Compliance, is responsible for ensuring that financial interests disclosed by
faculty and other UCLA researchers are reviewed by the faculty Conflict of Interest in Research
Committee (CIRC).
Many of our discussions with faculty confirmed that faculty members lacked
understanding and were often confused about how to address conflicts. It became apparent that
18
many investigators conflated the concepts of conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment.
Few faculty members were able to separate the two issues. It was also clear that faculty members
were unsure who should be consulted when issues arose, and instead, pointed to CIRC for all
conflict issues, including those under the purview of other campus units.
Most faculty members acknowledged that the conflict of interest rules and review process
were not well understood. One often cited comment was the perception that there was no one
available to advise faculty on the conflict process. As a result, people were frustrated and “didn’t
fill out the forms correctly, pleaded ignorant, came back years later and wanted to retroactively
disclose things that they should have disclosed earlier.” In addition, it was reported that many
faculty believed that by disclosing a conflict they would be automatically prohibited from
moving forward. Many faculty members commented that the rules did not appear to be enforced
uniformly and, as a result, faculty could not predict whether their proposed activity could be
managed. “If the rules were clear and everybody understood it and people realized that the rules
were for their benefit, they would disclose things and we wouldn’t have had problems,”
explained one faculty member.
Faculty who were interviewed agreed that the campus needs to manage conflicts rather
than avoid them if UCLA wants to foster further entrepreneurship. As entrepreneurship
increases, conflicts tend to increase. Entrepreneurial faculty members felt that campus is still in
denial; they expressed that campus needs to accept that there are going to be conflicts of interest
and that the presence of conflicts is not necessarily a bad thing. As one faculty member
commented, “the University should not automatically assume the worst.”
Despite the criticism, some faculty members recognized that managing conflicts is not a
problem unique to UCLA. One self-identified “serial conflicted” faculty member acknowledged
that this is an issue endemic to all research institutions. The biggest issue, he said, arises when
faculty members are too intimidated to confront the conflict and, instead they lose out on
commercialization opportunities by avoiding the conflict altogether or they ignore the situation
by violating conflict policies. “Managing the conflict requires a lot of communication with the
COI committee, which can take time and be intimidating.” Based on his many conversations
with colleagues at other high level institutions, including MIT and Stanford, he recognized that
the CIRC works hard to help manage conflicts and believes that he would not be able to obtain
the same positive outcome at other institutions.
Others suggested that there should be a more engaged process for determining and
managing conflicts of interest in research. One faculty member suggested that “the key is to
develop a set of acceptable standards and processes by which these conflicts are managed in an
ongoing basis. It should be an ongoing process where there is oversight and interaction, and
policing, if their needs to be, and if somebody makes a mistake then everybody’s got to come
clean and say we made a mistake and deal with it.” An alternative recommendation posed was to
discourage junior faculty from engaging in entrepreneurial activities that give rise to these types
19
of conflicts. Rather, it was suggested that junior faculty should focus on proving their academic
rigor and set aside entrepreneurship until after achieving tenure. “It is a mistake to push faculty
to do this before the tenure decision unless this is some obvious opportunity that they can’t pass
up; after tenure [faculty] know they can survive, then it’s a matter of balancing the two sides.”
Faculty who were interviewed raised concerns about other conflicts that emerge with
increased entrepreneurship. Some had ethical concerns regarding the reputation of companies
with which UCLA collaborates. Others were concerned about the use of UCLA resources to
benefit a faculty member’s own startup and the possibility that someone might steer research
towards areas that would provide direct benefit to the startup. Some expressed concerns about
conflicts of commitment and more specifically about the amount of time faculty were devoting to
outside activities that could eventually bleed into campus research, blurring the lines of what is
acceptable. Related to this concern is the growth of student involvement in a faculty member’s
outside activities. As explained by one entrepreneurial faculty member, campus should be
careful when evaluating the appropriateness of activities where faculty hire their own students to
work for their own startups or when faculty direct students to study areas because of the
commercial potential. The goals for students – publishing and graduating – differ from those of
companies. Thus, conflicts may arise when entrepreneurial faculty are supervising students and
mentoring them through the graduation process on the one hand but hindering their ability to
publish in order to benefit company goals on the other hand. As a result of this concern, some
faculty members suggested that it is not appropriate to hire their own students or even broach the
subject of possible outside employment until students have graduated.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UCLA’S ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM
1. CREATION OF A 501(C)(3) NONPROFIT TO OVERSEE OIP-ISR
On May 16, 2013, our campus received unanimous approval from the University of
California Board of Regents to reorganize the governance of our Office of Intellectual Property
and Industry Sponsored Research (OIP-ISR). This important effort to enhance UCLA’s
technology transfer function was undertaken to protect the intellectual property and reputation of
UCLA while improving our delivery of innovations and scholarship to society. Within a year, the
staff of OIP-ISR will report to the board members of a newly created 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation that will be comprised primarily of individuals possessing extensive experience in
bridging the worlds of academia and business. These will be Friends of the University: leaders in
such fields as pharmaceutical manufacturing, technology, engineering, and venture capital. The
Board will also include in its membership UCLA Academic Senate faculty. This board will bring
a new level of professional capability to assist our campus with decisions about patenting,
licensing, campus investment, risk tolerance, and industry-sponsored research contracts. The
University stands to benefit from their real world business experience.
20
These board members will not benefit financially in any way from their service to UCLA:
they will receive no compensation for their services, nor will they have any disqualifying
financial interests. They will be held to the same conflict of interest standards as the UC Regents,
the UC President, and the Governor of California. The UC Office of General Counsel, the UC
President, and the UCLA Chancellor will ensure that charter documents and internal policies will
hold the board members to the same standards that apply to other University officials. All
finances will be received by and distributed from University and campus accounts. The
performance of OIP-ISR and its board will also be reviewed by a soon-to-be created
Chancellor’s Oversight Committee, which will consist of deans, UCLA Academic Senate
appointees, and senior campus administrators. UCLA students will be appointed to the
committee as well. The Regents have expressed keen interest in evaluating our progress.
2. A SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL MODEL TO SUPPORT OIP-ISR
A. OIP-ISR Operations
The salary, benefits and patent legal expenses of OIP-ISR are currently paid from the
Campus Share of licensing and royalty revenues and some 19900 State funds.
The Campus Share is defined by UC policy. After all patent, legal and joint holder
expenses for an IP portfolio are paid, the inventors and research unit receive 50% of licensing
revenue, and the General Fund (12.5 %) and Campus Share (37.5%) receive the remaining 50%.
The Campus share is distributed at the discretion of the Chancellor. We propose to continue this
self-supporting financial model, but with several refinements. Each year, the Chancellor will
receive a detailed financial report and budget request that has been prepared by the OIP-ISR
staff, approved by the OIP-ISR Board.
The Board will provide the Chancellor with the necessary data, opinions and philosophies
to decide: (1) the staffing levels, distribution of expenses and compensation for OIP-ISR staff;
(2) the level of patent and legal expenses to be invested in University intellectual property; and
(3) other possible OIP-ISR budget categories such as Proof-of-Concept Grants (see below),
campus investments in specific technology platforms (see below), or other infrastructure that
would enhance entrepreneurial discovery and scholarship. The Chancellor’s Oversight
Committee will review the performance of the OIP-ISR on an annual basis, and will advise the
Chancellor on any concerns from the campus.
B. Additional Possible Uses of OIP-ISR Revenues
The Campus Share of licensing revenues has traditionally been used to pay for OIP-ISR
operations with the remainder being proportionately distributed to the deans from whose schools
the successful licensing events were produced. Since the Campus Share is distributed at the
discretion of the Chancellor, there is the opportunity for flexibility in its use.
21
After reviewing recommendations from the OIP-ISR Board and the Oversight
Committee, the Chancellor may wish to allocate a portion of the Campus Share to:
1) Campus Proof-of-Concept grants. Targeted campus investments in select IP
may significantly enhance its value price to a licensing event.
2) Technology Transfer and other infrastructure. Specific platforms that enable
discovery-based research and scholarship for the explicit purpose of enhancing
commercial value may be entertained as worthy of campus investment, alone or in
partnership with a specific school, division or center.
3) Other Campus Priorities Unrelated to Entrepreneurship. The Chancellor may
choose to use OIP-ISR funds to support important programs to advance academic
scholarship unrelated to where the revenue originated, such as initiatives in the
performing arts or languages.
3. BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARDS SERVING INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND DIVISIONS
Faculty who were interviewed expressed a need for industry expert guidance, which can
be provided through Business Advisory Boards (BABs) as advocated for in Ecosystem I. BABs
would utilize the experience of industry experts to facilitate the translation of faculty inventions.
Facilitation can occur through individual faculty mentorship or broader educational
programming in specific areas of expertise. BABs also have the potential to utilize their
relationships with industry to make introductions and catalyze more industry sponsored
research.OIP-ISR is in the process of assembling its first BAB from the medical device industry,
building on the success of the Medical Device Partnering Conference in February 2013.
However, the consensus on campus is that deans should assemble their own BABs and define
responsibilities according to the individual needs of their faculty and students. This is already
happening at UCLA. The Henry Samueli School of Engineering launched the Institute for
Technology Advancement (ITA) to assist faculty in starting new companies based on their
research and enable the development of new multi-disciplinary research efforts for the school.
The David Geffen School of Medicine is in the process of launching a new accelerator to help
faculty along similar lines.
BABs should also have the capacity to help identify and promote investment in
opportunities in which Deans could invest discretionary funds. These funds could then be used to
support various translational efforts – from proof-of-concept research to funding patent expenses
in which the campus is unwilling or unable to support – with a commensurate return to the
school should the investment yield licensing income. BABs should use their in-depth expertise to
play an active role in these investment decisions.
22
However, close coordination between the BABs and the OIP-ISR Board is essential. The
campus needs to avoid different stakeholders providing conflicting advice to faculty
entrepreneurs. In addition, relationships with industry could potentially be undermined if the
campus is not providing a consistent message. For external stakeholders, UCLA is one campus,
and should be consistent in our communications to the broader community.
4. ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION
Producing graduates, trainees and faculty who can convert a good idea into a public good
is essential to UCLA’s mission to serve the public. To achieve this goal, the UCLA community
must have access to a wide range of entrepreneurial learning experiences. It is also crucial to
expand the number of educational services available as student and faculty interest in
entrepreneurship continues to increase. For these reasons, the educational component of the
Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship has become a priority and, as revealed below, great effort has
been taken to make both formal and informal instruction available to the entire UCLA
community.
Undergraduate educational programs and courses
Entrepreneurial courses and programs being offered to undergraduate students across
campus continues to grow each year. J ust this past year, the Anderson School of Management
has added five new courses to their Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Program, ranging from
Business Plan Development to Entrepreneurial Finance and Accounting. The program will also
provide its students with opportunities for internship/field experience. The Department of
Economics is offering a new course called the Social Enterprise Academy, which provides
hands-on experience to students interested in becoming entrepreneurs for a good cause. With
help from in-class workshops, successful entrepreneurs and MBA students from the Anderson
School of Management, teams of students work with different nonprofits to develop business
plans for growth. At the end of the course, students present their business plan before a panel of
judges, competing for a $10,000 prize to start up their business idea. Startup UCLA, which is
organized by the Division of Social Sciences, is also expanding its offerings by hosting more
events and presentations from accomplished investors and entrepreneurs, in addition to its
successful 10-week summer accelerator program for undergraduate students. Other schools and
departments are adding introductory courses on entrepreneurship with plans to expand their
programs based on student interest.
Educational programs and course for graduate and postgraduate students
There are also increasing campus-wide efforts to reach out and educate graduates and
postgraduates. The Business of Science Center (BSC) organizes student run assessments of
UCLA IP, offers venture competitions and graduate level courses geared towards training in
technology transfer and careers in the private sector. In December 2012, the BSC also began
23
offering the Advancing Bioengineering Innovations (ABI) program. ABI is a two-quarter long
course designed to teach students about the medical device design process through lectures, guest
speakers, and a hands-on project. Multi-disciplinary teams of graduate students evaluate actual
unmet medical needs identified in the UCLA Hospital System and invent and develop practical
solutions that address these needs. The team-based project component of the course is
complemented by lectures and panels from UCLA faculty and industry experts to provide
additional teaching and guidance on the product development process and entrepreneurship as it
relates to medical devices. The goals of the ABI program are to develop medical device solutions
that improve patient care and prepare students for careers in healthcare, product development,
and entrepreneurship.
The Price Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at Anderson engages its graduate students
through activities like the Technology & Innovation Partners (TIP) program, in which the
students assess the feasibility and market potential for UCLA IP. The Institute for Technology
Advancement (ITA), which is made available to all students and postgraduate students provides
business development support and strategic direction for new startup companies and provides
further information about entrepreneurial resources on campus.
Entrepreneur-in-Residence Program, Mentors and Coaches Made Available to All Students,
Postgraduates and Faculty
OIP-ISR provides the UCLA community with entrepreneurial guidance through various
educational and mentoring services. First, the newly implemented Entrepreneurs-in-Residence
(EIRs) program aims to connect UCLA technologies with industry executives, serial
entrepreneurs, and the larger investor community. EIRs lend their own industry and startup
experience to help guide and bolster entrepreneurial efforts across campus. EIRs are involved in
a range of activities on campus, including: meeting with UCLA inventors including faculty, post-
docs, and graduate students, to lend commercial perspective on research/technologies; providing
guidance to faculty and student entrepreneurs interested in starting a company; holding on-
campus seminars and speaking engagements to share their own experiences; and advising
faculty, post-docs, and students on startup matters. The EIRs launched a “Startups 101 Seminar
Series” featuring lectures for faculty, staff, and students on how to create a successful startup
business. The series aimed to familiarize participants with terminology used by entrepreneurs,
lawyers, and investors when forming and financing a new company, and equip participants to
assess the feasibility of a business concept and communicate that concept. Further lectures are
planned around specific areas of interest such as FDA regulation.
OIP-ISR has also begun offering legal and mentor office hours for faculty thinking of
starting companies. OIP-ISR staff is meeting with startup law firms in Los Angeles to put
together packages for UCLA startup companies. These firms have also offered to host additional
seminars and office hours to assist faculty.
24
OIP-ISR Seminar Series
OIP-ISR recently initiated a Campus Series on Intellectual Property – a rotating series of
classes designed to educate faculty and researchers about IP addressing a variety of topics,
including: (1) the difference between patents, trademarks and copyrights; (2) the process for
securing a patent; (3) UCLA’s policy and procedures on IP; and (4) the technology transfer
process. Further initiatives have included an SBIR / STTR Workshop, the first of a planned
series on how to win funding from Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. SBIR and STTR grants are useful sources of
non-dilutive funding designed for small businesses driving forward significant innovation, such
as those from universities.
Other OIP-ISR outreach
In addition, more informal channels for faculty engagement are being pursued. In
FY2013, presentations to department meetings were implemented as an evaluation criterion for
every OIP and ISR officer, and in FY2014 OIP-ISR’s aspiration is to reach every department and
division.
OIP-ISR is also producing reference publications on Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
on entrepreneurship, SBIR / STTRs, and technology transfer. OIP-ISR has implemented a
monthly “UCLA Invents” newsletter, an email-based news bulletin highlighting startup and
technology commercialization developments and opportunities at UCLA. OIP-ISR is now also
providing new faculty with a welcome letter in order to help ease their transition to UCLA and
inform them of the various services available to them in technology transfer and
entrepreneurship.
Additional planned initiatives include an online IP training for faculty, being developed
in partnership with UCOP and UCLA.
5. ENHANCING HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY
There is no dispute that collaborations between industry and academia present
tremendous opportunities for advancing knowledge, applying it to real-world problems, and
bringing forth a myriad of social benefits. Academic-industry research arrangements have
proven critical to the development of numerous powerful technologies in medicine, agriculture,
energy, and other fields. But the increasing complexity of these arrangements calls for careful
management of these collaborations in a manner consistent with the long-term interests of both
the University and the broader society, including private industry.
Determining what steps to take to improve academic-industry relationships and facilitate
industry engagement is complicated and requires careful consideration. Currently, efforts are
25
being made to review certain campus policies and existing guidelines relating to industry
engagement. In addition, several recommendations are being considered and vetted to increase
partnerships and improve external relations.
Industry Sponsored Research
At a time when universities are receiving increased pressure to be engines of economic
growth, the desire to generate academic-industry collaborations is great. However, getting to
the point where these relationships can grow dramatically is not easy. The ability of a university
and a company to work jointly in research depends upon each party’s ability to agree on
research goals and related legal and business terms. A successful relationship can lead to a
well-prepared next-generation workforce, the transfer of basic research discoveries into
commercial applications, and increased benefit to the public. Inadequate or misguided
management of industry relationships, however, threatens the very principles that universities
hold most sacred: academic freedom, scientific objectivity and accuracy, broad dissemination of
knowledge through publication, and the development of products and technologies that serve the
public good.
In an effort to enhance UCLA-industry relations, OIP-ISR has increased efforts to help
faculty form and maintain relationships with potential industry partners. Specifically, OIP-ISR
has increased its outreach efforts both on campus and off. Concerted efforts are being made to
reach out to departments to better explain OIP-ISR’s expertise and its overall role within
UCLA’s research organization, as well as the newly-implemented programs that can assist
faculty in increasing its visibility to potential industry partners. OIP-ISR is also focusing efforts
to engage industry and understand each potential partner’s specific needs; this direct interaction
enhances our ability to connect industry with our faculty. The overall goal is to develop long-
term relationships with these industry partners and translate these relationships into large multi-
year sponsored research collaborations.
In addition, OIP-ISR has approached several industry sponsors who have numerous
recurring collaborations with UCLA to discuss ways to facilitate and streamline the research
contracting process. As a result, several of these industry sponsors elected to enter into master
agreements with campus. These industry sponsors include Amgen, Siemens, Takeda, and
Roche. Though, each party to these agreements are allowed to exercise its discretion to
determine whether the terms of the master agreement are appropriate for a specific scope of
work, we expect that the majority of research projects will fall under the terms of the master
and, thus, will require no further negotiation. There will, however, be exceptions. We expect
some special projects will require alternate terms due to unusual factors such as a high
probability that valuable intellectual property will be developed, the presence of third party
materials and/or funding, or the use of University-owned background intellectual property.
Although alternate terms may need to be negotiated, the majority of the terms under the master
agreement will require no further negotiation saving both time and effort.
26
Industry Use of Campus Space
Over the past five years, there have been increasing requests from various UCLA
departments to make both office space and lab space on campus available for industry to conduct
its own proprietary research. As previously discussed, many divergent opinions were voiced
about allotting campus space for industry use. One of the few areas of consensus centered
around the lack of official campus guidelines. Rather, when such requests for space are made,
each department uses different standards and imposes different conditions for each situation such
that there is a lack of uniformity across campus.
UCLA does not have a policy or other uniform guidance that addresses use of campus
space for industry. A few years ago, an effort was made to draft such a policy, however, it was
never finalized. Given the current push to work closer with industry, it may be advisable to form
a committee comprised of representatives from across campus to address the various issues that
were raised by faculty, to review the prior documents relating to use of campus space for outside
entities, and to set policy to be adopted campus-wide.
Protection Against Inadvertent Disclosures
Traditionally, we’ve placed great trust in our faculty and campus administration to self-
regulate and administer its own practices to review and report any issues of concern with respect
to disclosure of confidential information, including intellectual property. However, mounting
concern from lawmakers, government agencies, and the public demonstrates the clear need for
stronger measures to protect public trust in academic research. Most recently, the
implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA) changed the patent system such that the first
inventor to file a patent application is awarded the patent even if the inventor made the invention
later than other patent applicants who filed later. As a result, researchers need to be made better
aware to contact OIP-ISR as early as possible and in advance of any publication submission or
any public presentation to ensure that their ideas are protected. In addition, any disclosure of
intellectual property to third parties should be carried out under a non-disclosure agreement
executed through OIP-ISR.
Moreover, to ensure that our faculty understand the implications of the AIA, OIP-ISR has
sponsored numerous lectures on campus taught by reputable law firms to explain these rule
changes. OIP-ISR has also made arrangements with these firms to hold open office hours to
enable concerned researchers to discuss their intellectual property with these legal experts.
In addition to its own researchers, other opportunities for inadvertent disclosure of
information abound due to the presence of outsiders working on campus. Specifically, UCLA
hosts numerous visitors from other institutions and from industry to participate in research
activities on campus. These visitors have broad access to labs and frequent interactions with
faculty and students. There is no consistent system to track these visitors or to ensure that
appropriate approvals have been sought and required documents protecting University and
27
campus assets, including intellectual property, have been signed. OIP-ISR is assisting Audit in
its review of the campus’ current policies and procedures and will help recommend a course of
action to mitigate the risk of any liability caused by the activities of these visitors.
6. USE OF CAMPUS SPACE FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL VENTURES
Many technologies developed at UCLA have been the foundation for startup companies.
In some cases, these start-ups involve the faculty members who created the intellectual property.
There are a number of reasons why faculty members are not allowed to conduct work for their
startup companies within their UCLA labs. Use of campus facilities in this manner can create
unmanageable conflicts, liabilities, and other penalties for campus and the researcher imposed by
the IRS and other government agencies. UCLA recognizes, however, that there are times that
the academic lab may be pursuing basic research that is complementary to the startup’s
development work or there may be instances where proof of concept or reduction to practice
experimentation is needed and the academic laboratory is best equipped to perform this work. In
these cases, the start-up can enter into a sponsored research agreement with campus to fund this
work. Funding from startups to the faculty founder’s academic laboratory are handled by OIP-
ISR with approval from the Conflict of Interest in Research Committee.
As previously discussed, the campus currently provides 2,000 square feet of lab space to
house startup companies in CNSI. At CNSI, an Incubation Committee comprised of CNSI
faculty, in consultation with OIP-ISR and CNSI business advisors, evaluate company applicants
and their intellectual property to decide entry into the incubator. One eligibility requirement for
all companies is that the intellectual property to be developed in the incubator must be licensed
from UCLA.
Given the high demand and purported success of companies inhabiting the CNSI
incubator, UCLA needs to consider whether additional space should be made available on
campus. As with established industries using space on campus, there is also a lack of guidance
from campus regarding use of space by startup companies. In order to maintain some
consistency and to discourage certain forum shopping between departments, campus needs to
establish procedures and guidelines for determining (a) how space is assigned, (b) whether there
should be certain uniform terms applicable to all outside entities regardless of the entity’s size,
(c) eligibility requirements, (d) rent, and (e) what constitutes permissible versus impermissible
use. As other universities are establishing space on their campuses for academic-related
entrepreneurial ventures, and private entities are quickly competing to offer affordable research
space, UCLA needs to be actively considering these issues now so that it is not left behind.
7. VENTURE PHILANTHROPY
UCLA has the opportunity to attract philanthropic gifts that can be invested in the
translation of UCLA inventions into external applications, whether commercial, nonprofit, or
otherwise. Donors will know their gift has the potential to generate significant returns to society
28
and campus, should the funded technology be successfully translated. These funds could be
raised by the OIP-ISR Board as well as individual school BABs, and awarded to UCLA
inventions that, in their business judgment, are worthy of investment.
Other leading institutions have attempted to pioneer this model. For example in 2007,
Harvard established a Biomedical Accelerator Fund with a gift of $5 million from a Business
School alumnus and an additional $5 million from other sources. In April of 2013, they raised an
additional $50 million to grow the fund and establish life-sciences-entrepreneurship fellowships
at Harvard Business School. This is proof that there is significant appetite from philanthropic
sources for this type of contribution. We believe that this model can be improved. UCLA should
consider this significant opportunity, and should look to other university best practices to guide
the design of fund structures.
8. NAVIGATING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
While campus encourages entrepreneurial activities such as transforming technology
developed in campus laboratories into broad commercial applications, it is imperative that this be
done ethically and with integrity. The manner with which conflicts are reviewed have not been
well understood and many resources available to faculty have been underused and not well
known. Due to the complexity of these issues, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott
Waugh established a Conflict of Interest Task Force in J une 2011. The Task Force, chaired by
Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs Kevin Reed, was charged with recommending steps that
should be taken to simplify the management of financial conflicts of interest in research while
preserving the highest ethical standards.
After careful review, the Task Force recognized that the policies, regulations, and laws
governing conflicts of interest were often inconsistent due to differing definitions and
requirements imposed by institutional, state, and federal organizations. Because the existing
laws and regulations were beyond the purview of the campus, the Task Force focused on
improving procedures to implement and administer the various policies, regulations, and laws
that relate to conflicts of interest.
Recommendations to improve the review of conflicts fall into three main categories: (1)
improve support to investigators, (2) increase CIRC efficiency, and (3) fill gaps not currently
addressed in the existing conflict of interest policies and procedures. In addition, new
regulations effective August 23, 2012 have invoked additional changes to the management and
review of conflicts at UCLA. For more details regarding the recommendations and the steps that
have already been taken to improve the review process, see Appendix I.
9. BETTER NAVIGATION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS
With the growing number of cross-campus initiatives being offered to support
entrepreneurship and number of administrative offices involved, faculty need a better way to
29
navigate the various organizations and resources. As a first step, OIP-ISR worked with many of
the entrepreneurial organizations on campus, including, OIP-ISR, BSC, TEC, ITA, EA, and
Startup UCLA, to convene an Entrepreneurship Council. The Council now meets on a monthly
basis to discuss common issues and concerns, inform one another of their activities, discuss
shared policy issues, and better coordinate their efforts in support of the UCLA community.
One of the initiatives that all groups have aligned behind is a more robust re-launch of
BRUINcubate, a pilot project from OIP-ISR. It is a portal listing all entrepreneurial groups,
resources and events on campus, as well as additional resources off campus to help the UCLA
entrepreneurial community get the information they need to start a business or connect with
talent.
In addition, OIP-ISR will make it easier for faculty to remain in contact and navigate
issues, policies, and the various organizations that touch entrepreneurial aspirations by assigning
a single Officer to serve as a personal concierge in navigating issues, policies, and the various
organizations that touch entrepreneurial aspirations. Anytime faculty members have questions or
concerns about their portfolio, they can return to this same person, who will help them navigate
the complex and dynamic Entrepreneurial Ecosystem at UCLA.
CONCLUSION
The landscape at academic institutions is changing, and the consensus across campus is
that UCLA must adopt a modern entrepreneurial mindset in order to effectively continue
delivering innovative ideas to society for the public good. Though not the primary motivator,
occasional financial success may arise from these activities, and should be used to support the
research, education, and public service mission of the University. Increasing entrepreneurship
on campus, however, leads to conflicts and divergent choices, both of which need to be actively
and transparently managed to ensure the integrity of the institution.
The views expressed by faculty included in this report highlight the breadth of choices
and diversity of perspectives across campus. As the Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship forges
ahead, there will be new issues and opportunities that will require continuous reassessment and
consideration. UCLA is already making progress on many of the historic challenges to
entrepreneurship on campus, but it is clear that much more can and should be done. The
significant momentum seen over the last two years must be sustained if UCLA is going to take
its place amongst the top entrepreneurial universities.
We would like to acknowledge contributions and insights from across and beyond
campus that informed this report. This draft is the product of inputs from many sources,
including the administration, technology transfer staff, the Office of the President, peer
institutions, and, most importantly, faculty and deans. We hope this report successfully captured
both the spirit and diversity of viewpoints expressed.
30
Authored by:
Brendan Rauw, Associate Vice Chancellor & Executive Director of Entrepreneurship, OIP-ISR
Lillian Smith, Director Strategic Initiatives, OIP-ISR
Sarah Honig, Entrepreneurship Associate, OIP-ISR
Ornah Medovoi, Director of Special Projects, OVCR
UCLA Contributors:
Vice Chancellor J ames Economou
Dean Vijay Dhir
Dean Aimee Dorr
Dean Alessandro Duranti
Dean Franklin D. Gilliam
Dean Courtney Lyder
Dean Rachel Moran
Dean J udy Olian
Dean No-Hee Park
Dean J oseph Rudnick
Dean David Schaberg
Dean Terry Schwartz
Dean Victoria Sork
Dean Christopher Waterman
Dean A. Eugene Washington
Professor Andy Atkeson
Professor Eva Baker
Professor Barbara Bates-J ensen
Professor J .R. DeShazo
Professor Megan Franke
Professor Rajit Gadh
Professor J udy Gasson
Professor Dean Ho
Professor Eric Hoek
Professor Richard Kaner
Professor J ames Liao
Professor Thomas Mason
Professor William Ouchi
Professor Todd Presner
Professor Michael Roth
Professor Wenyuan Shi
Professor Eddo Stern
Professor Timothy Tangherlini
Professor Gil Travish
Professor Kang Ting
Professor Lynn Vavreck Lewis
Professor Kang Wang
Professor Eric Zolt
Professor J ohn Mazziotta
Assistant Vice Chancellor Ann Pollack
Assistant Vice Chancellor Michelle Popowitz
Special thanks to:
Assistant Vice Chancellor Erik Lium, UCSF
Director Katherine Ku, Stanford
31
APPENDIX I
As previously discussed, the Conflict of Interest Task Force, established J une 2011,
reviewed the current campus research-related conflict procedures and practices and, through its
review, devised a list of recommendations to help streamline procedures and assist faculty. In
addition, new regulations effective August 23, 2012 provided more guidance on the management
and review of conflicts. Recommendations to improve the review of conflicts fell into three
main categories: (1) improve support to investigators, (2) increase CIRC efficiency, and (3) fill
gaps not currently addressed in the existing conflict of interest policies and procedures.
Improve Support to Investigators
Through our interviews, it became clear that most faculty members have been confused
and intimidated by the conflicts review process. As a result, faculty often fail to provide full
information, leading to delays as the staff tasked with collecting information must go back to the
faculty member numerous times in order to obtain full disclosure. To break this cycle of
confusion, CIRC staff should be more proactive and increase assistance to faculty members at
the time proposals are first submitted for review. When complex cases arise, staff should
provide guidance and status updates throughout the review process and, after the determination
has been made, staff should meet with the faculty to explain the decision to ensure that the
reasons for the determination and the conditions for management are fully understood. This
recommendation also requires a decision regarding where resources should be allocated to enable
such increased assistance.
Another potential source of support could be an online portal that brings together all
relevant information, including policies, procedures, forms, and resources for assistance. The
portal should enable faculty to obtain information about the status of the conflict review and
other relevant information in one place. The Office of Legal Affairs, with the Office of Research
Administration, the Office of Research, Policy, and Compliance, and OIP-ISR should create a
user-friendly “rules of the road document” that provides detailed instructions for faculty and
identifies resources to assist faculty with disclosures.
Increase CIRC Efficiency
As revealed through the Conflict of Interest Task Force findings, the efficiency of the
CIRC is hampered by multiple handicaps: a lack of sufficient information, an absence of
linkages to other campus units, and inadequate technology. The most critical hindrance is the
lack of a database to house all information collected, and be a repository for all recommendations
made by the CIRC and final determinations issued by the Vice Chancellor for Research. The
campus recently invested in the development and implementation of Phase I of a web-based
disclosure system (eDGE) in order to implement revised federal regulations. What remains to be
addressed are steps required to further develop eDGE in order to use the system to capture
financial disclosures required under other federal and state regulations, to link with other campus
32
legacy systems, to achieve greater efficiencies by using the system’s meeting management
functions and to document CIRC cases and reports. Presumably a robust database could also
generate workload metrics, data on turnaround times and other information of interest to campus
leadership and the research community. Consideration of any of those prospects will involve the
identification of resources that are currently not available.
Ideally, the electronic systems used by the Office of Research Policy and Compliance
(RPC), ORA, the Office of Research Protection Programs (OHRPP), and the Office of
Intellectual Property, would be connected. Although these separate systems are not linked
electronically, RPC staff do have access to the other databases. RPC staff have also established
close working relationships with staff of these offices. Ann Pollack, Assistant Vice Chancellor –
Research serves as a liaison to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel and to
the Office of Legal Affairs
The Task Force also recommended that CIRC meetings be organized in a way that
permits routine cases to be handled expeditiously so that the committee can devote more meeting
time to discussion of ones that are novel and complex. In actuality the meetings have been
organized in this way for several years. In addition, and even before release of the Task Force’s
report last year, investigators have frequently attended a portion of the monthly meeting to
engage in discussion with the Committee. In some instances this is done at the investigator’s
request. At other times investigators are invited to join the meeting by the Committee.
Fill Gaps in Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
Implementation of the measures recommended above should greatly improve the
efficiency of conflict reviews, however, there are several potentially useful practices that remain
absent. The Task Force report noted that there is no formal appeals process for faculty who are
dissatisfied with conflict decisions but recommended that one be put into place. While not a
formalized process, the Vice Chancellor for Research, to whom the Conflict of Interest Review
Committee (CIRC) is advisory, does occasionally receive requests for reconsideration of a CIRC
determination. He has consistently referred those requests back to the CIRC and in all cases
these individuals have been invited to talk with CIRC Chair and the Assistant Vice Chancellor –
Research, or to come to a committee meeting.
The Task Force also recommended that a single office of record be responsible for
holding official copies of all forms related to conflict disclosures, including financial conflict of
interest disclosures and conflict of commitment disclosures. This is a recommendation that
needs to be examined by a cross-section of campus and UC officials to determine its feasibility.
Although not addressed by the Task Force, it was raised in the faculty interviews that as the
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem on campus expands, policies for students, postdoctoral scholars and
staff involved in the commercialization of research that gives rise to conflicts should also be
developed. As a pilot program for OIP-ISR staff, an informal advisory committee was formed to
review proposed outside activities when requested by an OIP-ISR staff member in order to
33
ensure that those activities do not conflict with Staff Personnel Policy 82 (Conflict of Interest for
staff members).
In reviewing the faculty interviews and the Task Force recommendations it is clear that
many faculty members have been unaware of the existing policies and procedures in place and
have not fully understood what the review process entails. Similarly many have not understood
why the conflict review process is necessary for both individual investigators and the campus.
The call for the campus to provide more outreach in order to inform the faculty of the importance
of disclosing, the disclosure and review process, is clear. The challenge is to deliver the
appropriate message to the right audience.
doc_632447398.pdf
Entrepreneurship Words
UCLA Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
March 2014
FORWARD
Nearly four years ago, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research took on the task of evaluating UCLA’s
approach to entrepreneurship. This examination included a review of our current successes, an analysis of
approaches taken by peer institutions, and recommendations for enhancement. This evaluation produced two
pivotal reports: An Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship Part I and An Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship Part II:
Transition to a New Technology Transfer Process.
These two reports catalyzed a new entrepreneurial culture at UCLA; they provided a strategic framework to
advance university-based innovation and introduced progressive views of the roles and responsibilities of
academic institutions to encourage and foster an entrepreneurial environment. Anchored by a separate
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization formed to provide guidance and initiate greater opportunities for
entrepreneurship across the UCLA campus, this proposed framework garnered enthusiastic support and was
brought before the UC Regents for consideration. In May 2013, the UC Regents approved the adoption of this
new framework unanimously. This nonprofit organization, led by a Board of Directors comprised of
individuals possessing extensive experience in bridging the worlds of academia and business, will be created
and will formally begin its duties by the end of 2014.
In this third and final installment, we want to share the perspectives from faculty interviews conducted over the
last four years – over 100 in all – on what entrepreneurship means to them, and what are the desirable effects of
continued expansion of this entrepreneurial culture. There was not always clear agreement, and this report
reflects the diversity of those opinions. It is our hope that this final report will not end this dialogue, but will,
instead, encourage continued discussion.
William Ouchi Brendan Rauw
Sanford and Betty Sigoloff Chair in Corporate Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and
Renewal, Anderson School of Management Executive Director of Entrepreneurship, OIP-ISR
Entrepreneurship
en·tre·pre·neur·ship
noun \?ä?n-tr?-p(r)?-?n?r\?ship, -?n
u? r\?shipDefinition (as construed by UCLA): The passionate determination to translate a vision into reality
for the greater good of society; the creation of new knowledge for practical benefit.
1
UCLA ECOSYSTEM FOR ENTREPRENEURS, PART III:
A STRATEGIC BLUEPRINT FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AT UCLA
SUBMITTED FOR CAMPUS DISCUSSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 4
1. HISTORY AND CONTEXT ................................................................................................................ 4
2. STATUS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS AND RESOURCES ............................................... 5
3. OBJECTIVES AND PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 7
MEANING OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACROSS CAMPUS ..................................................................... 7
FACULTY ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ...................................................... 9
PROCESS AND NAVIGATION OF UCLA RESOURCES FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP ............................10
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ......................................................10
CAMPUS CULTURE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP..................................................................................11
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE ACADEMY AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES .........................12
1. REAL ESTATE ................................................................................................................................ 12
2. REPUTATION ................................................................................................................................. 16
NAVIGATION OF CONFLICTS ..........................................................................................................17
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UCLA’S ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM ..........................................19
1. CREATION OF A 501(C)(3) NONPROFIT TO OVERSEE OIP-ISR ............................................. 19
2. A SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL MODEL TO SUPPORT OIP-ISR .................................................. 20
3. BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARDS SERVING INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND DIVISIONS ................ 21
4. ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ................................................................................................ 22
5. ENHANCING HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY ...................................................... 24
6. USE OF CAMPUS SPACE FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL VENTURES ................................................ 27
7. VENTURE PHILANTHROPY .......................................................................................................... 27
8. NAVIGATING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .................................................................................... 28
9. BETTER NAVIGATION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS ................................................. 28
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................29
APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................................................ 31
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A new entrepreneurial culture has emerged and is taking shape on UCLA’s campus. This
cultural movement was catalyzed by a report entitled An Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship at
UCLA: An Invitation for Campus-wide Input. Now referred to as Ecosystem I, this report
focused externally on what other institutions were doing to cultivate entrepreneurship and
compared it to what was being done at UCLA. A second report, Ecosystem for Entrepreneurs II:
Transition to a New Technology Transfer Process, now referred to as Ecosystem II, took a closer
look at the structure of the Office of Intellectual Property and Industry Sponsored Research
(OIP-ISR), and its entrepreneurial activities. Many of the programs and actions defined in these
two reports have already been implemented across campus, while others are still in progress.
Most recently is UCLA’s request and the UC Regents’ unanimous approval of a new, non-profit
corporate entity with a Board of Directors (OIP-ISR Board) to oversee UCLA’s tech transfer
program. Such efforts undertaken to foster entrepreneurship and innovation have been met with
great support and excitement, reinvigorating faculty, students and staff across campus, as well as
the community at large.
Apart from the opportunities identified in Ecosystems I and II, there are several more key
components, opportunities, and questions pertinent to the growth of this Ecosystem model,
which we seek to address in this third and final report. This report focuses on UCLA faculty
members’ perspectives on the most important concerns and areas for improvement to
entrepreneurship on campus. The methodology for gathering information for this report was
straightforward: through a series of one-on-one interviews, faculty members were asked
questions relating to the use of campus space, academic-industry relations, education, culture and
conflicts, all of which allowed us to better understand what would foster entrepreneurship and
innovation.
How faculty members from across campus define entrepreneurship not only shaped their
answers but further reinforced a common view that success as an entrepreneurial university is not
solely defined by the commercialization of its inventions. The humanities, liberal arts and social
sciences, for example, have been fueling innovation for hundreds of years through their
examination of the human condition. The Grand Challenges of society initiative tackled by the
University resonates with faculty values and allows them to support the campus’ social mission
and connect with the outside world on innovative solutions. UCLA’s Ecosystem for
Entrepreneurs involves a campus-wide culture of entrepreneurship and innovation that
transcends technology transfer.
Entrepreneurship is not synonymous with commercialization; rather, it is an approach to
increase the impact of a discovery or innovation, the translation of a good idea into real benefit.
The vast majority of discoveries and innovations made by UCLA faculty and students are never
intended to be of commercial value, but are expressions of creative scholarship and individual
passions that may serve society in small or large ways. Significant financial value will be found
3
in fewer than one in a thousand of these discoveries, but, if properly managed, those that do can
return licensing income that will support many campus priorities. From UCLA’s perspective, an
entrepreneurial university must continue to deliver innovative ideas to society for the public
good. At the same time, it must strive to realize the benefits of the occasional financial successes
to assist in continuing to provide creative scholarship for the public good.
To achieve those goals, UCLA must enhance the culture of entrepreneurship on our
campus. UCLA is an engine of innovation and discovery, where knowledge is both created and
disseminated; our campus is cohabited by outstanding faculty and motivated students who want
to make a difference. We have a critical mass of human capital and research tools with an
almost unlimited capacity to address society’s pressing problems. Our graduates will fill the
ranks of public service, healthcare, education, business, and industry. Our students will identify
and analyze society’s Grand Challenges in areas as diverse as the environment, social inequality,
health and education – and help to solve them. To do so, they will need to have the range of
learning experiences that are an essential foundation in a complex industrialized democracy.
One of those skills will be the ability to think entrepreneurially, and UCLA will need to provide
them with opportunities to do so.
With this report, we identify where immediate changes can be made, and in some cases
are already being made, to support the Ecosystem model. Though consensus did not emerge
around every issue, we tried to address as many opinions as possible in the recommendations of
this report. Feedback supported the creation of an OIP-ISR Board of Directors populated by
individuals with extensive industry experience who could help guide important decisions around
patent investment and licensing strategies. It was also recommended that individual schools build
their own business advisory boards to promote translational research and potentially raise proof
of concept funds and venture philanthropy. It was well recognized that campus would benefit
from expansion of entrepreneurial educational programs and courses which are already
numerous on campus. However, as entrepreneurial resources proliferate, facilitating the
navigation of those resources will be necessary as confusion already abounds on campus. It was
broadly acknowledged that campus would benefit from improved relationships with industry,
and that expanding industry use of campus space merits further consideration by a campus
committee. However, with increased entrepreneurship and industry relationships, educating
faculty on conflict of interest issues and facilitating the CIRC process will be more important
than ever.
As the Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship forges ahead, there will be new issues and
opportunities that will be continuously assessed. Yet, with this third and final report we hope to
provide a promising blueprint to frame the discussion of entrepreneurship that can be shared by
the entire campus.
4
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
1. HISTORY AND CONTEXT
In J uly 2010, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) initiated a review
of entrepreneurship at UCLA. On the recommendation of Anderson School of Management
Dean J udy Olian, Professor William Ouchi, Sigoloff Chair in Corporate Renewal, Anderson
School of Business, led this initiative. The first campus report, Ecosystem I, was distributed
March 10, 2011. This report involved a study of our current method of fostering
entrepreneurship; a review of the entrepreneurial initiatives at other leading research universities;
and recommendations to improve our current strategies for handling entrepreneurship on
campus. Ecosystem I focused on three essential components for success: (1) appropriate
organizational structure; (2) educational programs that foster and support entrepreneurship and
(3) business advisory boards.
A second report, Ecosystem II, was authored by Professor Ouchi and published in
September 2011. This report took a closer look at the structure of the Office of Intellectual
Property and Industry Sponsored Research (OIP-ISR), and its entrepreneurial activities. It
revealed that while the UCLA technology transfer office was relatively successful, its historic
licensing revenues fell short of top peer research universities. The report also observed that three
crucial elements necessary to taking tech transfer to the next level were missing, including: (1)
business judgment as to which inventions were best suited for commercialization; (2) financial
capital to invest in the patent process and start-up companies: and (3) market-based
compensation for staff. To meet these needs, the report recommended the formation of a new
nonprofit, wholly-owned subsidiary that would oversee all technology transfer activities,
managing for the benefit of UCLA and the University of California, the intellectual property
created by UCLA faculty, students and staff and owned by the Regents.
To meet these needs, the report recommended the formation of a new 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, wholly-owned subsidiary, governed by a Board of Directors (OIP-ISR Board)
comprised primarily of individuals possessing extensive experience in the business of
commercializing research. On May 16, 2013, the UCLA campus received unanimous approval
from the University of California Board of Regents to reorganize the governance of our Office of
Intellectual Property and Industry Sponsored Research (OIP-ISR) in alignment with the
recommendations of Ecosystem II. This important effort to enhance UCLA’s technology transfer
function is designed to protect the intellectual property and the reputation of UCLA while
improving sponsored-research relations with the business community. The OIP-ISR Board will
bring a new level of professional capabilities to assist campus with decisions about patenting,
licensing and industry-sponsored research contracts. It is anticipated that the governance
structure will be operational by J uly 2014 (see Recommendations, Section 1).
5
The previous Ecosystem papers presented the current state of UCLA technology transfer,
capturing one particularly inventor-driven form of entrepreneurship on campus. In spite of the
barriers to entrepreneurship identified by the preceding analysis, UCLA has had an impressive
entrepreneurial track record in recent years. This report attempts to synthesize the campus views
on what is required to make UCLA a leader in facilitating entrepreneurship.
2. STATUS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS AND RESOURCES
UCLA has proven to be one of the top universities for startup creation over the past few
years. Since the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) began reporting
individual campus startup numbers in 2009, UCLA consistently generated more startups than
any of its UC counterparts. Over the last five fiscal years through FY2013, UCLA launched
between 15-25 technology-based startups per year. These numbers place UCLA in the top three
institutions in North America in number of startups generated across institutions reporting to the
Association of Technology Managers (AUTM). These startups are an important driver for
advancing UCLA technologies to market. For example, in J une 2013 a UCLA startup, Aragon
Pharmaceuticals, was acquired by J ohnson & J ohnson for $650 million, plus additional
contingent payments of up to $350 million based on reaching predetermined milestones.
Part of what facilitated the growth of startups at UCLA in recent years is the increased
availability of incubator space and resources on campus. Every year, The California
NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) aims to provide flexible lab space to 8-10 early stage incubation
projects in health, energy, the environment, and information technology. Since its founding in
2009, the CNSI incubator has graduated six startup companies. At the School of Engineering
and Applied Sciences (HSSEAS), the Institute for Technology Advancement (ITA) provides
technology development services for faculty research, helping to secure project funding and
defining paths to commercialization. Three UCLA startups have spun out of ITA’s program, and
others have also benefited from its services. Finally, the summer of 2012 saw the successful
launch of Startup UCLA, a student-focused accelerator based in the social sciences, which
graduated nine student-initiated internet and mobile application-based startups after ten weeks of
mentor-guided development. Startup UCLA just finished incubating their second class of 10
startup teams.
Recognizing the importance of startup-focused programming and especially dedicated
space, UCLA leadership has committed to identifying and developing further real estate ready
for startup incubation on or near campus. The UCLA Medical Center is currently planning the
development of additional incubator space in the Center for Health Sciences South Tower (the
old hospital) which is currently under renovation. Startup UCLA has also spawned a proposal to
dedicate space and programming for entrepreneurship in the undergraduate dormitories.
In addition to incubators, UCLA departments host a series of academic and
extracurricular programs aiming to bolster entrepreneurship on campus. The Price Center for
6
Entrepreneurial Studies in the Anderson School of Management oversees all teaching, research,
extracurricular, and community activities related to entrepreneurship at Anderson, as well as new
undergraduate courses in entrepreneurship. Notable of Price’s activities, the Technology &
Innovation Partners (TIP) Program brings together multidisciplinary teams of graduate students
to assess the feasibility and market potential for UCLA intellectual property (IP), collaborating
with OIP-ISR to aid in technology transfer. Toward similar ends, the Business of Science Center
(BSC), which sprang from the Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, organizes
student-run assessments of UCLA IP, as well as graduate school courses and venture
competitions across campus with the goal of training graduate students for careers in the private
sector and assisting campus faculty and clinicians in technology transfer. In J anuary of 2013,
BSC, the David Geffen School of Medicine, and the Henry Samueli School of Engineering
launched the Advancing Bioengineering Innovations (ABI) Program with the purpose of
inventing, developing and commercializing devices that address pressing unmet needs in
medicine. The Technical Entrepreneurial Community at UCLA (TEC) also hosts entrepreneurial
events for undergraduate and graduate students from technical fields. OIP-ISR joined most of
the groups above as well as others in convening an Entrepreneurship Council which now meets
monthly to coordinate entrepreneurial initiatives.
To further promote entrepreneurship on campus, OIP-ISR launched a number of new
initiatives since the summer of 2012. On the first Friday of every month, OIP-ISR hosts an
informal networking session inviting guest speakers involved in various aspects of
entrepreneurship (e.g., incubators, startup executives, etc.). OIP-ISR recently launched an
Entrepreneurs-in-Residence (EIRs) Program allowing PIs to gain personalized advice and
feedback on entrepreneurial endeavors from entrepreneurs with experience in their fields. This
year’s EIRs hosted a “Startups 101” seminar to educate the UCLA community on how to form a
company and see it through to success. Separately, a series of workshops were initiated by OIP-
ISR to educate faculty members on how to best utilize the valuable federal funding programs:
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR).
In March of 2013, OIP-ISR hosted its first in a series of planned industry partnering events
which showcased UCLA medical device technologies for industry representatives interested in
licensing the technology or sponsoring research opportunities. A second event for cleantech and
advanced material technologies brought industry leaders and investors to campus in September
of 2013. In addition, seventeen UCLA startups and technologies were showcased for
entrepreneurs and investors at the annual First Look Los Angeles event in J une 2013. These
initiatives and others are discussed at further length below.
Though UCLA has seen significant excitement and activity around entrepreneurship in
recent years, this has not been a coordinated effort. Individual professors, departments, and
divisions have championed these programs with insufficient collaboration, often leading to
programmatic redundancy. Communication between organizations is not optimal, sometimes
leading to duplicative efforts across campus. Moreover, due to the growing number of resources
7
across campus, faculty members have found it more difficult to navigate and optimally use the
appropriate resources for the given situation.
3. OBJECTIVES AND PROCESS
This report identifies the opportunities, barriers, best practices, and concerns related to
entrepreneurship on campus, as expressed by faculty. It considers all aspects and manifestations
of entrepreneurship across campus and also puts more emphasis on the relationship UCLA and
its faculty have (or should have) with industry. The objective of this paper is to build a
consensus for recommendations around these areas– some of which will be implemented
immediately, others in due course, in addition to other areas which will require further analysis.
This document will be used to facilitate further discussion around these topics, inform strategic
direction, and provide a foundation for an ever-changing blueprint that can be modified as
hypotheses evolve.
The input of over 100 individuals has been incorporated in this report. Building on the
seventy (70) interviews conducted by Professor William Ouchi from J uly 2010 to March 2011,
37 faculty members across campus, schools, and divisions were interviewed from May 2012
through February 2013, including deans from 13 schools. These interviews were conducted by
2-3 representatives of OIP-ISR and OVCR. The interviewees were advised that their comments
would remain confidential, except with their permission. Emerging themes were then compared
and contrasted with other peer research universities: and including other UC campuses, Stanford,
Columbia, Caltech and University of Wisconsin.
MEANING OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACROSS CAMPUS
Early in our faculty interview process it became clear that definitions of entrepreneurship
varied quite widely across campus. The most significant differences emerged between “North”
and “South” Campus (UCLA colloquialisms referring to the liberal arts and hard sciences,
respectively), where the goals, forms and outputs of research differ. However faculty across
campus seemed to agree that university entrepreneurship involved translating research and ideas
formulated on campus into the real world. Ecosystem I eloquently put forth this idea earlier:
“entrepreneurship is the passionate determination to translate a vision into reality for the
greater good of society – the creation of new knowledge for practical benefit.” Translation
though, is not always obvious and can occur in both direct and indirect ways. Opinions, or rather
perceptions of entrepreneurship, diverge around the nature of translation, largely due to
differences in research outputs and their perceived values.
The most obvious form of research translation is commercialization of inventions. Even
professors with quite alternative views of entrepreneurship acknowledged this form first. It is
more common for faculty from the South Campus to search for and/or recognize commercial
potential for their research, collaborate with the Office of Intellectual Property and Industry
8
Sponsored Research to secure IP rights, and then license out the technology to either a startup or
an existing company. Sometimes the research will originate with an industry partnership, with
the end goal of commercialization in mind. Though this path to translation can be simply
described, in reality it is anything but linear. One professor who successfully launched a
company pointed out that true entrepreneurship lies in overcoming the many hurdles in the
translation process. On South Campus this predominantly occurs with inventions in medicine
and engineering, such as new pharmaceuticals and new technologies. However we have seen
increased licensing activity from North Campus as well, particularly in copyrightable works such
as educational tools. The value of this entrepreneurship is clear as the work product may be used
for societal benefit and often produces quantifiable proceeds.
Direct translation of university ideas can have non-commercial or non-revenue-
generating outputs, making this form typically less obvious. In the public policy space, faculty
collaborate with governments, businesses, and organizations to implement their proposed
policies. Artists display their works in museums and other public forums across the world. Non-
licensable ideas are translated through conference presentations, which in turn change ways
organizations and individuals operate on a daily basis.
Other interactions with industry lead to more indirect translation, without necessarily
resulting in material or monetary outputs. This includes formal university-industry research
collaborations, both funded and unfunded, event sponsorships, and consulting agreements.
Partnerships with industry allow for professors’ research to have an impact and audience. The
benefit goes the other way as well. Professors feel that even without clear outputs, interaction
with industry can lend to more interesting and meaningful research experiences, as it allows for
real-world engagement. Companies also often have data, equipment, materials, and other useful
research tools which academics would not be able to access otherwise.
These various forms of entrepreneurship are all rooted in creative problem-solving, which
was another common definition that emerged from the interviews. Professors explained that
finding ways to solve complex problems using creative, nonconventional approaches is
entrepreneurial. Some professors believe that asking difficult questions is entrepreneurial in the
first place. Typically the need to find creative solutions arises in environments with limited
resources, though often results with more interesting and valuable outputs.
How faculty members define entrepreneurship also has some implication on the role they
expect campus to take with respect to encouraging entrepreneurship as well as the types of
problems they believe are obstructing the entrepreneurial environment. This paper seeks to
address all forms of entrepreneurship on campus, including those outside the purview of
licensing and industry sponsored research.
9
FACULTY ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND AWARENESS
Perhaps one of the most frequently raised concerns was the lack of educational platforms
and understanding about entrepreneurship, and more specifically, what resources and services
have been available to help faculty become more entrepreneurial. Independent of their
entrepreneurial venture experience, faculty members expressed a need for further education via
training sessions, presentations, workshops, forums and individual meetings.
The type of information sought by faculty members often varies from department to
department. Most of the disciplines within the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences do not
have a tradition of entrepreneurship in the commercial sense. As one dean explained, they have
not been able to see how their work can add value to the private sector or even that their ideas
may be protected under intellectual property law. Some professors have had entrepreneurial
ideas but lacked experience in business planning nor any understanding of how to take their
ideas through to fruition. Others were unaware that UCLA has a technology transfer office on
campus that can assist them with intellectual property matters. This lack of information may
have resulted in hundreds of missed opportunities by the University.
Unapprised of the University’s services, professors have reached out to external
organizations for assistance. “It never crossed my mind that UCLA could have had a role” in my
entrepreneurial ventures, remarked one professor who has now been involved in two startup
companies. “The University has lost ideas because people haven’t known what to do with them
or where to go.” Several faculty members also expressed the fear that they might lose control
over their discoveries if they notified UCLA officials. As explained by a number of professors,
this fear has derived from their lack of understanding over the campus IP ownership policy. The
faculty in these schools strongly believed that in order to improve entrepreneurship, they need
more instruction on what is possible in the realm of entrepreneurship; clear communication of
intellectual property law and policy; and information about existing services on campus,
specifically those provided by OIP-ISR.
Other areas on campus, particularly the “hard” sciences, have a greater understanding of
intellectual property law and entrepreneurial pursuits because their work is often tied to creating
physical inventions that can be brought to market. Yet, they too expressed a desire for further
education to enhance their entrepreneurial opportunities. They felt it would be helpful to have
more instruction and guidance on topics like product development, business plans, and
determining market potential. Several faculty members suggested that entrepreneurial mentors
be assigned to junior faculty. The message was clear that further guidance, instruction, and
mentorship would be valuable to faculty, no matter where they fall on the spectrum of the
entrepreneurial experience.
10
PROCESS AND NAVIGATION OF UCLA RESOURCES FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Over the last several years, the enthusiasm for entrepreneurship on campus has resulted in
an incredible proliferation of organizations and resources designed to support faculty, students
and postdoctoral scholars (post-docs) in their entrepreneurial pursuits. A number of these
organizations, such as the Business of Science Center, the Institute for Technology
Advancement, the Entrepreneur Association, and Startup UCLA, provide a host of services to its
target groups, from mentorship, to facilitation with industry, to funding. Campus also provides
services through various internal institutions, including its administrative offices, campus
counsel, OIP-ISR, and the Conflict of Interest in Research Committee (CIRC).
Campus has embraced these organizations and resources, and recognizes that they are
essential components of UCLA’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. However, as these organizations
continue to expand and multiply without any formal coordination between them, the frictional
costs also increase. As an example, faculty members are more frequently reporting confusion as
to whom they should turn to about licensing and intellectual property issues. Several academic
departments have complained of a similar problem when trying to get business ideas involving
industry approved by Murphy Hall. There has been no defined process or person to call when
pursuing a project. Instead they have been bounced back and forth between various
administrative and legal offices and deals have been lost or delayed by issues like IP or risk
management and insurance. “We need a pathway where intellectual property and liability are
covered without having to reinvent the wheel every time we engage a company.”
In addition, this lack of coordination between the organizations leads to redundancy and
conflicting information and processes between the organizations and OIP-ISR. These conflicts,
in turn, put UCLA’s IP at risk. There is a need to improve coordination, reduce redundancy and
conflicting information, and provide clear direction to resolve issues.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Launching a successful entrepreneurial culture requires long-term investment and the
path begins with patience and unfettered support for research and discovery. Research drives
innovation and innovation drives long-run economic growth, creating jobs and improving living
standards in the process. University-based research is of particular importance to innovation, as
the early-stage research that is typically performed at universities serves to expand the
knowledge pool from which the private sector draws ideas and innovation.
All innovation begins with basic research, which aims to increase understanding and is
undertaken out of curiosity rather than a specific commercial application. Basic research is not
intended to generate commercial revenue; it is typically funded by government agencies,
foundations, industry, and philanthropic initiatives which recognize its vital role in building
knowledge that sparks technological advances. Research only begins to turn profitable on its
11
own during commercialization, when new discoveries become products and can be monetized.
Between these stages, however, there is a point where traditional sources of funding taper off but
risk remains too high and rewards too obscure for private funding to kick in to bring it to market.
This point in research is considered the “Valley of Death” because so many potential innovations
fail here, no longer cutting edge enough for government support but not yet sufficiently viable
for profit-maximizing investors.
UCLA faces critical issues in addressing the Valley of Death to bridge the funding gap.
Funding is needed to allow researchers to build a prototype or otherwise prove the viability of
the innovation (also known as a “proof of concept”). This enables both campus and potential
investors to move the innovation to a decision point about business potential and possible options
such as seeking license agreements or creating a startup company. To address the gap, UCLA
must find funding resources that can provide critical, necessary development between the
research lab and the potential marketplace.
Many faculty members expressed great concern and frustration with finding funding to
continue their research that has reached this juncture. For them, funding at this point is critical –
it can mean the difference between nurturing worthwhile, but unproven technology to a point
that it develops into products benefitting millions and killing off promising research prematurely.
Faculty shared several ideas for obtaining additional funding for these purposes. One idea was
for the campus to make more efforts to “tap into alumni better.” Another strategy is to go
straight to donors for gifts. As one professor in the Humanities Division explained, it is often
easier to obtain gifts than secure industry funding or grants in the soft sciences. Having more
industry leaders sit on various campus boards that make contributions to faculty projects was
presented as another possible fundraising tactic.
Some faculty members felt that the campus should focus on showcasing UCLA’s
research to investors and key players by giving them access to professors and a database that
included descriptions of each faculty member’s research interests. Faculty members pointed to
Stanford and Caltech as two universities which successfully employed this method of
showcasing their research capabilities to obtain funding. Some of this information is already
available via the OIP-ISR website, and there are further efforts underway to make this
information more easily accessible.
CAMPUS CULTURE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Faculty members from across campus agreed that all the efforts taken over the last few
years to improve the entrepreneurial environment on campus have made a significant and
noticeable difference. Yet, many also felt that despite these changes UCLA has not sufficiently
shown it truly values entrepreneurship, and that real transformation would require a cultural shift
in how campus leadership views and treats entrepreneurship.
12
The absence of explicit institutional support and encouragement for entrepreneurial
activity in campus policies, many faculty argued, is indicative that it is academically
undervalued. As one faculty member explained, “for promotion and other purposes, publishing
is what counts; being entrepreneurial does not count.” As expressed by some faculty members,
the campus needs to realign the faculty incentive structure to reward entrepreneurship. A
number of the faculty members interviewed believed that this can be accomplished by including
entrepreneurship as a metric in hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions. This would allow
faculty to pursue innovative ideas without concern that it would affect their advancement. These
issues are not unique to UCLA, and other universities have begun making policy changes in
response to similar challenges. The concept of permitting course reductions in exchange for
entrepreneurial endeavors was proposed as another solution. Yet, some faculty members at
UCLA expressed concerns about such policy changes, arguing that, at minimum, junior faculty
should focus on proving academic rigor.
The faculty also spoke of their own cultural barriers to entrepreneurship. There are
faculty members on campus who saw an inherent conflict between entrepreneurship and pure
academia, as well as those who think “industry is evil” and that it is “offensive to make money
off academic research.” These faculty have expressed their difficulty reconciling how
entrepreneurship can coexist with UCLA’s mission to promote education and public service. For
others it is simply difficult to think of their work as a discovery. They do not believe they are
trained, or that it is their role to solve these problems. As they see it, entrepreneurship is
inapplicable to their work. There are also some professors who are too busy to take on
entrepreneurship.
A common view emerged from interviews that a balance of incentives, mentorship, and
other educational measures are needed to change the faculty mindset and advance a more
progressive culture on campus.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE ACADEMY AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES
1. REAL ESTATE
Real estate on the UCLA campus is a precious commodity. While it is not surprising that
faculty often request newer, bigger, and better space on campus to grow and expand their offices
and labs, there has also been a dramatic increase in requests from industry to have space on the
UCLA campus where they can conduct company activities. This includes requests from startup
companies asking UCLA to create more incubator space on campus to house and assist with the
operations of these small businesses.
Currently, UCLA provides 2,000 square feet of lab space dedicated to housing startup
companies in the California Nanosystems Institute (CNSI). Companies housed in CNSI pay a
fee to obtain access to lab space, a suite of core facilities, general lab instrumentation, and
13
meeting facilities. In addition, several departments on campus have also housed industry for
short periods of time to work on specific company projects. While there is no established
mechanism or program for hosting industry in buildings outside of the CNSI, requests have
steadily grown.
Through our interviews, we learned that there were three primary points of view with
respect to housing industry on campus: (1) some faculty believe UCLA should create more
incubators and provide industry with more access to campus space; (2) some faculty believe that
the risks caused by industry’s presence on campus – such as conflicts of interest, inadvertent loss
of intellectual property rights, perception that revenues generated from taxes are being used to
benefit private interests – outweigh the benefits gained by UCLA; and (3) some faculty do not
oppose the presence of industry on campus but are mindful of the potential problems and the
importance of setting appropriate standards that will be enforced.
View 1: Providing on-campus space to industry can promote further entrepreneurship
Many of the faculty members we interviewed were in favor of allowing companies onto
campus to conduct company activities, thus creating a larger industry presence at UCLA.
Believing this would be good for UCLA “because [companies] stimulate the translational
mindset, even from a learning perspective,” faculty were in support of allocating more on-
campus space to both established companies and incubating startup companies. Other supporters
commented that renting space to industry could “help with the [financial] bottom line and
enhance UCLA by supporting campus pursuits and interests.”
Location was a key factor for these faculty members. They felt strongly that companies
had to reside on campus as those off campus did not derive nearly as much benefit. In addition
to laboratory facilities, companies located on campus also enjoy a unique ecosystem comprised
of faculty and scientists from a cross section of UCLA departments. This proximity facilitates
company employees, faculty, and students to exchange ideas, link talent, technology, and know-
how, and help bridge the gap in the misalignment of cultures between academia and industry.
Companies directly benefit from the nurturing environment created on campus, and faculty and
students benefit from gaining industry perspectives on research and employment opportunities.
In contrast, some faculty members believe that companies located off campus struggle to gain
entrance into this ecosystem because of the geographic barrier. As one faculty member stated,
“
might as well be in Pasadena.”
Moreover, these faculty members expressed there are other advantages to having
companies reside on campus: incubators and other on-campus space generate both immediate
and long-term revenue including rental income, possible equity in companies, partial ownership
of new IP developed through collaborations, royalties from successful companies, downstream
gifts, and many other mechanisms both direct and indirect. One faculty member commented that
14
companies could be charged a premium on rent and UCLA equipment could be leveraged. And,
if successful, these companies might become large donors to UCLA.
View 2: Allocating space on campus for industry creates many conflicts
Some faculty members were against ceding campus space to companies. They believed
that the risks associated with hosting companies on campus outweigh the benefits to UCLA. As
one faculty member explained, too many unmanageable problems arise when industry is
physically operating their own businesses on campus, especially if that space could be used by
UCLA faculty. The proposed solution is to have companies reside off, but close to campus.
Ample benefit could be derived from companies located nearby without invoking the myriad of
problems associated with on-campus industry residents.
One concern that faculty members had was that campus would be influenced to shift
priorities to benefit those companies on campus. If these companies were charged rent, campus
might decide it was more advantageous to charge companies for space than provide it to faculty.
Another example given by one faculty member involves the use of core facilities on campus that
are open to industry users. These facilities could charge industry as much as three times more
than they charged UCLA faculty. As the costs to operate these facilities increases, operators of
these facilities might be motivated to set aside more time for industry members over UCLA
faculty, thus essentially prioritizing the needs of industry over campus needs.
Campus is especially at a high risk of running into problems if faculty members and their
startup companies are allowed to co-locate within the same lab. As explained by one faculty
member, co-location of academic and private research in the same laboratory would challenge
even the most scrupulous attention to conflict of interest.
Another issue cited by several faculty members was the risk of cross pollination from
communal workspace and shared instruments. The close proximity between companies and
UCLA faculty, personnel, and students increases the chances that intellectual property could be
inadvertently lost to a company that resides on campus. One faculty member cited this concern
as a reason for excluding established companies on campus. He explained that startup
companies are here because they need facilities; they are concentrating on their own research and
intellectual property, “[t]here’s not too many people snooping around and the people in there are
gonna be pretty much focused on what they’re doing.” In contrast, established companies have
their own facilities and the primary reason these companies want to be on campus is to gain
some sort of competitive edge. They may want to hear about research and development that is
coming out of our labs. The potential to lose intellectual property to them is high. The risk of
loss escalates when students who might not have the experience to distinguish what they can and
cannot share with a company interact frequently with company employees. Some faculty
members relayed stories they heard where company employees “stole” research results and
intellectual property from the University and published or patented before the University.
15
Additional issues that confront and confound faculty members include: conflicts arising
from the use of campus laboratories as workspace for companies, conflicts of interest and
commitment for faculty, staff, fellows and student entrepreneurs, in which the latter almost
become de facto company employees, there would need to be a fair selection process, leasing of
state property at a fair-market rental price in conformity to state law, research compliance, and
an acknowledgement of the stress on under-resourced offices of technology commercialization.
A simple way to alleviate and, in some cases, resolve these conflicts is to have companies
reside off campus. As one faculty member expressed, “it is better to have a privately funded
business park off, but close to campus.” Other faculty members agreed that there was no
problem in having one’s startup off-campus. Ideally, as one faculty member suggested, campus
could facilitate the development of space near campus for startup companies. The often cited
example is the creation of the incubator near UC Irvine where UC Irvine took the initiative to get
a technical park built near the campus.
View 3: Appropriate standards and guidelines are needed if industry is allocated space on
campus
The third point of view came from faculty members who were not opposed to increasing
industry’s physical presence on campus, but were wary of the inherent problems that would need
to be resolved. These faculty members recognized the benefits for companies on campus: access
to advanced facilities at a reasonable price, legitimacy from having a UCLA address, direct
access to UCLA scientists, opportunities to learn about the research and technologies coming out
of UCLA labs. They recognized the benefits for UCLA – additional income through space and
equipment rental, employment opportunities for its students, opportunities to foster relationships
for future collaborations and funding, facilitation of the commercial development of University
intellectual property, and an overall boost to the entrepreneurial spirit on campus.
At the same time, there was also no hesitation in voicing concerns about having industry
on campus. In particular, these faculty were mindful of the potential problems associated with a
growing industry presence. These faculty members stressed the importance of implementing
procedures that took into account ways to (a) ensure the integrity of how space is used and
allocated, (b) protect against threats to the fundamental core values of the campus, and (c) avoid
loss of intellectual property. Some faculty wanted to be certain that the benefits to the campus
affected the entire campus and did not privilege only the “hard” sciences.
To address the allocation of space, some faculty recommended that a faculty committee
be formed to make this decision. Others suggested that the Chancellor or his designee should
decide. “Space should always be allocated based on agreed upon priorities and principles,
defined by faculty and administration, including representatives from the Deans’ office,
departments, research units, and junior faculty. There should be a well defined scope for
interaction between academia and industry on campus,” suggested one faculty member.
16
2. REPUTATION
A healthy Entrepreneurial Ecosystem requires a positive perception and good relations
with outside industry. Faculty and administration agreed that this is one component of UCLA’s
ecosystem that required significant improvement. “UCLA has had a reputation for being the
worst institution to work with both within the UC system and beyond.” UCLA’s reputation has
been blamed on numerous factors, including the following:
• UCLA’s conflict of interest policy has been too restrictive. As discussed below,
faculty members felt that historically UCLA’s default position has been not to trust
the investigator and to simply avoid the conflict rather than manage it.
• UCLA has been a hard nose negotiator of intellectual property terms. Faculty
members spoke about deals they believe were lost because of UCLA’s inflexible
approach to IP ownership rights.
• UCLA has not been helpful with people who want information about what is going at
UCLA. According to faculty, there has been very little effort by the campus to reach
out and establish relationships with industry, and when industry has made efforts to
engage UCLA, often they were not provided with quality customer service and as a
result industry quickly lost interest.
• UCLA has made it difficult for faculty to navigate how to receive money from
companies and individuals seeking to support their research. Faculty complained that
the amount of time, confusion, paperwork and back-and-forth discussions necessary
to identify how to label money (i.e., as a gift, sponsored research, etc.) has been
frustrating to companies that want to deal with UCLA.
• Sales and Services – the method currently most commonly used for collaboration
with businesses – is an antiquated system that no longer works, particularly in cases
involving partnered business deals between academic departments and outside
companies. As stated by one dean, “systems need to be revised to enter a new world
order.”
• Smaller companies that want to engage in small scale sponsored research have not
been able to afford to work with UCLA because the indirect fees leave little money
for actual research.
These factors have hindered the negotiation process and overall experience that industry
has working with UCLA, and ultimately deters industry from UCLA. As one faculty member
put it, “companies tend to go back where they are successful and we are not one of them.” What
we need is an “industry welcome sign.”
17
NAVIGATION OF CONFLICTS
The complex and demanding nature of academic research today inevitably gives rise to
competing obligations and interests. Faculty members are expected to serve on committees, to
train young researchers, to teach, and to review grants and manuscripts while simultaneously
pursuing their own research and outside interests, including outside activities that may relate to
research conducted on campus. However, to preserve the integrity of the University, UCLA
researchers, and the research conducted therein, special steps should be taken to assure that
conflicts do not interfere either with the responsible conduct of research or with the faculty
member’s primary obligations to the University .
A robust Entrepreneurial Ecosystem will give rise to conflicts in two key areas: (1)
financial conflicts of interest, including conflicts of interest in research, and (2) conflicts of
commitment. While a conflict in one area often coincides with conflicts in another area,
financial conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment are governed by separate policies and
are handled by different campus organizations.
Conflicts of commitment arise from situations that place competing demands on a faculty
member’s time and loyalties. It is not atypical for faculty to be working concurrently on campus
research, teaching and advising students, participating in peer review panels, sitting on industry
advisory boards, and/or serving as a paid consultant or as an officer of a private company. Each
of these activities place demands on a faculty member’s time and energy. Care needs to be taken
to assure that these commitments do not inappropriately interfere with one another. Financial
conflicts of interest arise in situations that create perceived or actual tensions between the
possibility of personal financial gain and the important value of maintaining objectivity in
research and keeping the public trust. Reviews of financial conflicts related to research are not
only required by law but they are also important parts of the entrepreneurial landscape.
At UCLA, determining what policies apply and which office has jurisdiction to review a
particular conflict is not always intuitive. For example, the UC Office of General Counsel is
responsible for collecting and reviewing financial disclosures from all UC employees deemed,
by their title and job function, “designated officials.” UCLA’s purchasing department reviews
conflicts that may arise from a request to purchase items or services from a company in which a
UCLA employee has a financial interest. Most issues relating to conflict of commitment and
outside activities of faculty members are reviewed by the Vice Chancellor of Academic
Personnel. And the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, with support from the Office of
Research Policy and Compliance, is responsible for ensuring that financial interests disclosed by
faculty and other UCLA researchers are reviewed by the faculty Conflict of Interest in Research
Committee (CIRC).
Many of our discussions with faculty confirmed that faculty members lacked
understanding and were often confused about how to address conflicts. It became apparent that
18
many investigators conflated the concepts of conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment.
Few faculty members were able to separate the two issues. It was also clear that faculty members
were unsure who should be consulted when issues arose, and instead, pointed to CIRC for all
conflict issues, including those under the purview of other campus units.
Most faculty members acknowledged that the conflict of interest rules and review process
were not well understood. One often cited comment was the perception that there was no one
available to advise faculty on the conflict process. As a result, people were frustrated and “didn’t
fill out the forms correctly, pleaded ignorant, came back years later and wanted to retroactively
disclose things that they should have disclosed earlier.” In addition, it was reported that many
faculty believed that by disclosing a conflict they would be automatically prohibited from
moving forward. Many faculty members commented that the rules did not appear to be enforced
uniformly and, as a result, faculty could not predict whether their proposed activity could be
managed. “If the rules were clear and everybody understood it and people realized that the rules
were for their benefit, they would disclose things and we wouldn’t have had problems,”
explained one faculty member.
Faculty who were interviewed agreed that the campus needs to manage conflicts rather
than avoid them if UCLA wants to foster further entrepreneurship. As entrepreneurship
increases, conflicts tend to increase. Entrepreneurial faculty members felt that campus is still in
denial; they expressed that campus needs to accept that there are going to be conflicts of interest
and that the presence of conflicts is not necessarily a bad thing. As one faculty member
commented, “the University should not automatically assume the worst.”
Despite the criticism, some faculty members recognized that managing conflicts is not a
problem unique to UCLA. One self-identified “serial conflicted” faculty member acknowledged
that this is an issue endemic to all research institutions. The biggest issue, he said, arises when
faculty members are too intimidated to confront the conflict and, instead they lose out on
commercialization opportunities by avoiding the conflict altogether or they ignore the situation
by violating conflict policies. “Managing the conflict requires a lot of communication with the
COI committee, which can take time and be intimidating.” Based on his many conversations
with colleagues at other high level institutions, including MIT and Stanford, he recognized that
the CIRC works hard to help manage conflicts and believes that he would not be able to obtain
the same positive outcome at other institutions.
Others suggested that there should be a more engaged process for determining and
managing conflicts of interest in research. One faculty member suggested that “the key is to
develop a set of acceptable standards and processes by which these conflicts are managed in an
ongoing basis. It should be an ongoing process where there is oversight and interaction, and
policing, if their needs to be, and if somebody makes a mistake then everybody’s got to come
clean and say we made a mistake and deal with it.” An alternative recommendation posed was to
discourage junior faculty from engaging in entrepreneurial activities that give rise to these types
19
of conflicts. Rather, it was suggested that junior faculty should focus on proving their academic
rigor and set aside entrepreneurship until after achieving tenure. “It is a mistake to push faculty
to do this before the tenure decision unless this is some obvious opportunity that they can’t pass
up; after tenure [faculty] know they can survive, then it’s a matter of balancing the two sides.”
Faculty who were interviewed raised concerns about other conflicts that emerge with
increased entrepreneurship. Some had ethical concerns regarding the reputation of companies
with which UCLA collaborates. Others were concerned about the use of UCLA resources to
benefit a faculty member’s own startup and the possibility that someone might steer research
towards areas that would provide direct benefit to the startup. Some expressed concerns about
conflicts of commitment and more specifically about the amount of time faculty were devoting to
outside activities that could eventually bleed into campus research, blurring the lines of what is
acceptable. Related to this concern is the growth of student involvement in a faculty member’s
outside activities. As explained by one entrepreneurial faculty member, campus should be
careful when evaluating the appropriateness of activities where faculty hire their own students to
work for their own startups or when faculty direct students to study areas because of the
commercial potential. The goals for students – publishing and graduating – differ from those of
companies. Thus, conflicts may arise when entrepreneurial faculty are supervising students and
mentoring them through the graduation process on the one hand but hindering their ability to
publish in order to benefit company goals on the other hand. As a result of this concern, some
faculty members suggested that it is not appropriate to hire their own students or even broach the
subject of possible outside employment until students have graduated.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UCLA’S ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM
1. CREATION OF A 501(C)(3) NONPROFIT TO OVERSEE OIP-ISR
On May 16, 2013, our campus received unanimous approval from the University of
California Board of Regents to reorganize the governance of our Office of Intellectual Property
and Industry Sponsored Research (OIP-ISR). This important effort to enhance UCLA’s
technology transfer function was undertaken to protect the intellectual property and reputation of
UCLA while improving our delivery of innovations and scholarship to society. Within a year, the
staff of OIP-ISR will report to the board members of a newly created 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation that will be comprised primarily of individuals possessing extensive experience in
bridging the worlds of academia and business. These will be Friends of the University: leaders in
such fields as pharmaceutical manufacturing, technology, engineering, and venture capital. The
Board will also include in its membership UCLA Academic Senate faculty. This board will bring
a new level of professional capability to assist our campus with decisions about patenting,
licensing, campus investment, risk tolerance, and industry-sponsored research contracts. The
University stands to benefit from their real world business experience.
20
These board members will not benefit financially in any way from their service to UCLA:
they will receive no compensation for their services, nor will they have any disqualifying
financial interests. They will be held to the same conflict of interest standards as the UC Regents,
the UC President, and the Governor of California. The UC Office of General Counsel, the UC
President, and the UCLA Chancellor will ensure that charter documents and internal policies will
hold the board members to the same standards that apply to other University officials. All
finances will be received by and distributed from University and campus accounts. The
performance of OIP-ISR and its board will also be reviewed by a soon-to-be created
Chancellor’s Oversight Committee, which will consist of deans, UCLA Academic Senate
appointees, and senior campus administrators. UCLA students will be appointed to the
committee as well. The Regents have expressed keen interest in evaluating our progress.
2. A SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL MODEL TO SUPPORT OIP-ISR
A. OIP-ISR Operations
The salary, benefits and patent legal expenses of OIP-ISR are currently paid from the
Campus Share of licensing and royalty revenues and some 19900 State funds.
The Campus Share is defined by UC policy. After all patent, legal and joint holder
expenses for an IP portfolio are paid, the inventors and research unit receive 50% of licensing
revenue, and the General Fund (12.5 %) and Campus Share (37.5%) receive the remaining 50%.
The Campus share is distributed at the discretion of the Chancellor. We propose to continue this
self-supporting financial model, but with several refinements. Each year, the Chancellor will
receive a detailed financial report and budget request that has been prepared by the OIP-ISR
staff, approved by the OIP-ISR Board.
The Board will provide the Chancellor with the necessary data, opinions and philosophies
to decide: (1) the staffing levels, distribution of expenses and compensation for OIP-ISR staff;
(2) the level of patent and legal expenses to be invested in University intellectual property; and
(3) other possible OIP-ISR budget categories such as Proof-of-Concept Grants (see below),
campus investments in specific technology platforms (see below), or other infrastructure that
would enhance entrepreneurial discovery and scholarship. The Chancellor’s Oversight
Committee will review the performance of the OIP-ISR on an annual basis, and will advise the
Chancellor on any concerns from the campus.
B. Additional Possible Uses of OIP-ISR Revenues
The Campus Share of licensing revenues has traditionally been used to pay for OIP-ISR
operations with the remainder being proportionately distributed to the deans from whose schools
the successful licensing events were produced. Since the Campus Share is distributed at the
discretion of the Chancellor, there is the opportunity for flexibility in its use.
21
After reviewing recommendations from the OIP-ISR Board and the Oversight
Committee, the Chancellor may wish to allocate a portion of the Campus Share to:
1) Campus Proof-of-Concept grants. Targeted campus investments in select IP
may significantly enhance its value price to a licensing event.
2) Technology Transfer and other infrastructure. Specific platforms that enable
discovery-based research and scholarship for the explicit purpose of enhancing
commercial value may be entertained as worthy of campus investment, alone or in
partnership with a specific school, division or center.
3) Other Campus Priorities Unrelated to Entrepreneurship. The Chancellor may
choose to use OIP-ISR funds to support important programs to advance academic
scholarship unrelated to where the revenue originated, such as initiatives in the
performing arts or languages.
3. BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARDS SERVING INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND DIVISIONS
Faculty who were interviewed expressed a need for industry expert guidance, which can
be provided through Business Advisory Boards (BABs) as advocated for in Ecosystem I. BABs
would utilize the experience of industry experts to facilitate the translation of faculty inventions.
Facilitation can occur through individual faculty mentorship or broader educational
programming in specific areas of expertise. BABs also have the potential to utilize their
relationships with industry to make introductions and catalyze more industry sponsored
research.OIP-ISR is in the process of assembling its first BAB from the medical device industry,
building on the success of the Medical Device Partnering Conference in February 2013.
However, the consensus on campus is that deans should assemble their own BABs and define
responsibilities according to the individual needs of their faculty and students. This is already
happening at UCLA. The Henry Samueli School of Engineering launched the Institute for
Technology Advancement (ITA) to assist faculty in starting new companies based on their
research and enable the development of new multi-disciplinary research efforts for the school.
The David Geffen School of Medicine is in the process of launching a new accelerator to help
faculty along similar lines.
BABs should also have the capacity to help identify and promote investment in
opportunities in which Deans could invest discretionary funds. These funds could then be used to
support various translational efforts – from proof-of-concept research to funding patent expenses
in which the campus is unwilling or unable to support – with a commensurate return to the
school should the investment yield licensing income. BABs should use their in-depth expertise to
play an active role in these investment decisions.
22
However, close coordination between the BABs and the OIP-ISR Board is essential. The
campus needs to avoid different stakeholders providing conflicting advice to faculty
entrepreneurs. In addition, relationships with industry could potentially be undermined if the
campus is not providing a consistent message. For external stakeholders, UCLA is one campus,
and should be consistent in our communications to the broader community.
4. ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION
Producing graduates, trainees and faculty who can convert a good idea into a public good
is essential to UCLA’s mission to serve the public. To achieve this goal, the UCLA community
must have access to a wide range of entrepreneurial learning experiences. It is also crucial to
expand the number of educational services available as student and faculty interest in
entrepreneurship continues to increase. For these reasons, the educational component of the
Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship has become a priority and, as revealed below, great effort has
been taken to make both formal and informal instruction available to the entire UCLA
community.
Undergraduate educational programs and courses
Entrepreneurial courses and programs being offered to undergraduate students across
campus continues to grow each year. J ust this past year, the Anderson School of Management
has added five new courses to their Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Program, ranging from
Business Plan Development to Entrepreneurial Finance and Accounting. The program will also
provide its students with opportunities for internship/field experience. The Department of
Economics is offering a new course called the Social Enterprise Academy, which provides
hands-on experience to students interested in becoming entrepreneurs for a good cause. With
help from in-class workshops, successful entrepreneurs and MBA students from the Anderson
School of Management, teams of students work with different nonprofits to develop business
plans for growth. At the end of the course, students present their business plan before a panel of
judges, competing for a $10,000 prize to start up their business idea. Startup UCLA, which is
organized by the Division of Social Sciences, is also expanding its offerings by hosting more
events and presentations from accomplished investors and entrepreneurs, in addition to its
successful 10-week summer accelerator program for undergraduate students. Other schools and
departments are adding introductory courses on entrepreneurship with plans to expand their
programs based on student interest.
Educational programs and course for graduate and postgraduate students
There are also increasing campus-wide efforts to reach out and educate graduates and
postgraduates. The Business of Science Center (BSC) organizes student run assessments of
UCLA IP, offers venture competitions and graduate level courses geared towards training in
technology transfer and careers in the private sector. In December 2012, the BSC also began
23
offering the Advancing Bioengineering Innovations (ABI) program. ABI is a two-quarter long
course designed to teach students about the medical device design process through lectures, guest
speakers, and a hands-on project. Multi-disciplinary teams of graduate students evaluate actual
unmet medical needs identified in the UCLA Hospital System and invent and develop practical
solutions that address these needs. The team-based project component of the course is
complemented by lectures and panels from UCLA faculty and industry experts to provide
additional teaching and guidance on the product development process and entrepreneurship as it
relates to medical devices. The goals of the ABI program are to develop medical device solutions
that improve patient care and prepare students for careers in healthcare, product development,
and entrepreneurship.
The Price Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at Anderson engages its graduate students
through activities like the Technology & Innovation Partners (TIP) program, in which the
students assess the feasibility and market potential for UCLA IP. The Institute for Technology
Advancement (ITA), which is made available to all students and postgraduate students provides
business development support and strategic direction for new startup companies and provides
further information about entrepreneurial resources on campus.
Entrepreneur-in-Residence Program, Mentors and Coaches Made Available to All Students,
Postgraduates and Faculty
OIP-ISR provides the UCLA community with entrepreneurial guidance through various
educational and mentoring services. First, the newly implemented Entrepreneurs-in-Residence
(EIRs) program aims to connect UCLA technologies with industry executives, serial
entrepreneurs, and the larger investor community. EIRs lend their own industry and startup
experience to help guide and bolster entrepreneurial efforts across campus. EIRs are involved in
a range of activities on campus, including: meeting with UCLA inventors including faculty, post-
docs, and graduate students, to lend commercial perspective on research/technologies; providing
guidance to faculty and student entrepreneurs interested in starting a company; holding on-
campus seminars and speaking engagements to share their own experiences; and advising
faculty, post-docs, and students on startup matters. The EIRs launched a “Startups 101 Seminar
Series” featuring lectures for faculty, staff, and students on how to create a successful startup
business. The series aimed to familiarize participants with terminology used by entrepreneurs,
lawyers, and investors when forming and financing a new company, and equip participants to
assess the feasibility of a business concept and communicate that concept. Further lectures are
planned around specific areas of interest such as FDA regulation.
OIP-ISR has also begun offering legal and mentor office hours for faculty thinking of
starting companies. OIP-ISR staff is meeting with startup law firms in Los Angeles to put
together packages for UCLA startup companies. These firms have also offered to host additional
seminars and office hours to assist faculty.
24
OIP-ISR Seminar Series
OIP-ISR recently initiated a Campus Series on Intellectual Property – a rotating series of
classes designed to educate faculty and researchers about IP addressing a variety of topics,
including: (1) the difference between patents, trademarks and copyrights; (2) the process for
securing a patent; (3) UCLA’s policy and procedures on IP; and (4) the technology transfer
process. Further initiatives have included an SBIR / STTR Workshop, the first of a planned
series on how to win funding from Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. SBIR and STTR grants are useful sources of
non-dilutive funding designed for small businesses driving forward significant innovation, such
as those from universities.
Other OIP-ISR outreach
In addition, more informal channels for faculty engagement are being pursued. In
FY2013, presentations to department meetings were implemented as an evaluation criterion for
every OIP and ISR officer, and in FY2014 OIP-ISR’s aspiration is to reach every department and
division.
OIP-ISR is also producing reference publications on Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
on entrepreneurship, SBIR / STTRs, and technology transfer. OIP-ISR has implemented a
monthly “UCLA Invents” newsletter, an email-based news bulletin highlighting startup and
technology commercialization developments and opportunities at UCLA. OIP-ISR is now also
providing new faculty with a welcome letter in order to help ease their transition to UCLA and
inform them of the various services available to them in technology transfer and
entrepreneurship.
Additional planned initiatives include an online IP training for faculty, being developed
in partnership with UCOP and UCLA.
5. ENHANCING HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY
There is no dispute that collaborations between industry and academia present
tremendous opportunities for advancing knowledge, applying it to real-world problems, and
bringing forth a myriad of social benefits. Academic-industry research arrangements have
proven critical to the development of numerous powerful technologies in medicine, agriculture,
energy, and other fields. But the increasing complexity of these arrangements calls for careful
management of these collaborations in a manner consistent with the long-term interests of both
the University and the broader society, including private industry.
Determining what steps to take to improve academic-industry relationships and facilitate
industry engagement is complicated and requires careful consideration. Currently, efforts are
25
being made to review certain campus policies and existing guidelines relating to industry
engagement. In addition, several recommendations are being considered and vetted to increase
partnerships and improve external relations.
Industry Sponsored Research
At a time when universities are receiving increased pressure to be engines of economic
growth, the desire to generate academic-industry collaborations is great. However, getting to
the point where these relationships can grow dramatically is not easy. The ability of a university
and a company to work jointly in research depends upon each party’s ability to agree on
research goals and related legal and business terms. A successful relationship can lead to a
well-prepared next-generation workforce, the transfer of basic research discoveries into
commercial applications, and increased benefit to the public. Inadequate or misguided
management of industry relationships, however, threatens the very principles that universities
hold most sacred: academic freedom, scientific objectivity and accuracy, broad dissemination of
knowledge through publication, and the development of products and technologies that serve the
public good.
In an effort to enhance UCLA-industry relations, OIP-ISR has increased efforts to help
faculty form and maintain relationships with potential industry partners. Specifically, OIP-ISR
has increased its outreach efforts both on campus and off. Concerted efforts are being made to
reach out to departments to better explain OIP-ISR’s expertise and its overall role within
UCLA’s research organization, as well as the newly-implemented programs that can assist
faculty in increasing its visibility to potential industry partners. OIP-ISR is also focusing efforts
to engage industry and understand each potential partner’s specific needs; this direct interaction
enhances our ability to connect industry with our faculty. The overall goal is to develop long-
term relationships with these industry partners and translate these relationships into large multi-
year sponsored research collaborations.
In addition, OIP-ISR has approached several industry sponsors who have numerous
recurring collaborations with UCLA to discuss ways to facilitate and streamline the research
contracting process. As a result, several of these industry sponsors elected to enter into master
agreements with campus. These industry sponsors include Amgen, Siemens, Takeda, and
Roche. Though, each party to these agreements are allowed to exercise its discretion to
determine whether the terms of the master agreement are appropriate for a specific scope of
work, we expect that the majority of research projects will fall under the terms of the master
and, thus, will require no further negotiation. There will, however, be exceptions. We expect
some special projects will require alternate terms due to unusual factors such as a high
probability that valuable intellectual property will be developed, the presence of third party
materials and/or funding, or the use of University-owned background intellectual property.
Although alternate terms may need to be negotiated, the majority of the terms under the master
agreement will require no further negotiation saving both time and effort.
26
Industry Use of Campus Space
Over the past five years, there have been increasing requests from various UCLA
departments to make both office space and lab space on campus available for industry to conduct
its own proprietary research. As previously discussed, many divergent opinions were voiced
about allotting campus space for industry use. One of the few areas of consensus centered
around the lack of official campus guidelines. Rather, when such requests for space are made,
each department uses different standards and imposes different conditions for each situation such
that there is a lack of uniformity across campus.
UCLA does not have a policy or other uniform guidance that addresses use of campus
space for industry. A few years ago, an effort was made to draft such a policy, however, it was
never finalized. Given the current push to work closer with industry, it may be advisable to form
a committee comprised of representatives from across campus to address the various issues that
were raised by faculty, to review the prior documents relating to use of campus space for outside
entities, and to set policy to be adopted campus-wide.
Protection Against Inadvertent Disclosures
Traditionally, we’ve placed great trust in our faculty and campus administration to self-
regulate and administer its own practices to review and report any issues of concern with respect
to disclosure of confidential information, including intellectual property. However, mounting
concern from lawmakers, government agencies, and the public demonstrates the clear need for
stronger measures to protect public trust in academic research. Most recently, the
implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA) changed the patent system such that the first
inventor to file a patent application is awarded the patent even if the inventor made the invention
later than other patent applicants who filed later. As a result, researchers need to be made better
aware to contact OIP-ISR as early as possible and in advance of any publication submission or
any public presentation to ensure that their ideas are protected. In addition, any disclosure of
intellectual property to third parties should be carried out under a non-disclosure agreement
executed through OIP-ISR.
Moreover, to ensure that our faculty understand the implications of the AIA, OIP-ISR has
sponsored numerous lectures on campus taught by reputable law firms to explain these rule
changes. OIP-ISR has also made arrangements with these firms to hold open office hours to
enable concerned researchers to discuss their intellectual property with these legal experts.
In addition to its own researchers, other opportunities for inadvertent disclosure of
information abound due to the presence of outsiders working on campus. Specifically, UCLA
hosts numerous visitors from other institutions and from industry to participate in research
activities on campus. These visitors have broad access to labs and frequent interactions with
faculty and students. There is no consistent system to track these visitors or to ensure that
appropriate approvals have been sought and required documents protecting University and
27
campus assets, including intellectual property, have been signed. OIP-ISR is assisting Audit in
its review of the campus’ current policies and procedures and will help recommend a course of
action to mitigate the risk of any liability caused by the activities of these visitors.
6. USE OF CAMPUS SPACE FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL VENTURES
Many technologies developed at UCLA have been the foundation for startup companies.
In some cases, these start-ups involve the faculty members who created the intellectual property.
There are a number of reasons why faculty members are not allowed to conduct work for their
startup companies within their UCLA labs. Use of campus facilities in this manner can create
unmanageable conflicts, liabilities, and other penalties for campus and the researcher imposed by
the IRS and other government agencies. UCLA recognizes, however, that there are times that
the academic lab may be pursuing basic research that is complementary to the startup’s
development work or there may be instances where proof of concept or reduction to practice
experimentation is needed and the academic laboratory is best equipped to perform this work. In
these cases, the start-up can enter into a sponsored research agreement with campus to fund this
work. Funding from startups to the faculty founder’s academic laboratory are handled by OIP-
ISR with approval from the Conflict of Interest in Research Committee.
As previously discussed, the campus currently provides 2,000 square feet of lab space to
house startup companies in CNSI. At CNSI, an Incubation Committee comprised of CNSI
faculty, in consultation with OIP-ISR and CNSI business advisors, evaluate company applicants
and their intellectual property to decide entry into the incubator. One eligibility requirement for
all companies is that the intellectual property to be developed in the incubator must be licensed
from UCLA.
Given the high demand and purported success of companies inhabiting the CNSI
incubator, UCLA needs to consider whether additional space should be made available on
campus. As with established industries using space on campus, there is also a lack of guidance
from campus regarding use of space by startup companies. In order to maintain some
consistency and to discourage certain forum shopping between departments, campus needs to
establish procedures and guidelines for determining (a) how space is assigned, (b) whether there
should be certain uniform terms applicable to all outside entities regardless of the entity’s size,
(c) eligibility requirements, (d) rent, and (e) what constitutes permissible versus impermissible
use. As other universities are establishing space on their campuses for academic-related
entrepreneurial ventures, and private entities are quickly competing to offer affordable research
space, UCLA needs to be actively considering these issues now so that it is not left behind.
7. VENTURE PHILANTHROPY
UCLA has the opportunity to attract philanthropic gifts that can be invested in the
translation of UCLA inventions into external applications, whether commercial, nonprofit, or
otherwise. Donors will know their gift has the potential to generate significant returns to society
28
and campus, should the funded technology be successfully translated. These funds could be
raised by the OIP-ISR Board as well as individual school BABs, and awarded to UCLA
inventions that, in their business judgment, are worthy of investment.
Other leading institutions have attempted to pioneer this model. For example in 2007,
Harvard established a Biomedical Accelerator Fund with a gift of $5 million from a Business
School alumnus and an additional $5 million from other sources. In April of 2013, they raised an
additional $50 million to grow the fund and establish life-sciences-entrepreneurship fellowships
at Harvard Business School. This is proof that there is significant appetite from philanthropic
sources for this type of contribution. We believe that this model can be improved. UCLA should
consider this significant opportunity, and should look to other university best practices to guide
the design of fund structures.
8. NAVIGATING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
While campus encourages entrepreneurial activities such as transforming technology
developed in campus laboratories into broad commercial applications, it is imperative that this be
done ethically and with integrity. The manner with which conflicts are reviewed have not been
well understood and many resources available to faculty have been underused and not well
known. Due to the complexity of these issues, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott
Waugh established a Conflict of Interest Task Force in J une 2011. The Task Force, chaired by
Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs Kevin Reed, was charged with recommending steps that
should be taken to simplify the management of financial conflicts of interest in research while
preserving the highest ethical standards.
After careful review, the Task Force recognized that the policies, regulations, and laws
governing conflicts of interest were often inconsistent due to differing definitions and
requirements imposed by institutional, state, and federal organizations. Because the existing
laws and regulations were beyond the purview of the campus, the Task Force focused on
improving procedures to implement and administer the various policies, regulations, and laws
that relate to conflicts of interest.
Recommendations to improve the review of conflicts fall into three main categories: (1)
improve support to investigators, (2) increase CIRC efficiency, and (3) fill gaps not currently
addressed in the existing conflict of interest policies and procedures. In addition, new
regulations effective August 23, 2012 have invoked additional changes to the management and
review of conflicts at UCLA. For more details regarding the recommendations and the steps that
have already been taken to improve the review process, see Appendix I.
9. BETTER NAVIGATION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON CAMPUS
With the growing number of cross-campus initiatives being offered to support
entrepreneurship and number of administrative offices involved, faculty need a better way to
29
navigate the various organizations and resources. As a first step, OIP-ISR worked with many of
the entrepreneurial organizations on campus, including, OIP-ISR, BSC, TEC, ITA, EA, and
Startup UCLA, to convene an Entrepreneurship Council. The Council now meets on a monthly
basis to discuss common issues and concerns, inform one another of their activities, discuss
shared policy issues, and better coordinate their efforts in support of the UCLA community.
One of the initiatives that all groups have aligned behind is a more robust re-launch of
BRUINcubate, a pilot project from OIP-ISR. It is a portal listing all entrepreneurial groups,
resources and events on campus, as well as additional resources off campus to help the UCLA
entrepreneurial community get the information they need to start a business or connect with
talent.
In addition, OIP-ISR will make it easier for faculty to remain in contact and navigate
issues, policies, and the various organizations that touch entrepreneurial aspirations by assigning
a single Officer to serve as a personal concierge in navigating issues, policies, and the various
organizations that touch entrepreneurial aspirations. Anytime faculty members have questions or
concerns about their portfolio, they can return to this same person, who will help them navigate
the complex and dynamic Entrepreneurial Ecosystem at UCLA.
CONCLUSION
The landscape at academic institutions is changing, and the consensus across campus is
that UCLA must adopt a modern entrepreneurial mindset in order to effectively continue
delivering innovative ideas to society for the public good. Though not the primary motivator,
occasional financial success may arise from these activities, and should be used to support the
research, education, and public service mission of the University. Increasing entrepreneurship
on campus, however, leads to conflicts and divergent choices, both of which need to be actively
and transparently managed to ensure the integrity of the institution.
The views expressed by faculty included in this report highlight the breadth of choices
and diversity of perspectives across campus. As the Ecosystem for Entrepreneurship forges
ahead, there will be new issues and opportunities that will require continuous reassessment and
consideration. UCLA is already making progress on many of the historic challenges to
entrepreneurship on campus, but it is clear that much more can and should be done. The
significant momentum seen over the last two years must be sustained if UCLA is going to take
its place amongst the top entrepreneurial universities.
We would like to acknowledge contributions and insights from across and beyond
campus that informed this report. This draft is the product of inputs from many sources,
including the administration, technology transfer staff, the Office of the President, peer
institutions, and, most importantly, faculty and deans. We hope this report successfully captured
both the spirit and diversity of viewpoints expressed.
30
Authored by:
Brendan Rauw, Associate Vice Chancellor & Executive Director of Entrepreneurship, OIP-ISR
Lillian Smith, Director Strategic Initiatives, OIP-ISR
Sarah Honig, Entrepreneurship Associate, OIP-ISR
Ornah Medovoi, Director of Special Projects, OVCR
UCLA Contributors:
Vice Chancellor J ames Economou
Dean Vijay Dhir
Dean Aimee Dorr
Dean Alessandro Duranti
Dean Franklin D. Gilliam
Dean Courtney Lyder
Dean Rachel Moran
Dean J udy Olian
Dean No-Hee Park
Dean J oseph Rudnick
Dean David Schaberg
Dean Terry Schwartz
Dean Victoria Sork
Dean Christopher Waterman
Dean A. Eugene Washington
Professor Andy Atkeson
Professor Eva Baker
Professor Barbara Bates-J ensen
Professor J .R. DeShazo
Professor Megan Franke
Professor Rajit Gadh
Professor J udy Gasson
Professor Dean Ho
Professor Eric Hoek
Professor Richard Kaner
Professor J ames Liao
Professor Thomas Mason
Professor William Ouchi
Professor Todd Presner
Professor Michael Roth
Professor Wenyuan Shi
Professor Eddo Stern
Professor Timothy Tangherlini
Professor Gil Travish
Professor Kang Ting
Professor Lynn Vavreck Lewis
Professor Kang Wang
Professor Eric Zolt
Professor J ohn Mazziotta
Assistant Vice Chancellor Ann Pollack
Assistant Vice Chancellor Michelle Popowitz
Special thanks to:
Assistant Vice Chancellor Erik Lium, UCSF
Director Katherine Ku, Stanford
31
APPENDIX I
As previously discussed, the Conflict of Interest Task Force, established J une 2011,
reviewed the current campus research-related conflict procedures and practices and, through its
review, devised a list of recommendations to help streamline procedures and assist faculty. In
addition, new regulations effective August 23, 2012 provided more guidance on the management
and review of conflicts. Recommendations to improve the review of conflicts fell into three
main categories: (1) improve support to investigators, (2) increase CIRC efficiency, and (3) fill
gaps not currently addressed in the existing conflict of interest policies and procedures.
Improve Support to Investigators
Through our interviews, it became clear that most faculty members have been confused
and intimidated by the conflicts review process. As a result, faculty often fail to provide full
information, leading to delays as the staff tasked with collecting information must go back to the
faculty member numerous times in order to obtain full disclosure. To break this cycle of
confusion, CIRC staff should be more proactive and increase assistance to faculty members at
the time proposals are first submitted for review. When complex cases arise, staff should
provide guidance and status updates throughout the review process and, after the determination
has been made, staff should meet with the faculty to explain the decision to ensure that the
reasons for the determination and the conditions for management are fully understood. This
recommendation also requires a decision regarding where resources should be allocated to enable
such increased assistance.
Another potential source of support could be an online portal that brings together all
relevant information, including policies, procedures, forms, and resources for assistance. The
portal should enable faculty to obtain information about the status of the conflict review and
other relevant information in one place. The Office of Legal Affairs, with the Office of Research
Administration, the Office of Research, Policy, and Compliance, and OIP-ISR should create a
user-friendly “rules of the road document” that provides detailed instructions for faculty and
identifies resources to assist faculty with disclosures.
Increase CIRC Efficiency
As revealed through the Conflict of Interest Task Force findings, the efficiency of the
CIRC is hampered by multiple handicaps: a lack of sufficient information, an absence of
linkages to other campus units, and inadequate technology. The most critical hindrance is the
lack of a database to house all information collected, and be a repository for all recommendations
made by the CIRC and final determinations issued by the Vice Chancellor for Research. The
campus recently invested in the development and implementation of Phase I of a web-based
disclosure system (eDGE) in order to implement revised federal regulations. What remains to be
addressed are steps required to further develop eDGE in order to use the system to capture
financial disclosures required under other federal and state regulations, to link with other campus
32
legacy systems, to achieve greater efficiencies by using the system’s meeting management
functions and to document CIRC cases and reports. Presumably a robust database could also
generate workload metrics, data on turnaround times and other information of interest to campus
leadership and the research community. Consideration of any of those prospects will involve the
identification of resources that are currently not available.
Ideally, the electronic systems used by the Office of Research Policy and Compliance
(RPC), ORA, the Office of Research Protection Programs (OHRPP), and the Office of
Intellectual Property, would be connected. Although these separate systems are not linked
electronically, RPC staff do have access to the other databases. RPC staff have also established
close working relationships with staff of these offices. Ann Pollack, Assistant Vice Chancellor –
Research serves as a liaison to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel and to
the Office of Legal Affairs
The Task Force also recommended that CIRC meetings be organized in a way that
permits routine cases to be handled expeditiously so that the committee can devote more meeting
time to discussion of ones that are novel and complex. In actuality the meetings have been
organized in this way for several years. In addition, and even before release of the Task Force’s
report last year, investigators have frequently attended a portion of the monthly meeting to
engage in discussion with the Committee. In some instances this is done at the investigator’s
request. At other times investigators are invited to join the meeting by the Committee.
Fill Gaps in Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
Implementation of the measures recommended above should greatly improve the
efficiency of conflict reviews, however, there are several potentially useful practices that remain
absent. The Task Force report noted that there is no formal appeals process for faculty who are
dissatisfied with conflict decisions but recommended that one be put into place. While not a
formalized process, the Vice Chancellor for Research, to whom the Conflict of Interest Review
Committee (CIRC) is advisory, does occasionally receive requests for reconsideration of a CIRC
determination. He has consistently referred those requests back to the CIRC and in all cases
these individuals have been invited to talk with CIRC Chair and the Assistant Vice Chancellor –
Research, or to come to a committee meeting.
The Task Force also recommended that a single office of record be responsible for
holding official copies of all forms related to conflict disclosures, including financial conflict of
interest disclosures and conflict of commitment disclosures. This is a recommendation that
needs to be examined by a cross-section of campus and UC officials to determine its feasibility.
Although not addressed by the Task Force, it was raised in the faculty interviews that as the
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem on campus expands, policies for students, postdoctoral scholars and
staff involved in the commercialization of research that gives rise to conflicts should also be
developed. As a pilot program for OIP-ISR staff, an informal advisory committee was formed to
review proposed outside activities when requested by an OIP-ISR staff member in order to
33
ensure that those activities do not conflict with Staff Personnel Policy 82 (Conflict of Interest for
staff members).
In reviewing the faculty interviews and the Task Force recommendations it is clear that
many faculty members have been unaware of the existing policies and procedures in place and
have not fully understood what the review process entails. Similarly many have not understood
why the conflict review process is necessary for both individual investigators and the campus.
The call for the campus to provide more outreach in order to inform the faculty of the importance
of disclosing, the disclosure and review process, is clear. The challenge is to deliver the
appropriate message to the right audience.
doc_632447398.pdf