fy03 annual report

AnnualReport

Fiscal Year 2003

Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research

Table of Contents Sponsored Research Executive Summary 1

Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY94 – FY03 Figure 1 – Funding History by Sponsor Type Table 1 – Funding History by Sponsor Type Figure 2 – Federal Funding Figure 3 - % Growth in Fed. Science & Eng. Obligations – 1991– 2001 Figure 4 – State, Local & Int’l Gov. Funding Figure 5 – Private Industry Funding

2 2 3 3 4 4

Funding History by School - FY94 – FY03 Figure 6 – Arts & Sciences Figure 7 – School of Engineering Figure 8 – School of Social Work Figure 9 – School of Medicine Table 2 – Funding History by School

5

Award Dollars by School and Cost Category Table 3 – Direct Costs vs Indirect Costs – FY02 & FY03

6

Award Dollars by Project Type – FY02 & FY03 Table 4 – Award Dollars by School & Project Type Figure 10 – Award Summary by Sponsor Type

7 8

Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY02 & FY03 Table 5 – Direct and Indirect Award Dollars Table 6 – Award Dollars by Sponsor & Cost Category Table 6a – Award Dollars by Sponsor and Direct/Sub Award Category

Table 7 – Federal Award Dollars by School & Sponsor- FY03 Table 8 – Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type Table 9 – College of A & S – Award Dollars by Dept. Table 10 – School of Engin. – Award Dollars by Dept. Table 11 – School of Med. – Award Dollars by Dept.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Washington University Rankings – FY 2001 Table 12 – WU Rank Among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support Table 13 – WU Rank Among Private Univ. Receiving Federal Support

17 18

Office of Technology Management Executive Summary 19

Invention Disclosures by School Figure 11 – Invention Disclosures by School – FY99-FY03 Table 14 – Invention Disclosures by School – FY99-FY03 Table 15 – Invention Disclosures by School – Dept. – FY02 & FY03

23 23 24

Patent Applications by School Figure 12 – US Patent Applications by School – FY99-FY03 Table 16 – US Patent Applications by School – FY99-FY03 Table 17 – US Patent Applications by School & Dept. – FY02 & FY03

25 25 26

Licenses by School Figure 13 – Licenses by School – FY99-FY03 Figure 14 – % of Licenses by School – FY03 Table 18 – Licenses by School – FY99-FY03 Table 19 – Licenses by School & Dept. – FY01, FY02 & FY03 Table 20 – License Type by School & Dept. – FY03

27 28 28 29 30

License Revenue by School – FY99-FY03 Figure 15 - License Revenue by School Table 21 – License Revenue by School

31

License Revenue – FY99-FY03 Table 22 - License Revenue

32

Industry Sponsored Research Agreements – FY03 Figure 16 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School Table 23 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School Table 24 – Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School & Dept.

33 33 34

Other Agreements – FY03 Figure 17 – Other Agreements by School Table 25 – Other Agreements by School Table 26 – Other Agreements by School & Dept.

35 35 36

Material Transfer Agreements – FY03 Figure 18 – Material Transfer Agreements Table 27 – Material Transfer Agreements Table 28 – Material Transfer Agreements by School & Dept.

37 37 38

Sponsored Research Executive Summary

This report presents an overview of external funding for sponsored research projects and training at Washington University during the fiscal year of 2003 (FY03). The award dollars reported are those of awards with start dates on or between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2003. Data Sources The data for the majority of these tables were obtained from the Washington University Financial Information System (FIS) and reflect awards for sponsored research and projects. Excluded from these figures are revenue derived from gifts, sales and service agreements, clinical trials and federal work study funds. This is the first year we have removed the work study funds from the total award dollars both for FY03 and the prior ten year award tables. Because of this change in methodology, the award totals will be slightly lower than in the previously published reports. The tables on pages 18-19 are reproduced using the most recently published figures collected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and represent government-wide data from federal fiscal year 2001. Total Award Dollars The University’s total research support for FY03 was $480 million, an increase of 14% over FY02. This increase is related to a significant increase in the budget of a key federal agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Federal agency support continues to be the University's leading source of sponsored research funding, constituting 79% of total sponsored dollars in FY03. Key Federal Research Sponsors NIH awarded $377 million in FY03, representing 79% of total University sponsored research funding. NSF remains the number two sponsor of University research by awarding $17.4 million. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the third largest sponsor, awarding $5.2 million. National Ranking NSF’s most recent nationwide comparison of universities with federal research support ranked Washington University as 12th in receiving federal research funding and 6th in support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 6th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS funding (tables 12 and 13). In addition, the School of Medicine ranks 3rd out of all medical schools in the United States in the amount of funding received from the NIH.

1

Funding History

The following graphs illustrate Washington University's funding history over the past decade. The first chart graphs the total dollars received each year, sorted by three broad sponsor types: 1) federal, 2) state, local and international governments, and 3) private sector, which includes industry and nonprofit sponsors. The tables on pages 5 and 6 address the same sponsor data in greater detail. Finally, 10-year trends are compared among the four research-intensive units of the University: the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Engineering and Applied Science, the Washington University School of Medicine, and the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.

Figure 1

Funding History FY94 to FY03 by Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars

$0$50,000

$100,000

$150,000$200,000$250,000

$300,000$350,000$400,000$450,000

$500,000

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

Federal State/Local/Int 'l. Private

Table 1 in thousands of dollars


Federal $163,659 $180,217 $196,106 $221,303 $208,837 $277,855 $293,301 $344,771 $362,217 $413,718 State/Local/Int'l. $4,041 $5,895 $5,276 $5,202 $8,377 $7,443 $8,364 $8,100 $11,771 $14,953 Private $42,510 $39,354 $42,661 $48,702 $45,952 $46,740 $60,933 $56,326 $46,377 $51,123 Total $210,210 $225,466 $244,043 $275,207 $263,166 $332,038 $362,598 $409,197 $420,365 $479,794

Note: Table 1 excludes Federal Work Study funds in all fiscal years. As a result Federal and total award dollars will not match totals in previously published reports.

2

Funding History by Sponsor Type

As figure 3 shows, the University’s cumulative growth in federal research funding from 1991 to 2001 has outpaced the growth in federal science and engineering obligations made to the top 100 universities and colleges receiving these dollars.

Figure 2

Federal Funding - FY94 to FY03 in thousands of dollars

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000


Figure 3

Percent Growth in Federal Science and Engineering Obligations – 1991 to 2001

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Federal Support to Washington University

Federal Science and Eng. Obligaitons to top 100 Universities

3


Figure 4 State, Local and International Government Funding – FY94 to FY03

in thousands of dollars

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000


Figure 5 Private Industry Funding – FY94 to FY03


$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000


4


Figure 6 Figure 7 Arts and Sciences School of Engineering

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000


Figure 8 Figure 9

School of Social Work School of Medicine

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000


Table 2FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

Arts & Sciences $25,332 $25,102 $23,085 $22,872 $23,374 $23,548 $31,089 $28,799 $30,177 $38,376 School of Engineering $12,358 $10,156 $13,339 $15,571 $15,946 $10,619 $20,270 $8,403 $15,349 $14,168

$167,588 $185,585 $203,009 $230,923 $215,538 $290,472 $302,692 $362,407 $366,884 $419,271$1,273 $2,319 $1,881 $2,288 $4,128 $3,691 $5,503 $9,150 $6,075 $6,444$3,659 $2,304 $2,730 $3,553 $4,180 $3,708 $3,044 $438 $1,880 $1,535

$210,210 $225,466 $244,043 $275,207 $263,166 $332,038 $362,598 $409,197 $420,365 $479,794

School of Medicine School of Social Work OtherTotal

5

Award Dollars by School and Cost Category

The following table compares FY03 award dollars with the prior year, broken out by direct costs and indirect costs.

The percent of change from one fiscal year to the next is tracked in the far right column. It should be noted that when a school receives one very large award or regularly receives a small number of awards, the data could lead to skewed or even misleading interpretations.

Table 3 Direct Costs vs. Indirect Costs – FY02 and FY03


Indirect Award Direct IndirectSchools Costs Total Count Costs Costs Total $$ %Arts & Sciences 281 $28,109 $10,267 $38,376 230 $21,564 $8,613 $30,177 $8,199 27%Business 2 $888 $131 $1,019 3 $1,052 $199 $1,251 -$232 -19%Engineering 127 $10,480 $3,689 $14,169 105 $11,631 $3,718 $15,349 -$1,180 -8%Law 2 $93 $45 $138 2 $85 $45 $130 $8 6%Medicine* 1455 $309,224 $110,047 $419,271 1242 $265,041 $101,843 $366,884 $52,387 14%Social Work 34 $4,991 $1,453 $6,444 34 $4,429 $1,646 $6,075 $369 6%Other 9 $358 $20 $378 10 $473 $26 $499 -$121 -24%Total 1910 $354,143 $125,651 $479,794 1626 $304,275 $116,090 $420,365 $59,429 14%

FY03Award Count

Direct Costs

FY02 Total AwardDollar Change

6

Award Dollars by Project Type

The term "project type" refers to the distinct types of awards received by the University. Types chosen for this table are Research, Research Training and Other Sponsored Activities. Research projects are those activities whose principal focus is the discovery, verification, or evaluation of new knowledge. Research training includes individual and institutional awards for the support of postdoctoral trainees and fellows plus institutional awards for graduate education. Other Sponsored Activities include projects such as scholarly conferences, equipment grants, community outreach programs, and college work-study assistance.

Table 4 Award Dollars by School and Project Type


Schools FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02Administration $382 $447 $0 $37 $0 $0 $382 $484Architecture -$4 $15 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$4 $15Art $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Arts & Sciences $34,590 $28,571 $2,073 $1,205 $1,713 $401 $38,376 $30,177Business $1,019 $1,251 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,019 $1,251Engineering $13,412 $14,900 $644 $449 $112 $0 $14,168 $15,349Law $130 $130 $0 $0 $8 $0 $138 $130Medicine $393,888 $341,897 $20,840 $20,491 $4,543 $4,496 $419,271 $366,884Social Work $3,739 $4,304 $685 $443 $2,020 $1,328 $6,444 $6,075Total $447,156 $391,515 $24,242 $22,625 $8,396 $6,225 $479,794 $420,365

TotalOther

Research Research Training Sponsored Activities

7

Award Dollars by Project Type

The graphs and tables in this section intend to answer many questions.

• From what sources does the University receive funding? • From which sectors---government, industry, and not for profit--does the University

receive the most funding? • Which federal agencies are most important to the individual schools? • Which sponsors have stepped up or scaled down their investments in University

research over the past fiscal year?

Sponsor types used in the tables are broadly defined as Federal, Other Government, Industry and Not for Profit. The Federal sponsor type is the largest sector, representing 86% of total University award dollars in FY03. The other government category includes state arts funding, city projects, awards from international governments, and most often, state university subcontracts funded by those institutions' federal grants. Industry, as a sponsor type, refers to any grant or contract awarded by a for-profit entity. Nonprofits include foundations, professional societies, and volunteer health organizations.

Figure 10

Award Summary by Sponsor Type - FY 02 and FY03 in thousands of dollars

FY03 FY02

$17,393$18,995

$14,953$11,861

$39,262$377,330

$11,077$20,831

$11,771$12,743

$33,634$330,309

N IH N S F O ther F ed O ther G ov t Industry N on P ro fit

8

Award Summary by Sponsor Type

Table 5 Direct and Indirect Award Dollars by Sponsor Type


Sponsors Direct Costs% Total Direct

Indirect Costs

% Total F&A Total % Total Direct Costs

% Total Direct

Indirect Costs

% Total F&A Total % Total

Federal* $300,543 84.9% $113,175 90.1% $413,718 86.2% $257,277 84.6% $104,940 90.4% $362,217 86.2%

Other Govt $10,433 2.9% $4,520 3.6% $14,953 3.1% $8,273 2.7% $3,498 3.0% $11,771 2.8%Total Govt $310,976 87.8% $117,695 93.7% $428,671 89.3% $265,550 87.3% $108,438 93.4% $373,988 89.0%

Nonprofit $34,876 9.8% $4,386 3.5% $39,262 8.2% $29,622 9.7% $4,012 3.5% $33,634 8.0%

Industry $8,291 2.3% $3,570 2.8% $11,861 2.5% $9,103 3.0% $3,640 3.1% $12,743 3.0%

Total Private $43,167 12.2% $7,956 6.3% $51,123 10.7% $38,725 12.7% $7,652 6.6% $46,377 11.0%

Total $354,143 100.0% $125,651 100.0% $479,794 100.0% $304,275 100.0% $116,090 100.0% $420,365 100.0%

FY03 FY02

* Federal award dollars exclude work study funds

9


Table 6

Award Dollars by Sponsor and Cost Category in thousands of dollars

Direct CostsIndirect

Costs TotalDirect Costs

Indirect Costs Total $$ %

FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH $273,294 $104,036 $377,330 $233,741 $96,568 $330,309 $47,021 14% NSF $12,969 $4,425 $17,394 $7,949 $3,128 $11,077 $6,317 57% NASA $3,709 $1,526 $5,235 $3,024 $1,428 $4,452 $783 18% DOD $2,748 $919 $3,667 $2,641 $1,333 $3,974 -$307 -8% EPA $778 $133 $911 $3,366 $535 $3,901 -$2,990 -77% ED $1,486 $84 $1,570 $1,319 $93 $1,412 $158 11% DOE $2,787 $1,158 $3,945 $1,679 $697 $2,376 $1,569 66% DHHS HRSA $1,435 $406 $1,841 $1,445 $415 $1,860 -$19 -1% USDA $144 $34 $178 $366 $79 $445 -$267 -60% OTHER $1,191 $454 $1,645 $1,747 $664 $2,411 -$766 -32%Total Federal $300,543 $113,175 $413,718 $257,277 $104,940 $362,217 $51,501 14%OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI $695 $138 $833 $1,098 $226 $1,324 -$491 -37% STATE-All Other $9,252 $4,344 $13,596 $6,635 $3,226 $9,861 $3,735 38% OTHER GOV'T $486 $38 $524 $540 $46 $586 -$62 -11%Total Other Govt $10,433 $4,520 $14,953 $8,273 $3,498 $11,771 $3,182 27%PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY $8,291 $3,570 $11,861 $9,103 $3,640 $12,743 -$882 -7% NON PROFITS $34,876 $4,386 $39,262 $29,622 $4,012 $33,634 $5,628 17%Total Private $43,167 $7,956 $51,123 $38,725 $7,652 $46,377 $4,746 10%Total $354,143 $125,651 $479,794 $304,275 $116,090 $420,365 $59,429 14%

FY03 FY02 Change

Note: FY03 and FY02 U.S. Department of Education award dollars exclude Federal Work Study Program Funds. As a result FY02 U.S. Department of Education totals and overall fiscal year totals will not match the FY02 published annual report numbers

10


Washington University receives a considerable amount of research funding from other institutions, including state and local government agencies, commonly referred to as “sub-awards”. The following table shows the original source of the award dollars, including sub-award dollars, rather than attributing the funds to the awarding entity.

Table 6a

Award Dollars by Sponsor and Direct/Indirect Award Category in thousands of dollars

Direct

AwardsSub

Awards TotalDirect Costs

F&A Costs Total $$ %

FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH $371,712 $25,414 $397,125 $328,164 $18,064 $346,229 $50,897 15% NSF $17,393 $2,083 $19,476 $11,076 $1,866 $12,943 $6,534 50% NASA $5,235 $1,921 $7,155 $4,452 $1,939 $6,391 $764 12% DOD $3,527 $1,375 $4,902 $3,839 $296 $4,135 $767 19% EPA $912 $381 $1,293 $3,902 $63 $3,965 -$2,672 -67% ED $1,570 $73 $1,642 $1,437 $77 $1,514 $129 8% DOE $3,945 $157 $4,102 $2,376 $387 $2,763 $1,339 48% DHHS HRSA $1,840 $450 $2,290 $1,860 $719 $2,580 -$289 -11% USDA $178 $102 $280 $445 $107 $552 -$272 -49% OTHER $875 $1,271 $2,146 $1,694 $553 $2,247 -$101 -4%Total Federal $407,186 $33,226 $440,412 $359,245 $24,073 $383,317 $57,095 15%OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI $588 $160 $748 $843 $341 $1,184 -$436 -37% STATE-All Other $161 $2 $163 $412 $39 $451 -$288 -64% OTHER GOV'T $17 $0 $17 $5 $0 $0 $17 naTotal Other Govt $178 $2 $928 $1,260 $380 $1,635 -$707 -43%PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY $9,376 $16 $9,392 $10,539 $0 $10,539 -$1,147 -11% NON PROFITS $25,797 $3,265 $29,061 $21,618 $3,256 $24,874 $4,187 17%Total Private $35,173 $3,281 $38,453 $32,157 $3,256 $35,413 $3,040 9%Total $442,537 $36,508 $479,794 $392,661 $27,709 $420,365 $59,429 14%

FY03 FY02 Change

Note: FY03 and FY02 U.S. Department of Education Award Dollars exclude Federal Work Study Program Funds. As a result FY02 U.S. Department of Education totals and overall fiscal year totals will not match the FY02 published annual report numbers.

11


Table 7 Federal Award Dollars by School and Sponsor


FY03% of Change from FY02 FY03

% of Change from FY02 FY03



% of Change

from FY02 FY03% of Change from FY02

NIH $377,330 14.2% $10,977 15.9% $2,653 57.3% $359,580 14.0% $3,991 15.5% $130 -8.1%

NSF $17,393 57.0% $13,689 99.3% $2,630 -4.8% $1,074 -15.6% $0 0.0% $0 -100.0%

ED $1,570 11.2% $920 17.3% $0 0.0% $340 -1.7% $0 0.0% $309 9.7%

NASA $5,235 17.6% $4,473 15.5% $256 188.1% $505 2.9% $0 0.0% $0 0.0%

DOD $3,667 -7.7% $289 -26.1% $3,183 -11.2% $194 100.0% $0 0.0% $0 -100.0%

EPA $912 -76.6% $0 0.0% $912 -76.6% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0%

DOE $3,945 66.0% $1,195 -6.5% $449 -10.5% $2,301 286.1% $0 0.0% $0 -100.0%

HHS HRSA $1,840 -1.1% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $1,818 -2.2% $22 100.0% $0 0.0%

USDA $178 -60.0% $178 -60.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0%OTHER $1,648 -31.7% $55 -88.3% $15 -90.0% $1,531 20.3% $10 -97.6% $40 -63.0%T O T A L $413,718 14.2% $31,776 34.8% $10,098 -20.3% $367,343 14.3% $4,023 4.1% $479 -32.0%

School of Social Work Other SchoolsUniversity Arts & Sciences

School of Engineering School of Medicine

12


Table 8

Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars

Schools FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02 FY03 FY02Administration $349 $402 $23 $84 $0 $0 $9 $0 $381 $486Architecture $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$4 $15 -$4 $15Art $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Arts & Sciences $31,776 $23,579 $1,157 $1,276 $2,391 $2,592 $3,053 $2,730 $38,376 $30,177Business $0 $173 $5 0 $0 $0 $1,014 $1,078 $1,019 $1,251Engineering $10,098 $12,674 $1,705 $696 $1,444 $1,580 $921 $398 $14,168 $15,348Law $130 $130 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $138 $130Medicine $367,343 $321,393 $12,033 $9,276 $7,987 $8,305 $31,909 $27,910 $419,271 $366,884Social Work $4,023 $3,865 $30 $439 $31 $265 $2,361 $1,504 $6,444 $6,073Total $413,718 $362,217 $14,953 $11,771 $11,861 $12,742 $39,262 $33,635 $479,794 $420,365

Government Private TotalFederal Other Govt. Industry Nonprofit

13


Table 9 College of Arts and Sciences - Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type


Department Federal Other Govt. Industry Nonprofit FY03 FY02Administration $0 $0 $0 $121 $121 $129African & Afro-American Studies $31 $0 $0 $0 $31 $0Anthropology $35 $0 $0 $3 $39 $27Art History & Archaeology $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37Biology $8,273 $453 $813 $1,123 $10,662 $10,495Center for Political Economy $50 $0 $0 $0 $50 $0Chemistry $7,345 $144 $236 $356 $8,081 $5,457Classics $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11Earth & Planetary Science $1,850 $304 $919 $302 $3,375 $5,099Education $4,196 $0 $0 $0 $4,196 $42Graduate School $558 $0 $333 $0 $891 $853History $20 $0 $0 $0 $20 $0International Writers Center $0 $5 $0 $0 $5 $0Mathematics $316 $11 $0 $57 $384 $657Music $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2Philosophy $139 $0 $0 $0 $139 $62Physics $5,224 ($10) $90 $422 $5,726 $4,251Political Science $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57Psychology $3,166 $174 $0 $670 $4,010 $2,997Weidenbaum Center $571 $75 $0 $0 $646 $0Total $31,776 $1,157 $2,391 $3,053 $38,376 $30,177

TotalGovernment Private

14


Table 10 School of Engineering - Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type


TotalDepartment Federal Other Gov't. Industry Nonprofit FY03 FY02Biomedical Engineering $1,941 $102 $0 $230 $2,273 $882

Chemical Engineering $623 $128 $199 $120 $1,070 $1,028Civil Engineering $853 $54 $0 $0 $907 $662

Computer & Comm. Research Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61

Computer Science $1,088 $860 $328 $0 $2,276 $4,775

Electrical Engineering $163 $0 $0 $157 $320 $1,580

Environmental Engineering $978 $401 $135 $94 $1,608 $3,932

Center for Materials Research $596 $60 $34 $0 $690 $6

Mechanical Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,722

Systems Science & Math $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $497Other $3,856 $100 $748 $320 $5,024 $203Total $10,098 $1,705 $1,444 $921 $14,168 $15,349

Government Private

15


Table 11

School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type in thousands of dollars

Total

Department Federal Other Govt. Industry Nonprofit FY03 FY02

Anatomy & Neurobiology $10,177 $206 $869 $142 $11,395 $13,523Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics $6,251 $56 $78 $28 $6,413 $7,289Cell Biology & Physiology $7,854 $25 $630 $289 $8,799 $9,941Genetics $90,088 $2,426 $631 $387 $93,533 $75,909Molecular Biology & Pharmacology $10,652 $0 $1,568 $1,402 $13,622 $11,583Molecular Microbiology $10,071 $10 $510 $60 $10,652 $7,777Subtotal Preclinical $135,093 $2,724 $4,287 $2,309 $144,413 $126,022Anesthesiology $4,618 $0 $199 $158 $4,974 $4,639Internal Medicine $53,442 $2,412 $7,549 $2,905 $66,307 $63,276Neurological Surgery $1,454 $0 ($18) $63 $1,499 $1,395Neurology $17,426 $646 $2,176 $321 $20,570 $19,097Obstetrics & Gynecology $2,013 $0 $412 $0 $2,425 $2,212Ophthalmology $12,514 $0 $445 ($94) $12,864 $13,028Orthopaedic Surgery $1,318 $0 $660 $434 $2,413 $2,108Otolaryngology $4,741 $49 $14 $0 $4,804 $4,879Pathology $18,332 $657 $2,711 $716 $22,415 $19,186Pediatrics $19,813 $1,011 $4,406 $1,117 $26,347 $24,018Psychiatry $38,966 $2,399 $1,449 $0 $42,814 $36,768Radiology $27,726 $683 $1,412 $350 $30,171 $21,775Surgery $13,836 $561 $2,843 $404 $17,643 $11,853Subtotal Clinical $216,197 $8,417 $24,258 $6,374 $255,246 $224,233Administration $745 $0 $493 ($711) $527 ($459)Div.of Biology/Biomedical Sciences $3,952 $31 $197 $0 $4,180 $3,827Biostatistics $4,351 $579 $724 $0 $5,654 $3,760Cancer Center $1,344 $0 $74 $0 $1,419 $1,406Clinical Research Center $3,483 $0 $127 $0 $3,610 $3,617Center for Health Behavior Research $609 $0 $722 $0 $1,331 $1,809Emergency Medicine $0 $0 $10 $0 $10 $0Medical Library $0 $116 $0 $0 $116 $101Occupational Therapy $941 $166 $997 $15 $2,119 $1,886Physical Therapy $628 $0 $20 $0 $648 $683Subtotal Other $16,053 $892 $3,364 ($696) $19,612 $16,629

Total $367,343 $12,033 $29,931 $9,964 $419,271 $366,884

Government Private

16

Washington University Rankings

Each year, the National Science Foundation produces a ranking of the top 100 research institutions receiving federal research support. The most recent federal fiscal year data reported by NSF is for FY00. Washington University ranks 13th in receiving federal funding and 6th in support from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health. Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 6th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS funding.

Table 12 Washington University Ranking Among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support

FY2001

Total Federal FederalFunding Funding From HHS

Johns Hopkins University 1 1University of Washington 2 3U of Pennsylvania 3 2U of Michigan 4 5U of CA San Diego 5 16U of CA Los Angeles 6 8U of CA San Francisco 7 4Stanford University 8 15Harvard University 9 7Columbia U City New York 10 12U of WI Madison 11 20Washington Univ St. Louis 12 6U of Colorado 13 21Cornell University 14 26U of Pittsburgh 15 9U of Minnesota 16 17U of NC Chapel Hill 17 11Yale University 18 10Duke University 19 13PA St U University Park 20 53MA Inst of Technology 21 56Baylor Col of Medicine 22 14U of Southern California 23 29U of CA Berkeley 24 42U of IL Urbana-Champaign 25 74

Institution

Rank Among Top 100Research Institutions

SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), "Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2001" (Arlington, VA) 2003.

17

Washington University Rankings

Table 13

Washington University Ranking Among Private Universities Receiving Federal Support FY2001

INSTITUTIONTOTAL FEDERAL FEDERAL

FUNDING FUNDING FROM HHSJohns Hopkins University 1 1U of Pennsylvania 2 2Stanford University 3 9Harvard University 4 4Columbia U City New York 5 6Washington Univ St. Louis 6 3Cornell University 7 14Yale University 8 5Duke University 9 7MA Inst of Technology 10 32Baylor Col of Medicine 11 8U of Southern California 12 16Case Western Reserve U 13 10Vanderbilt University 14 12University of Rochester 15 18Northwestern University 16 22University of Chicago 17 15Emory University 18 11Boston University 19 19Scripps Rsch Inst, The 20 13CA Inst of Technology 21 33NY University 22 21CUNY Mt Sinai Schl of Med 23 17University of Miami 24 26Yeshiva University NY 25 20

RANK AMONG TOP 100RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), "Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2001" (Arlington, VA) 2003.

18

Technology Management Executive Summary

During the year, the Office of Technology Management (OTM) received 91 new technology disclosures. Approximately 78 % were in the life sciences and 22 % were in the physical sciences, including computer science technologies. The Office handled 11 % more disclosures than the year before. Patents issued numbered 48, an increase of 17 %. During the year, the University generated $ 14.3 M in total technology transfer revenue. This amount is 76 % more than the previous fiscal year. Licensing related distributions to individual inventors, Washington University Schools and third parties totaled $ 11.6 M. Legal expenses totaled $ 1.6 M and gross operating expenses totaled $ 1.1 M. Of the total legal fees, $ .9 M was reimbursed by licensees. The University entered into a total of 228 new license agreements during the year, up 10 % from the year before. Of the total new license agreements, 95 % were non-exclusive licenses.

FY02 Licensing Revenues by School

School of Medicine $12.5 M School of Engineering and Applied Sciences $0.9 M School of Arts and Sciences $0.8 M School of Social Work $0.07 M

During the year, OTM expanded its involvement with the community on local, regional and state levels. Organizations with which members of OTM are actively involved are RCGA, MOBIO, Danforth Plant Sciences Center Alliance, Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences, Missouri Venture Forum, Research Alliance of Missouri, BIO, Midwest Research Universities Network, and JETRO. In its relationships with these organizations, OTM works to build the economy and to develop channels for commercializing Washington University technologies. The relationship with the Business School’s entrepreneurship program continued to grow. Students from the program work on marketing and financial evaluation issues pertaining to various inventions. This work contributes to the assessment of ideas within a commercial context, whether start-ups or the licensing of ideas to large, established companies. The Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Research launched the Bear Cub Fund to nurture technologies with potential commercial value. This fund of approximately $250,000 in the first year was distributed to award winners in amounts ranging from $20,000 to $50,000. The purpose of the fund is to enable investigators to conduct proof of concept experiments in areas where commercial promise exists. The first awards were made in March 2003. The fund award winners were as follows:

Roger D. Chamberlain (Computer Science and Engineering). Roger Chamberlain’s project is designed to speed up computer database searches. He used the Bear Cub grant to assist in designing and building a system that will make database searches up to 100 times faster than with conventional approaches. The Bear Cub funding enabled the building of a prototype that was instrumental in the formation and capital investment of a new St. Louis startup company.

19


Elliot L. Elson (Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics). Elliot Elson’s grant funded work on a system to improve the screening of chemical compounds thought to have therapeutic potential. Typical screening methods provide little or no information about biological responses to chemical compounds. Dr. Elson is developing a screening method that measures cellular responses to candidate drugs.

Narasimhan Gautam (Anesthesiology). Narasimhan Gautam is addressing the growing

complexity — and promise — in the field of drug discovery. He is using fluorescence-based biosensors to measure G-protein coupled receptor activity, a technology that could play a role in the design of more effective drugs.

John W. Lockwood (Computer Science and Engineering). The Wireless Area Sensor Pod (WASP) is a “smart” sensor prototyped in reconfigurable hardware. It has generic electrical interfaces that allow the WASP to collect and process data from a variety of sensors, to communicate the data to multiple wireless networks, and to be reconfigured for different sensing tasks either over the net by an operator or in auto-response to different stimuli.

Rosanne S. Naunheim (Emergency Medicine). Rosanne Naunheim is studying encapsulated microspheres that can help measure head trauma. There is growing concern about head injuries in soccer, American football and other contact sports. Her Bear Cub grant funded production and testing of microspheres that could be placed in sports or military helmets to help medical personnel determine the severity of head injuries. New Technologies Hyperthermophilic Archaeons Jan Amend (Earth & Planetary Sciences) has isolated a novel microbe that thrives in geothermal wells with temperatures in excess of 80C (175F). Similar hyperthermophiles are the basis for many research and industrial products such as those used in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cloning. This microbe could play an important role in research and industry. DNA vaccine vector delivery system Roy Curtiss and Wei Wong (Biology) have developed genetically engineered bacteria as vectors to deliver DNA-based therapeutics. An example of such a vector is a salmonella bacterium genetically modified to deliver a vaccine to deep tissue. This system may be superior for inducing immunity against viral, fungal and parasitic pathogens in animals and humans. G protein biosensor and cell line expressing biosensors and receptors Narasimhan Gautam (Anesthesiology) has developed a fluorescence based biosensor that directly measures activation of a variety of mammalian cell membrane receptors. This biosensor is made up of G protein subunits fused to mutants of Green Fluorescent protein that provides a FRET signal. This fluorescence based biosensor permits non-destructive assays and, therefore, offers new potential means to conduct drug screening and identification of new drug targets.

20


Apparatus of extending the life of CT tubes David Habif, a trustee of the University, donated three patents that served as the foundation for Vivatech, LLC, a company formed by the Egan Group of St. Louis. The donated technology is a method and apparatus for extending the life of CT tubes by changing the oil cooling bath at regular intervals. Diagnosis of human metapneumovirus (hMPV) infection using real-time quantitative PCR and immunoassays Michael Holtzman (Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine) has developed a real-time quantitative PCR assay to detect human metapneumovirus. This research, which creates potential to generate anti-hMPV antibodies and to develop new immunoassays, could help in the diagnosis of this infection. Applying magnetics to authenticate seals on shipping containers Ron Indeck’s Magneprint technology has served as the basis for a company called CertiSeal, LLC, formed by Jerome Krachenfels of Virginia. This technology will increase security and contribute to faster shipping times. Notch 1-4 monoclonal antibodies specific to g-secretase cleavage Raphael Kopan (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology) has developed antibodies directed against the newly formed N-terminus of Notch proteins following presenilin dependent gamma-secretase cleavage. This discovery could facilitate research in cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Subdural Electrocorticography Telemeter for Human Patients with Epilepsy Eric Leuthardt, with Ralph Dacey and others, (Biomedical Engineering and Neurological Surgery) has developed a telemeter that is implanted below the scalp to transmit electrocorticographic signals to an outside source. Conventional systems permit connection between spinal fluid and the surface of the brain thus causing infection. Another advantage to this design is that the patient is no longer tethered to the monitoring device. Increased mobility will reduce the risks associated with prolonged bed rest, namely deep venous thrombus, pneumonia, and patient discomfort. This device can be used to report activity of any kind and probably forms the basis for development of the implantation of programmable devices with two-way communication capability. Luciferase Complementation Imaging Kathryn Luker and David Piwnica-Worms (Radiology) have developed a bioluminescence imaging tool to study regulated protein interactions in vivo. The imaging tool is based on the optimization of the firefly luciferase protein fragment complementation and permits a non-invasive means to visualize protein interaction, with low background activity. Amplified expression of the Arabidopsis Dof transcription factor, OBP3, to induce dwarfism and alter root/shoot ratios in plants such as turfgrass and row crops Julio Perez-Fontan (Pediatrics Critical Care) has developed a therapy based on the synthesis and release of neurokinins (substance P and other peptides encoded by the PPT-A gene) in inflammatory (hemopoietic ) cells. This therapeutic approach may provide a superior means to treat inflammation in the lungs. It is based on the discovery of a new amplification system that operates during inflammation in the lungs. This discovery will help people who are maintained on ventilators for extended periods of time.

21


y) has discovered a means to amplify ex Dipeptidyl peptidase I knock-out mouse Christine Pham (Internal Medicine) has created the first dipeptidyl peptidase I knock-out mouse. This mouse model will be useful in conducting tests to determine the role of proteases in different inflammatory disease processes.

Poly-ubiquitinated firefly luciferase fusion reporter plasmid and cells David Piwnica-Worms (Radiology) has developed a means to accomplish real-time, in vivo analysis of 26S proteasome activity. This technology will enable researchers to monitor the efficacy of proteasome inhibitors and investigate function and impairment of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway in a variety of diseases. Highly permissive cell lines supporting HCV RNA replication Charles Rice and Keril Blight (Molecular Microbiology) have produced highly permissive cell lines that will facilitate analysis of RNA replication at the genomic and subgenomic levels in hepatitis C virus. This research could lead to new therapeutics to treat hepatitis. Improve spatial sampling and image resolution of positron emission tomography (PET) via asymmetric detector and system geometry Yuan-Chan Tai (Radiology) has created a novel design to improve the image quality for PET scans. Conventional systems use symmetric geometry. With an asymmetric approach to spatial sampling, which is the primary limitation on image resolution, PET image quality can be improved dramatically. New Mouse Calicivirus Herbert Virgin (Pathology and Immunology) has developed a new RNA virus that causes the majority of epidemic nonbacterial gastroenteritis in adult humans. This new calicivirus has high homology to epidemiologically important human pathogens. The mouse model will lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms for protective responses in humans. Mouse embryo fibroblast (MEF) propagation Jason Weber (Molecular Oncology) has developed a novel process for passaging MEFs in tissue culture. This new process allows for passaging greater numbers of MEFs for longer periods of time using equivalent numbers of embryos. The process will yield more fibroblasts for medical research. Disruption of host hematopoetic cell beta3 integrin subunit inhibits bone metastasis Katherine Weilbaecher, with Sam Teitelbaum and Suzanne Bakewell, has completed research on a potential therapeutic that may prevent spread of cancer tumors. Most work with beta3 integrin inhibitors (integrin proteins direct interactions between cells) has been targeted as therapies for diseases other than cancer. The tests indicate that this therapeutic can protect bones from metastisis when exposed to a melanoma cell line.

22

Under the University Patent Policy, creators are required to disclose to the OTM inventions made using significant University resources. The OTM evaluates each new “disclosure” to determine:

• whether the invention is complete; • the potential commercial value; • how to protect the intellectual property; • the best mode for its commercialization; and • whether the University wishes to retain title to the invention.

The OTM business development managers continue to present seminars to departments and divisions and also attend community organization meetings to represent the OTM and Washington University.

Figure 11 Invention Disclosures by School – FY99 to F03

4

18

81

1

84

70

1

58

63

1

10

10

62

0

7

13

71

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Social Work

Table 14

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Arts & Sciences 4 8 5 10 7 Engineering 18 4 8 10 13 Medicine 81 70 63 62 71 Social Work 1 1 1 0 0

Total 104 83 77 82 91

Invention Disclosures by School

23

Table 15 Invention Disclosures by School-Department – FY03 and FY02

School-Department FY02 FY03 Arts & Sciences Biology 6 3 Chemistry 3 0 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 1 Physics 0 2 Psychology 0 1 Joint Disclosures - Physics/Biochem & Molecular Biophysics 1 0 Subtotal Arts and Sciences 10 7 Engineering Biomedical Engineering 2 Computer Science 0 1 Electrical Engineering 3 5 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 3 6 Mechanical Engineering 0 0 System Science & Mathematics 1 0 Joint Disclosures - Electrical Engineering/Computer Science 1 1 Subtotal Engineering 10 13 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 3 1 Anesthesiology 0 2 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 3 0 Cell Biology & Physiology 6 3 Comparative Medicine 1 0 Genetics 1 2 Institute of Biological Computing 0 0 Internal Medicine 15 18 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 5 4 Molecular Microbiology 1 3 Neurology 2 2 Neurosurgery 0 1 Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 Occupational Therapy 0 1 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 2 1 Orthopedic Surgery 0 0 Otolaryngology 1 0 Pathology & Immunology 10 6 Pediatrics 0 10 Psychiatry 1 2 Radiation Oncology 1 3 Radiology 3 11 Surgery 0 1 Joint Disclosures 0 0 Anesthesiology & Pediatrics 1 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics/Pediatrics 1 0 Internal Medicine/Neurology 1 0 Internal Medicine/Pathology 2 0 Neurology/Pathology 1 0 Pathology/Surgery 1 0 Subtotal Medicine 62 71 Social Work 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 Total New Disclosures 82 91

Invention Disclosures by School

24

Patent Applications by School

The Center files patent applications on inventions that have potential commercial, as well as social value. Frequently, the first step is to file for a provisional patent. This filing is not actually examined by the Patent Office, but rather serves to establish a filing date and “patent pending” status for a year. Provisional filings - because of their relative ease and speed - are particularly useful for managing the sometimes conflicting demands between publication and commercialization. The Center will later file for a non-provisional patent that will be examined by the patent office before it is granted. Patent protection strengthens the University’s position with respect to potential licensees, particularly in a field such as pharmaceuticals where the investment to bring a product to market can be large. A company seeking return on investment will perceive unpatented technology as less valuable. The Center will seek foreign patents if warranted.

Figure 12

US Patent Applications by School – FY99 to FY03

5

4

69

0

6

4

62

0

23

52

0

5

9

3 1

0

6

7

52

0

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

50

6 0

70

8 0

FY99 FY00 FY0 1 FY02 FY03

Arts & Sciences EngineeringMedicine Social Work

Table 16

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Arts & Sciences 5 6 2 5 6 Engineering 4 4 3 9 7 Medicine 69 62 52 31 52 Social Work 0 0 0 0 0 Total 78 72 57 45 65

25

School-Depart

Arts & Scienc

Subtotal Arts Engineering &

Subtotal EngiMedicine Subtotal MedicSocial Work Subtotal Social

Total
US Patent Applications by School and Department – FY03 and FY02
Table 17

ment FY02 FY03 es Biology 2 6 Chemistry 1 0 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 Physics 1 0 Joint US Patent Applications Physics/Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 0 & Sciences 5 6 Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 2 0 Computer Science 2 4 Electrical Engineering 2 2 Mechanical Engineering 1 0 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 0 1 Systems Science & Mathematics 2 0

neering & Applied Science 9 7

Anatomy & Neurobiology 0 3 Anesthesiology 0 2 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 1 Cell Biology & Physiology 2 0 Comparative Medicine 0 0 Genetics 0 1 Inst. For Biomedical Computing 0 0 Internal Medicine 6 11 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 4 4 Molecular Microbiology 6 3 Neurology 2 5 Neurosurgery 0 0 Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 1 2 Orthopedic Surgery 0 0 Otolaryngology 0 0 Pathology & Immunology 0 6 Pediatrics 3 3 Psychiatry 0 1 Radiology 2 8 Surgery 0 1 Joint US Patent Application Anesthesiology & Pediatrics 1 0 Internal Medicine/Neurology 1 0 Internal Medicine/Pathology 1 0 Anesthesiology/Ophthalmology/Psychiatry 1 0

ine 31 51

Social Work 0 0 Work 0 0

45 65

26

Licenses by School

Patented and unpatented inventions are transferred to industry through a variety of licensing arrangements. The rights to a licensee are defined by the allowed field of use and by the exclusivity of the license. Payment terms are also highly varied including one or a combination of license fees due on signing, maintenance fees, milestone payments and earned royalties on sales. Defined here are the major categories used in this report: Exclusive: A fee- and royalty-bearing exclusive license grants a licensee the sole right to commercialize a technology (may include sublicensing rights). Non-Exclusive:

• Fee- and royalty-bearing license: grant of rights to commercialize the technology; may be granted to multiple licensees,

• Paid-up license: a non-exclusive license granted in return for a one-time up-front license fee without subsequent fees or royalties,

• No-fee license: rights are granted to a third-party (usually another non-profit educational institution) to use a technology (frequently computer software) that is generally licensed to others for a fee.

License Modifications:

• Amendment: an agreement modifying the terms of an existing license. • Assignment: a reassignment of rights caused by a change in ownership of the licensee through

merger or acquisition. The majority of licenses granted by the University are to existing commercial companies located in the United States, with a smaller number to foreign entities. The University is also beginning to focus more on partnerships with Missouri and St. Louis companies and is actively supporting and encouraging the creation of new business ventures. Licensing technology to start-up companies can provide the best mode of commercialization for early-state platform technologies.

Figure 13 Licenses by School – FY99 to FY03

0

50

100

150

200

250

300



27

Licenses by School

Figure 14 Percent of Licenses by School – FY03

Medicine84%

Engineering1%

Social Work14% Arts &

Sciences1%

Table 18 Licenses by School – FY99 to FY03

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Arts & Sciences 1 2 2 1 2 Engineering 36 12 2 7 3 Medicine 73 137 195 180 200 Social Work 47 85 60 26 34 Total 157 236 259 214 239

28

Licenses by School

Table 19 Licenses by School and Department – FY01 - FY03

School/Department FY01 FY02 FY03 Arts & Sciences Biology 2 1 0 Psychiatry 0 0 2 Subtotal Arts and Sciences 2 1 2 Engineering Biomedical Engineering 0 0 0 Computer Science 2 6 0 Electrical Engineering 0 1 2 Mechanical Engineering 0 0 1 Subtotal Engineering 2 7 3 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 2 2 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 0 0 0 Cell Biology & Physiology 2 6 4 Dermatology 1 0 0 Genetics 118 103 97 Institute of Biological Computing 23 43 59 Internal Medicine 15 4 9 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 11 5 4 Molecular Microbiology 1 3 3 Neurology 2 3 1 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 0 0 3 Otolaryngology 4 0 3 Pathology & Immunology 12 10 9 Pediatrics 2 0 4 Radiology 0 1 4 Surgery 2 0 0 Subtotal Medicine 195 180 200 Social Work Social Work 60 26 34 Subtotal Social Work 60 26 34

Total Licenses 259 214 239

29

Licenses by School

Table 20

License Type by School and Department – FY03

Non-Exclusive

School-Department Exclusive Roy. Bearing Paid-up No Fee Amendment Assignment Extensions

Arts & Sciences Biology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psychiatry 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total Arts & Sciences 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Engineering Biomedical Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electrical Engineering 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Mechanical Engineering 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Engineering 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cell Biology & Physiology 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Dermatology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Genetics 1 6 4 86 0 0 0 Institute of Biological Computing 0 0 0 59 1 1 0 Internal Medicine 1 6 0 0 2 2 0 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 Molecular Microbiology 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Neurology 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Otolaryngology 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Pathology & Immunology 3 4 0 1 1 1 0 Pediatrics 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 Radiology 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Surgery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Medicine 9 29 6 147 8 8 1 Social Work Social Work 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Total 11 30 40 147 9 9 2

30

License Revenue by School License Revenue

Under most licenses, the OTM receives gross licensing income in the form of license fees, maintenance fees, milestone payments, and earned royalties against product sales. In addition, the University collects patent expense reimbursements from some licensees, particularly when the license is exclusive. For technologies that are not yet licensed, patent expenses are recovered from the creator’s department through expense allocation arrangements. Legal expenses represent the amounts paid out to external law firms engaged in the prosecution of our patent portfolio. Other expenses may include specific out-of-pocket costs incurred as part of technology licensing (e.g. consulting fees) or non-patent legal costs.

Licensing Income Distribution

Disclosed Prior to 7/1/98 Disclosed After 7/1/98 Inventors 50% 45% School 45% 40% OTM 5% 15%

Figure 15 License Revenue by School – FY99 to FY03

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000



Table 21

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Arts & Sciences $ 206,024 $ 21,801 $ 223,286 $ 171,433 $ 810,051

Engineering $ 599,590 $ 2,315,960 $ 840,410 $ 861,541 $ 937,343

Medicine $ 7,407,814 $ 5,928,862 $ 7,938,441 $ 6,997,028 $ 12,508,498

Social Work $ 53,530 $ 222,360 $ 182,055 $ 100,070 $ 70,634

Total $ 8,266,958 $ 8,488,983 $ 9,184,192 $ 8,130,072 $ 14,326,527

31

License Revenue

Table 22

License Revenue – FY99 to FY03

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03Income

Licensing Income $7,107,379 $7,259,349 $7,687,256 $6,546,707 $12,815,429Misc. Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Expense reimbursements OTM Current FY (External) $939,485 $944,963 $1,080,046 $992,793 $800,900Expense reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External) $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,349Expense reimbursements for Dept. (External) $0 $0 $0 $20,503 $15,227Expense Credits $204,866 $232,412 $367,503 $547,298 $592,687Other $15,228 $52,260 $49,390 $22,770 $10,934Subtotal Income $8,266,958 $8,488,984 $9,184,195 $8,130,071 $14,326,527

ExpensesLegal $1,168,144 $1,325,939 $1,758,822 $1,696,924 $1,585,941Other $36,708 $11,857 $44,165 -$105 $4,284Subtotal Expenses $1,204,852 $1,337,795 $1,802,987 $1,696,819 $1,590,224

DistributionsDistribution to inventors $3,015,562 $3,270,166 $3,534,864 $2,954,063 $5,625,302Distribution to schools (Lic. Income) $2,626,838 $2,999,166 $3,147,532 $2,542,439 $5,062,039Distribution to schools (Other Income) $0 $0 $0 $22,770 $10,934Distribution to third parties $593,399 $515,230 $501,508 $579,395 $889,129Expense Payback to Third Parties from Lic. Rev. $0 $0 $0 $10,807 $608Expense Payback to Dept. from Lic. Rev. $83,599 $0 $4,887 $8,019 $75,376Expense Reimbursements for Dept. (External) $0 $0 $0 $20,503 $83,089Expense Reimbursement OTM from Distribution $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,281Carry forward - - Expenses Held/Paid in Advance $325,673 $0 $11,240 $8,827CFU legal expense recovery $103,696 $69,998 $0 $0 $0Transfer to reserve $40,165 $0 $0 $0 $0Patent Expenses held in advance $0 $16,647 $0 -$4,615 $0Patent expense adjustment -$4,389 $0 $0 $0 $0Subtotal Distributions $6,784,543 $6,871,207 $7,188,792 $6,144,621 $11,820,585

Contribution to CTM operations $277,563 $192,416 $288,631 $980,998

32

The OTM handles all sponsored research agreements where the sponsor is a commercial or for-profit entity. “Research” is defined primarily in this context as laboratory activities that may result in the discovery of new intellectual property. Specifically excluded from this group are clinical trials (handled by the Center for Clinical Studies). Contract extensions represent specific agreements that extend or renew an existing research contract beyond the original term, thereby providing additional research support dollars.

Figure 16 Industry Sponsored Agreements by School – FY03

0

5

10

15

20

25

New Extensions Amendments

Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Social Work

Table 23

New Extensions Amendments Total Arts & Sciences 4 2 2 8

Engineering & Applied Science 10 6 7 23

Medicine 9 10 7 26

Social Work 0 0 0 0

Total 23 18 16 57

Industry Sponsored Research Agreements

33

Table 24

Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School and Department – FY03

School-Department FY03 Arts & Sciences Biology 3 Chemistry 5 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 Physics 0 Psychology 0 Subtotal Arts and Sciences 8 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 0 Chemical Engineering 7 Civil Engineering 0 Computer Science 10 Electrical Engineering 3 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 0 Mechanical Engineering 3 System Science & Mathematics 0 Subtotal Engineering 23 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 0 Anesthesiology 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 Cell Biology & Physiology 0 Comparative Medicine 0 Genetics 1 Institute of Biological Computing 0 Internal Medicine 8 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 2 Molecular Microbiology 2 Neurology 2 Neurosurgery 0 Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 Occupational Therapy 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 0 Orthopedic Surgery 1 Otolaryngology 0 Pathology & Immunology 2 Pediatrics 1 Psychiatry 1 Radiology 4 Surgery 1 Subtotal Medicine 26 Social Work Social Work 0 Total Social Work 0 Total 57

Industry Sponsored Research Agreements

34

Other Agreements

The OTM also processes a proportion of all so-called sales and service contracts. These are more limited laboratory research activities, frequently involving the testing of another party’s proprietary material or device.

Figure 17

Other Agreements by School – FY03

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Confid

entia

lity

Evalua

tion &

Opti

on

Interi

nstitu

tiona

l

Sales &

Service


Table 25

Other Agreements

Confidentiality Evaluation &

Option Inter-

institutional Sales & Service

Arts & Sciences 4 1 2 2

Engineering 14 2 0 3

Medicine 39 12 9 39

Social Work 0 0 0 0

Total 57 15 11 44

35

Table 26 Other Agreements by School and Department - FY03

School-Department Confidentiality Evaluation & Option

Inter-institutional

Sales &

Service Arts & Sciences Biology 1 0 2 0 Chemistry 3 1 0 2 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 Physics 0 0 0 0 Psychology 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Arts and Sciences 4 1 2 2 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 1 0 0 0 Chemical Engineering 0 0 0 1 Computer Science 4 0 0 0 Electrical Engineering 7 1 0 1 Engineering & Applied Science 0 1 0 0 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 0 0 0 0 Mechanical Engineering 1 0 0 1 System Science & Mathematics 1 0 0 0 Subtotal Engineering 14 2 0 3 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 2 0 0 0 Anesthesiology 0 0 0 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 0 0 2 Cell Biology & Physiology 0 1 1 0 Comparative Medicine 1 0 0 0 Genetics 2 1 0 0 Institute of Biological Computing 0 0 0 0 Internal Medicine 11 0 2 10 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 2 3 0 0 Molecular Microbiology 3 2 2 1 Neurology 6 0 0 3 Neurosurgery 1 0 0 0 Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 0 0 Occupational Therapy 0 0 0 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 0 1 0 1 Orthopedic Surgery 0 0 0 0 Otolaryngology 1 0 0 0 Pathology & Immunology 1 4 1 2 Pediatrics 2 0 2 6 Psychiatry 0 0 1 1 Radiology 5 0 0 12 Surgery 1 0 0 1 Subtotal Medicine 39 12 9 39 Social Work Social Work 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 0 0 Total 57 15 11 44

Other Agreements

36

Material Transfer Agreements

When transferring proprietary materials in and out of the University to support research activities, the University requires execution of a materials transfer agreement (MTA). Incoming MTA’s are no-fee agreements used when the material is received from another non-profit institution or from a commercial third party. Many of these materials are highly valuable and proprietary research tools deemed essential to our research activities. Outgoing MTA’s are used to distribute our materials (patented and unpatented) without charge to other non-profit institutions so that researchers can use them in their research activities. If the University receives a request for materials from a scientist within a commercial concern, OTM usually negotiates a license rather than an MTA.

Figure 18 Material Transfer Agreements – FY03

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Incoming Outgoing


Table 27

Incoming Outgoing Total Arts & Sciences 21 7 28 Engineering & Applied Science 3 0 3 Medicine 415 510 925 Social Work 0 0 0

Total 439 517 956

37

Material Transfer Agreements

Table 28 Material Transfer Agreements by School and Department – FY03

Department Incoming Outgoing Arts & Sciences Biology 19 2 Chemistry 1 4 Earth & Planetary Sciences 1 1 Physics 0 0 Psychology 0 0 Subtotal Arts & Sciences 21 7 Engineering Biomedical Engineering 2 0 Computer Science 1 0 Electrical Engineering 0 0 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 0 0 Mechanical Engineering 0 0 System Science & Mathematics 0 0 Subtotal Engineering 3 0 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 28 1 Anesthesiology 9 1 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 9 1 Cell Biology & Physiology 20 24 Comparative Medicine 0 0 Genetics 12 0 Institute of Biological Computing 0 0 Internal Medicine 132 189 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 29 71 Molecular Microbiology 17 29 Neurology 20 10 Neurosurgery 1 0 Obstetrics & Gynecology 5 0 Occupational Therapy 0 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 12 13 Orthopedic Surgery 3 0 Otolaryngology 3 0 Pathology & Immunology 35 148 Pediatrics 28 4 Psychiatry 8 2 Radiation Oncology 3 2 Radiology 19 9 Surgery 22 6 Subtotal Medicine 415 510 Social Work Social Work 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 Total 439 517

38

fy03 annual report

Documents