FY04 Annual Report

Sponsored Research Executive Summary 1 Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY95 - FY04 Figure 1 – Funding History by Sponsor Type 2 Table 1 – Funding History by Sponsor Type 2 Figure 2 – Federal Funding 3 Figure 3 - % Growth in Fed. Science & Eng. Obligation – 1994-2002 3 Figure 4 – State, Local & Int’l Gov. Funding 4 Figure 5 – Private Industry Funding 4 Funding History by School – FY95 – FY04 5 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 Award Dollars by School and Cost Category 6 Table 3 – Direct Costs vs. F & A Costs – FY04 & FY03 Award Dollars by Project Type – FY04 & FY03 Table 4 – Award Dollars by School & Project Type 7 Figure 10 – Award Summary by Sponsor Type 8 Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY04 & FY03 Table 5 – Direct and Indirect Award Dollars 9 Table 6 – Award Dollars by Sponsor & Cost Category 10 Table 6a – Award Dollars by Sponsor and Direct/Sub Award Category 11 Table 7 – Federal Award Dollars by School & Sponsor – FY04 12 Table 8 – Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type 13 Table 9 – School of A & S – Award Dollars by Dept. 14 Table 10 – School of Engineering – Award by Dept. 15 Table 11 – School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Dept. 16 Washington University Rankings Table 12 – WU Rank among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support 17 Table 13 – WU Rank among Private Univ. Receiving Federal Support 18 Table 14 – WU Medical School Rank Receiving Federal NIH Support 19 Office of Technology Management Executive Summary 20

Table of Contents

Invention Disclosures by School Figure 11 – Invention Disclosure by School – FY00 – FY04 26 Table 15 – Invention Disclosure by School – FY00 – FY04 26 Table 16 – Invention Disclosure by School – Dept. – FY03 & FY04 27 Patent Applications by School Figure 12 – US Patent Applications by School – FY00 – FY04 28 Table 17 – US Patent Applications by School – FY00 – FY04 28 Table 18 – US Patent Applications by School & Dept. – FY03 & FY04 29 Licenses by School Figure 13 – Licenses by School – FY00 – FY04 30 Figure 14 - % of Licenses by School – FY04 31 Table 19 – Licenses by School – FY00 – FY04 31 Table 20 – Licenses by School & Dept. – FY03 & FY04 32 Table 21 – License Type by School & Dept. – FY04 33 License Revenue by School – FY00 – FY04 34 Figure 15 – License Revenue by School Table 22 – License Revenue by School License Revenue – FY00 – FY04 35 Table 23 – License Revenue Industry Sponsored Research Agreements – FY04 Figure 16 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School 36 Table 24 – Industry Sponsored Agreements by School 36 Table 25 – Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School & Dept. 37 Other Agreements – FY04 Figure 17 – Other Agreements by School 38 Table 26 – Other Agreements by School 38 Table 27 – Other Agreements by School & Dept. 39 Material Transfer Agreements – FY04 Figure 18 – Material Transfer Agreements 40 Table 28 – Material Transfer Agreements 40 Table 29 – Material Transfer Agreements by School & Dept. 41

Table of Contents

1

This report presents an overview of external funding for sponsored research projects and training at Washington University during the fiscal year of 2004 (FY04). The award dollars reported are those of awards with start dates on or between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004. This report also contains a summary of licensing revenue and patent activity. Data Sources The data for the majority of these tables were obtained from the Washington University Financial Information System (FIS) and reflect awards for sponsored research and projects. Excluded from these figures are revenue derived from gifts, sales, and service agreements, clinical trials and federal work-study funds. This is the second year we have removed the work-study funds from the total award dollars for FY04 and the prior 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 17-19 are reproduced using the most recently published figures collected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and represent government-wide data from federal fiscal year 2002. Total Award Dollars The University’s total research support for FY04 was $534.7 million, an increase of 12% over FY03. This increase is attributed to a key federal agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Federal agency support continues to be the University’s leading source of sponsored research funding, constituting 86% of total sponsored dollars in FY04. Key Federal Research Sponsors NIH awarded $415 million in FY04, representing 77% of total University sponsored research funding. NSF remains the number two sponsor of University research by awarding $24.7 million. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the third largest sponsor, awarding $4.8 million. National Ranking NSF’s most recent FY02 nationwide comparison of universities with federal research support ranked Washington University as 10th in receiving federal research funding and 5th in support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)(table 12). Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 4th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS funding (table 13). In addition, the School of Medicine ranks 2nd out of all medical schools in the United States in the amount of funding received from the NIH for FY03 (table 14).

Sponsored Research Executive Summary

2

The following graphs illustrate Washington University’s funding history over the past decade. Figure 1 illustrates the total dollars summarized in table 1 received each year, sorted by three broad sponsor types: 1) federal, 2) state, local and international governments, and 3) private sector, which includes industry and nonprofit sponsors. Figures 2-5 address the same sponsor data in greater detail. Finally, 10-year trends are compared in figures 6-9 and table 2 among the four research-intensive units of the university: the School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Engineering and Applied Science, the Washington University School of Medicine, and the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.

Figure 1 Funding History FY95 to FY04 by Sponsor Type

(000s)

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Federal State/Local/Int'l Private

Table 1 (000s)

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.

Funding History

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Federal $180,217 $196,106 $221,303 $208,837 $277,855 $293,301 $344,771 $362,217 $413,718 $461,661 State/Local/Int'l $5,895 $5,276 $5,202 $8,377 $7,443 $8,364 $8,100 $11,771 $14,953 $17,301 Private $39,354 $42,661 $48,702 $45,952 $46,740 $60,933 $56,326 $46,377 $51,123 $55,747 Total $225,466 $244,043 $275,207 $263,166 $332,038 $362,598 $409,197 $420,365 $479,794 $534,709

3

As figure 2 illustrates, the University has demonstrated cumulative growth in federal research funding from 1995 to 2004. Figure 3 illustrates Washington University has continued to outpaced the growth in federal science and engineering obligations made to the top 100 universities and colleges receiving these dollars.

Figure 2

Federal Funding – FY95 to FY04 (000s)

$0$50,000

$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,000$300,000$350,000$400,000$450,000$500,000


Federal

Figure 3 Percent Growth in Federal Science and Engineering Obligations – 1994 to 2002

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Funding History by Sponsor Type

Federal Support to Washington University

Federal Science & Engineering Obligation Top 100

4

$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000

$70,000

FY95FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Private

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000


State/Local/Int'l

Figure 4 State, Local and International Government Funding – FY95 to FY04

(000s)

Figure 5 Private Industry Funding – FY95 to FY04

(000s)

Funding History by Sponsor Type

5

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000


Figure 6 Figure 7 Arts and Sciences School of Engineering Figure 8 Figure 9

School of Social Work School of Medicine

Table 2

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 A & S $25,607 $23,629 $23,351 $23,925 $24,313 $31,807 $28,777 $30,177 $38,376 $43,017 Engineering $10,278 $13,427 $15,652 $16,051 $10,753 $20,385 $8,403 $15,349 $14,168 $16,434 Medicine $185,700 $203,134 $231,050 $215,698 $290,893 $303,130 $362,778 $366,884 $419,271 $468,085 Social Work $2,362 $1,929 $2,362 $4,236 $3,843 $5,561 $9,150 $6,075 $6,444 $5,438 Other $3,004 $3,351 $4,245 $5,405 $4,394 $3,570 $89 $1,880 $1,534 $1,735 Total $226,951 $245,470 $276,660 $265,315 $334,196 $364,453 $409,197 $420,365 $479,794 $534,709

Funding History by School

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000


$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000

$10,000


$0$50,000

$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,000$300,000$350,000$400,000$450,000$500,000


6

The following table compares FY04 award dollars with the prior year, broken out by direct and facility/administrative cost for each school The percent of change from one fiscal year to the next is tracked in the far right column. It should be noted that when a school receives one very large award or regularly receives a small number of awards, the data could lead to skewed or even misleading interpretations.

Table 3 Direct Costs vs. F & A Costs– FY04 and FY03

(000s)

FY04 FY03

Schools Award Count

Direct Costs

F&A Cost

Total Award Count

Direct Costs

F&A Cost

Total $$ %

Arts & Sciences

249 $33,063 $9,954 $43,017 281 $28,109 $10,267 $38,376 $4,641 12%

Business 4 $542 $136 $678 2 $888 $131 $1,019 -$341 -33% Engineering 116 $12,093 $4,341 $16,434 127 $10,480 $3,689 $14,168 $2,265 16% Law 4 $339 $0 $339 2 $93 $45 $138 $201 146% Medicine 1,665 $346,371 $121,715 $468,085 1455 $309,224 $110,047 $419,271 $48,816 12% Social Work 34 $4,217 $1,221 $5,438 34 $4,991 $1,453 $6,444 -$1,006 -16% Other 9 $594 $125 $718 9 $357 $20 $378 $341 90% Total 2081 $397,218 $137,491 $534,709 1910 $354,143 $125,651 $479,794 $54,915 12%

Award Dollars by School and Cost Category

7

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

Table 4 Award Dollars by School and Project Type FY04 and FY03

(000s)

Other

Research Research Training Sponsored Activities Total

Schools FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03 Administration $288 $0 $0 $0 $429 $0 $716 $382 Architecture $0 -$4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$4 Art $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $2 $0 Arts & Sciences $38,680 $34,590 $2,282 $2,073 $2,055 $1,713 $43,017 $38,376 Business $624 $1,019 $0 $0 $54 $0 $678 $1,019 Engineering $11,546 $13,412 $577 $644 $4,312 $112 $16,434 $14,168 Law $39 $130 $0 $0 $300 $8 $339 $138 Medicine $438,276 $393,888 $23,383 $20,840 $6,426 $4,543 $468,085 $419,271 Social Work $3,250 $3,739 $749 $685 $1,439 $2,020 $5,438 $6,444

Total $492,703 $446,774 $26,991 $24,242 $15,017 $8,396 $534,709 $479,794

Award Dollars by Project Type

8

NIH NSF Other Fed Other Govt Industry Non Profit

$24,700$21,525$17,301

$40,833 $415,435

$14,918

$377,740

$17,393$18,585

$39,262

$14,953$11,861

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

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

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

research over the past fiscal year?

Figure 10 Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY04 and FY03

FY04 FY03

Award Dollars by Project Type

9

Sponsor types in the tables are broadly defined as Federal, Other Government, Industry and Not for Profit. The Federal sponsor type is the largest sector, representing 86% of total University award dollars in FY04. The other government category includes state funding, city projects, awards from international governments, and most often, state university subcontracts funded by those institutions’ federal grants. Industry, as a sponsor type, refers to any grant or contract awarded by a for-profit entity. Nonprofits include foundations, professional societies, and volunteer health organizations.

Table 5 Direct and F&A Award Dollars by Sponsor Type FY04 and FY03

(000s)

FY04 FY03

Sponsors Direct Costs

% Total Direct

F & A Costs

% Total F&A Total

% Total

Direct Costs

% Total Direct

F & A Costs

% Total F&A Total

% Total

Federal $338,967 85.6% $122,693 89.3% $461,661 86.3% $300,543 84.9% $113,175 90.1% $413,718 86.2%

Other Govt $12,198 3.1% $5,103 3.7% $17,301 3.2% $10,433 2.9% $4,520 3.6% $14,953 3.1%

Total Govt $351,165 88.7% $127,796 93.0% $478,962 89.6% $310,976 87.8% $117,695 93.7% $428,671 89.3%

Nonprofit $35,491 9.0% $5,338 3.9% $40,829 7.6% $34,876 9.8% $4,386 3.5% $39,262 8.2%

Industry $10,561 2.7% $4,357 3.2% $14,918 2.8% $8,291 2.3% $3,570 2.8% $11,861 2.5% Total Private $46,052 11.6% $9,695 7.1% $55,747 10.4% $43,167 12.2% $7,956 6.3% $51,123 10.7%

Total $395,878 100.0% $137,459 100.0% $534,709 100.0% $354,143 100.0% $125,651 100.0% $479,794 100.0%

Award Summary by Sponsor Type

10

Table 6 Award Dollars by Sponsor and Cost Category FY04 and FY03

(000s)

FY04 FY03 Change

Direct Costs

F&A Costs Total

Direct Costs

F&A Costs Total $$ %

FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH $303,603 $111,832 $415,435 $273,645 $104,095 $377,740 $37,693 10% NSF $19,148 $5,552 $24,700 $12,969 $4,425 $17,393 $7,307 42% NASA $3,310 $1,552 $4,862 $3,709 $1,526 $5,235 -$373 -7% DOD $3,243 $845 $4,088 $2,748 $919 $3,667 $417 11% EPA -$71 $112 $41 $778 $133 $912 -$871 -96% ED $1,560 $197 $1,757 $1,486 $84 $1,570 $187 12% DOE $1,952 $900 $2,852 $2,787 $1,158 $3,945 -$1,093 -28% DHHS HRSA $1,446 $398 $1,844 $1,435 $406 $1,840 $4 0% LABOR $2,016 $928 $2,944 $500 $266 $766 $2,178 284% USDA $1,548 $166 $1,714 $144 $34 $178 $1,892 1063% OTHER $1,212 $211 $1,423 $842 $397 $1,239 $190 15%Total Federal $338,967 $122,693 $461,661 $300,543 $113,175 $413,718 $47,942 12%OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI $830 $130 $962 $695 $138 $833 $129 15% STATE-All Other $10,532 $4,922 $15,454 $9,252 $4,344 $13,596 $1,858 14% OTHER GOV'T $834 $51 $885 $486 $39 $524 $361 69%Total Other Govt $12,196 $5,103 $17,301 $10,433 $4,520 $14,953 $2,348 16%PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY $10,561 $4,357 $14,918 $8,291 $3,570 $11,861 $3,057 26% NON PROFITS $35,491 $5,338 $40,829 $34,876 $4,386 $39,262 $196 0%Total Private $46,052 $9,695 $55,747 $43,167 $7,956 $51,123 $3,253 6%

Total $397,219 $137,491 $534,709 $354,143 $125,651 $479,794 $54,915 12%


11

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

Table 6a Award Dollars by Sponsor and Direct/Sub Award Category FY04 and FY03

(000s)

FY04 FY03 Change

Direct

Awards Sub

Awards Total Direct

Awards Sub

Awards Total $$ % FEDERAL AGENCIES NIH $414,116 $25,774 $439,890 $371,712 $25,414 $397,125 $42,765 11% NSF $24,701 $2,229 $26,930 $17,393 $2,083 $19,476 $7,454 38% NASA $4,862 $2,486 $7,348 $5,235 $1,921 $7,155 $193 3% DOD $3,486 $1,855 $5,341 $3,527 $1,375 $4,902 $439 9% EPA $41 $368 $409 $912 $381 $1,293 -$884 -68% ED $1,760 $172 $1,932 $1,570 $73 $1,642 $290 18% DOE $2,852 $220 $3,072 $3,945 $157 $4,102 -$1,030 -25% DHHS HRSA $1,843 $880 $2,723 $1,840 $450 $2,290 $433 19% LABOR $2,945 $101 $3,046 $766 $43 $809 $2,237 136% USDA $1,714 $0 $1,714 $178 $102 $280 $1,434 512% OTHER $684 $1,426 $2,110 $875 $1,271 $2,146 -$36 -2%Total Federal $459,004 $35,511 $494,515 $407,186 $33,226 $440,412 $54,103 12%OTHER GOVERNMENT MISSOURI $520 $236 $756 $588 $160 $748 $8 1% STATE-All Other $490 $185 $675 $161 $2 $163 $512 314% OTHER GOV'T $52 $44 $96 $17 $0 $17 $79 465%Total Other Govt $1,062 $470 $1,532 $178 $2 $928 $604 65%PRIVATE SOURCES INDUSTRY $11,330 $0 $11,330 $9,376 $16 $9,392 $1,938 21% NON PROFITS $25,370 $1,961 $27,331 $25,797 $3,265 $29,061 -$1,730 -6%Total Private $36,700 $1,962 $38,662 $35,173 $3,281 $38,453 $209 1%

Total $495,371 $37,943 $534,709 $442,537 $36,508 $479,794 54,915 12%


12

Table 7 Federal Award Dollars by School and Sponsor FY04

(000s)

University Arts & Sciences Engineering School of Medicine Social Work Other Schools

FY04

% of Change

from FY03 FY04

% of Change

from FY03 FY04

% of Change

from FY03 FY04

% of Change

from FY03 FY04

% of Change

from FY03 FY04

% of Change

from FY03

NIH $415,433 10.1% $11,836 7.8% $2,182 -17.8% $397,889 10.7% $2,932 -26.5% $595 357.7% NSF $24,700 42.0% $15,696 14.7% $5,669 115.6% $2,914 171.3% $0 0.0% $421 0.0% ED $1,757 11.9% $1,142 24.1% $0 0.0% $300 -11.8% $0 0.0% $316 2.3% NASA $4,862 -7.1% $3,657 -18.2% $296 15.6% $909 80.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% DOD $4,084 11.4% $500 73.0% $2,022 -36.5% $1,563 705.7% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% EPA $41 -95.5% $5 0.0% $37 -95.9% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% DOE $2,852 -27.7% $1,168 -2.3% $253 -43.7% $1,430 -37.9% $0 0.0% $0 0.0%

HHS HRSA $1,844 0.2% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $1,844 1.4% $0 -

100.0% $0 0.0% LABOR $2,944 284.3% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $2,945 284.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% USDA $1,714 862.9% $415 133.1% $0 0.0% $1,299 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% OTHER $1,430 62.1% $204 270.9% $5 -66.7% $615 -14.8% $294 284.0% $302 655.0%

T O T A L $461,661 12.0% $34,623 9.0% $10,464 3.6% $411,708 12.1% $3,226 -19.8% $1,634 241.1%


13

Table 8 Award Dollars by School and Sponsor Type FY04 and FY03

(000s)

Government Private Total Federal Other Govt. Industry Nonprofit Schools FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03 FY04 FY03Administration $380 $349 $49 $23 $0 $0 $287 $9 $716 $381 Architecture $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($4) $0 ($4) Art $0 $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $2 $0 $2 $0 Arts & Sciences $34,623 $31,776 $1,136 $1,157 $3,123 $2,391 $4,135 $3,053 $43,017 $38,376 Business $370 $0 $0 $5 $0 $0 $308 $1,014 $678 $1,019 Engineering $10,464 $10,098 $1,133 $1,705 $2,393 $1,444 $2,444 $921 $16,434 $14,168 Law $301 $130 $0 $0 $8 $9 $30 $0 $339 $138 Medicine $411,708 $367,343 $14,950 $12,033 $8,974 $7,987 $32,453 $31,909 $468,085 $419,271 Social Work $3,226 $4,023 $37 $30 $421 $31 $1,754 $2,361 $5,438 $6,444

Total $461,661 $413,718 $17,301 $14,953 $14,918 $11,861 $40,829 $39,263 $534,709 $479,794


14

Table 9 School of Arts and Sciences – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type

FY04 and FY03 (000s)

Government Private Total

Department Federal Other Govt. Industry Nonprofit FY04 FY03

African & Afro-American Studies $0 $0 $0 $25 $25 $31 Anthropology $375 $109 $3 $17 $504 $39 Art History & Archaeology $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Asian & Near Eastern Lang & Lit $0 $0 $0 $41 $41 $6 Biology $12,882 $510 $1,400 $1,297 $16,089 $10,662 Center for Political Economy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 Career Center $13 $0 $0 $0 $13 $21 Chemistry $6,100 $113 $330 $219 $6,762 $8,081 Classics $24 $15 $0 $26 $65 $0 Earth & Planetary Science $2,269 $304 $1,300 $631 $4,504 $3,375 Education $24 $0 $0 $0 $24 $4,196 Graduate School $631 $0 $0 $328 $959 $891 History $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20 International Writers Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 Mathematics $599 $0 $0 $74 $673 $384 Music $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Philosophy $113 $0 $0 $0 $113 $139 Physics $5,628 $12 $90 $990 $6,720 $5,726 Political Science $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Psychology $5,617 $73 $0 $448 $6,138 $4,010 The Center for Humanities $0 $0 $0 $10 $10 $100 Weidenbaum Center $348 $0 $0 $29 $377 $646

Total $34,623 $1,136 $3,123 $4,135 $43,017 $38,376


15

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


Government Private Total

Department Federal Other Gov't. Industry Nonprofit FY04 FY03

Biomedical Engineering $1,331 $150 $50 $1,550 $3,081 $2,273 Chemical Engineering $380 $350 $212 $39 $981 $1,070 Civil Engineering $834 $150 $0 $0 $984 $906 Computer Science and Engineering $4,432 $168 $1,635 $240 $6,475 $2,276 Electrical & Systems Engineering $1,315 $13 $10 $247 $1,585 $320 Environmental Engineering $431 $173 $150 $80 $834 $1,607 Center for Materials Research $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $690 Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering $1,461 $80 $336 $112 $1,989 $0 Other $280 $49 $0 $175 $505 $5,025

Total $10,464 $1,133 $2,393 $2,443 $16,434 $14,168


16

Table 11 School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor Type


*Administration: Clinical Research Faculty, Division of Comparative Medicine, Experimental Neurol/Neur Surgery, Facilities Management, Health Administration Program, Human Studies Committee, New Parking Garage, Student Affairs, Medical School Administration, MBP-Protein Neucleic Acid Chemla, Neurotrophic Factors.

Government Private Total Department Federal Other Govt. Industry Nonprofit FY04 FY03 Anatomy & Neurobiology $12,489 $256 $0 $774 $13,519 $11,395 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics $6,070 $95 $339 $85 $6,589 $6,413 Cell Biology & Physiology $9,045 $150 $150 $829 $10,174 $8,799 Genetics $80,598 $1,446 $50 $660 $82,754 $93,533 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology $9,544 $29 $925 $1,366 $11,864 $13,622 Molecular Microbiology $11,911 $25 $0 $585 $12,521 $10,652 Subtotal Preclinical $129,657 $2,001 $1,464 $4,299 $137,423 $144,413 Anesthesiology $5,720 $0 $150 $256 $6,126 $4,974 Internal Medicine $84,012 $2,710 $3,129 $8,124 $97,975 $66,307 Neurological Surgery $2,355 $0 $22 $46 $2,423 $1,499 Neurology $22,388 $1,084 $397 $2,312 $26,181 $20,570 Obstetrics & Gynecology $2,000 $0 $0 $250 $2,250 $2,425 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences $13,785 $24 $0 $483 $14,292 $12,864 Orthopedic Surgery $3,068 $5 $473 $878 $4,424 $2,413 Otolaryngology $7,600 $370 $7 $146 $8,123 $4,804 Pathology & Immunology $23,086 $280 $723 $2,167 $26,256 $22,415 Pediatrics $26,590 $1,787 $590 $5,256 $34,223 $26,347 Psychiatry $35,736 $2,627 $229 $2,332 $40,924 $42,814 Radiation Oncology $4,454 $42 $104 $396 $4,996 $4,954 Radiology $22,762 $265 $192 $1,277 $24,496 $23,462 Surgery $14,308 $2,491 $444 $2,382 $19,625 $17,643 Subtotal Clinical $267,864 $11,685 $6,460 $26,305 $312,320 $255,246 Administration* $1,567 $15 $959 ($468) $2,073 $527 Div.of Biology/Biomedical Sciences $4,296 $30 $0 $18 $4,343 $4,180 Biostatistics $3,878 $770 $58 $529 $5,238 $5,654 Center for Clinical Studies $0 $0 $0 $122 $122 $127 Center for Health Behavior Research $1,546 $0 $0 $779 $2,324 $1,331 Emergency Medicine $15 $0 $0 $124 $138 $10 Medical Library $0 $180 $0 $0 $180 $116 Occupational Therapy $818 $269 $11 $699 $1,797 $2,119 Physical Therapy $680 $0 $23 $17 $720 $648 Proteomics Core Lab $0 $0 $0 $9 $9 $0 Siteman Cancer Center $1,387 $0 $0 $20 $1,406 $1,419 Subtotal Other $14,187 $1,264 $1,051 $1,849 $18,341 $19,612 Total $411,708 $14,950 $8,975 $32,453 $468,085 $419,271


17

Each year, the National Science Foundation produces a ranking of the top 100 research institutions receiving federal research support. The most recent federal fiscal year data reported by NSF is for FY02. Table 12 illustrates Washington University ranks 10th in receiving federal funding and 5th in support from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Compared to other private institutions, Washington University ranks 4th in federal funding and 3rd in DHHS Funding for FY02 (table 13). Overall Washington University Medical School ranks 2nd in NIH funding for FY03 (table 14).

Table 12 Washington University Ranking Among Research Institutions Receiving Federal Support

FY2002

Rank Among Top 100

Research Institutions Institution

Total Federal Federal Funding From HHS

Johns Hopkins University 1 1

University of Washington 2 3

U of Pennsylvania 3 2

U of Michigan 4 6

U. CA, Los Angeles 5 7

Stanford University 6 16

U. CA, San Diego 7 15

U. WI Madison 8 17

U. CA, San Francisco 9 4 Washington University St. Louis 10 5

Columbia University NY 11 13

U. Colorado 12 20

Harvard University 13 10

Duke University 14 11

U. Pittsburg 15 8

Yale University 16 9 U of NC Chapel Hill 17 12

Cornell University 18 28

U. Minnesota 19 18

PA State University 20 57 Baylor Col of Medicine 21 14

MA Inst of Technology 22 55

U. Southern CA 23 30

U. AL Birmingham 24 19

Vanderbilt University 25 22

SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), “Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2002” (Arlington, VA) 2004.

Washington University Rankings

18

Table 13 Washington University Ranking Among Private Universities Receiving Federal Support

FY2002

Institution Total Federal Funding

Federal Funding from HHS

Johns Hopkins University 1 1

U.of Pennsylvania 2 2

Stanford University 3 9

Washington University St. Louis 4 3

Columbia University NY 5 7 Harvard University 6 5 Duke University 7 6

Yale University 8 4

Cornell University 9 14 Baylor Col of Medicine 10 8 MA Institute of Technology 11 25 U. Southern CA 12 16 Vanderbilt University 13 11 Case Western Reserve U 14 10 U. Rochester 15 18 Boston University 16 15

Scripps Rsch Inst, The 17 12

Emory University 18 13

Northwestern University 19 21

University of Chicago 20 19

CA Institute of Technology 21 34

NY University 22 22

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine 23 17

Yeshiva University 24 20

U. of Miami 25 24

SOURCE: National Science Foundation (SRS), “Survey of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2002” (Arlington, VA) 2004.


19

Table 14 National Institute of Health (NIH) Medical School Rankings

Receiving Federal NIH Support FY2003

Rank Medical School Number Awards Amount

1

Johns Hopkins University School of

Medicine 967 $414,225,650

2

Washington University School of

Medicine 775 $368,355,293

3 U.of Pennsylvania School of Medicine 938 $359,344,311

4 Uof California San Fran

School of Medicine 785 $350,786,145

5 Duke University School

of Medicine 661 $305,405,308

6 U. of Washington

School of Medicine 692 $290,097,322

7 David Geffen School of

Medicine at UCLA 629 $264,873,857

8 Yale University School

of Medicine 703 $261,706,751

9 U of Pittsburgh School

of Medicine 646 $258,276,361

10 Baylor College of

Medicine 561 $246,410,097

Source Awards to Medical Schools by Rank National Institutes of Health NIH FY2003


20

During the year, the Office of Technology Management (OTM) received 102 new technology disclosures. Approximately 84% of the disclosures originated in the School of Medicine, 9% from the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the remainder from the School of Arts & Sciences and the School of Social Work. The Office handled 12 % more disclosures than the year before. The University filed 57 new patent applications, twice the number from the previous year. The United States Patent Office issued 34 patents on behalf of the University. Patents issued with international scope numbered 45. The University generated $ 9.6 M in total technology transfer revenue. This amount is 33% less than the previous fiscal year. Excluding the single largest license, the amount is 12 % less than the previous fiscal year. The University entered into a total of 56 revenue generating license agreements during the year, down 30 % from the year before. Of the total new license agreements, 82 % were non-exclusive licenses. The Office of Technology Management also manages software licenses (many involving gene sequencing and related topics); these licenses numbered 679 for the year, up substantially from previous years. Licensing related distributions to individual inventors, Washington University Schools and third parties totaled $ 7.6 M. Legal expenses totaled $ 1.6 M, of which $ .7 M was reimbursed by licensees. Net operating expenses totaled $ .8 M, which represents a OTM revenue to expense ratio of 9.5 to 1. Technology transfer revenues generated by each School were as follows:

FY04 Licensing Revenues by School School of Medicine $ 8.7 M School of Engineering and Applied Sciences $0 .7 M School of Arts and Sciences $ .09 M School of Social Work $ .03 M OTM continues its community involvement through such organizations as RCGA, Research Alliance of Missouri, Danforth Plant Sciences Center Alliance, Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences, Missouri Venture Forum, and Midwest Research Universities Network. Involvement with these various organizations extends to local, state and regional levels. In its relationships with these organizations, OTM works to build the economy and to develop channels for commercializing Washington University technologies. OTM staff members work continuously with the Olin School of Business entrepreneurship program and the larger Kaufmann Foundation entrepreneurship undertaking. OTM has begun to work with undergraduates as well as graduate students. The work by the students contributes to the assessment of ideas within a commercial context, whether start-ups or the licensing of ideas to large, established companies. While students with non-technical backgrounds participate and contribute, the team leaders have advanced technical backgrounds in the life sciences, chemistry, math, physics and the computer sciences. The OTM business development managers continue to present seminars to departments and divisions and also attend community organization meetings to represent the OTM and Washington University.

Technology Management Executive Summary

21

The Bear Cub Fund has matured into a well-recognized arm of the University’s commitment to technology development and community growth. During this period, at least two local start-up companies have benefited from Bear Cub proof of concept work. The fund maintains its pace of allotting approximately $250,000 per year to about five award winners in amounts ranging from $20,000 to $50,000. The fund has proved useful in enabling investigators to conduct proof of concept experiments in areas where commercial promise exists. The fund award winners during the last fiscal year were:

Robert Pless (Computer Science and Engineering). Robert Pless is developing a prototype system to extend programs originally developed by Pless that distinguish the unusual movement of individuals or objects in videos that are processed through his program. The program filters out movement of objects from the background to flag anomalous patterns that do not fit the background movement. The main applications are for security monitoring to detect unusual movements of people or objects.

John Heuser (Cell Biology). John Heuser is using funds to build a prototype of a

redesigned “freezing machine” for freezing biological samples under high pressure. The process prevents ice crystal formation and expansion damage to tissue so that very high resolutions of molecular images are obtained.

David Zar (Computer Science and Engineering). David Zar’s study deals with the

problem of high speed computing involving the temporal control of very large numbers of transistors in an integrated circuit. The proposed study will use a crystal-controlled clock as part of the clock generator circuit to prevent current problems involving the control of very large numbers of calculations in compressed time. This will significantly improve computing reliability. The study will build, optimize and test a clock generator circuit for the use in the control of globally asynchronous and locally synchronous systems (GALS).

Arthur Neufeld (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology). This fund will support a

proof of concept experiment to determine if an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, a class of compounds that is being widely tested as an anti-cancer agent in the clinic, has the potential as a pharmacological neuroprotective agent for the treatment of glaucomatous optic neuropathy.

Thomas Baranski (Internal Medicine) and Ross Cagan ( Molecular Biology and

Pharmacology). They are using funds to implement a model organism developmental screen for the high-throughput identification of chemical leads and targets (gene products) involved in cancer and diabetes.


22

Technology Highlights

THERAPEUTICS Pyridinones to treat and prevent bacterial infections Scott Hultgren (Molecular Microbiology) and a team of researchers are working with compounds capable of preventing bacteria from forming pili. These substances, termed pilicides, may have the potential of being powerful antibacterial agents because bacteria use these pili to attach to host cells during microbial invasion. Development of a cancer cell marker…cell surface inducible heat shock protein Mai Xu (Radiation Oncology) has identified a heat inducible cell surface marker that is specifically induced by raising the temperature of the cell a few degrees using targeted radiation. This new chemical entity offers a novel approach for the imaging and treatment of cancer because it improves the efficiency for delivering therapeutics directly to tumor cells and it sensitizes tumor cells to anticancer agents. Otopetrin gene David Ornitz (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology) has discovered a novel gene that may serve to restore balance in patients who suffer from inner ear problems, and to facilitate work by astronauts in space. Otoconia are biomineral particles in the inner ear and are critical for perception of gravity and linear motion. Otopetrin 1 is a novel gene that may enhance the ability to regenerate otoconia. IDO treatment technology for inflammatory bowel disease Gregory Gurtner and William Stenson (Gastroenterology) have developed a potential new treatment for Crohn’s Disease and possibly a method to increase graft tolerance. This research may also have broader applications in the area of pharmacological immunosuppressants. DNA vaccine vector delivery system Roy Curtiss and Wei Wong (Biology) have developed genetically engineered bacteria as vectors to deliver DNA-based therapeutics. An example of such a bacterial vector is a Salmonella strain that has been genetically modified to deliver a vaccine to deep tissue. This system may be superior for inducing immunity against viral, fungal and parasitic pathogens in animals and humans. Prevention and Treatment of stretch-induced inflammation in the lungs Julio Perez-Fontan (Pediatrics Critical Care) has developed a therapy based on the synthesis and release of neurokinins in inflammatory cells. This therapeutic approach may provide a superior means to treat inflammation in the lungs of people—particularly infants—who are maintained on ventilators for extended periods of time.


23

Administration of (recombinant human) Regenerating “Reg” Gene Family Proteins as a therapy for diseases involving neuronal/axonal injury including Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Brian Dieckgraefe (Gastroenterology) and Dorothy Anne Cross (Neurology) are working to develop a therapy for the amelioration of multiple sclerosis. This treatment may also be of therapeutic benefit in other diseases where stimulation of axonal and/or neuronal regeneration could be beneficial. TOOLS High through-put screening for candidate drugs in the field of diabetes Ross Cagan (Molecular Biology and Pharmacology) and Tom Baranski (Endocrinology/Metabolism) have developed a new high through-put screening method to test for therapeutic activity and toxicity of compounds with the potential to block glucose toxicity. This approach uses developmental changes in Drosophila larvae displayed in large numbers to test different drug candidates. Brain - machine interface through electrocorticography Eric Leuthardt (Neurological Surgery) and Dan Moran (Biomedical Engineering) have developed the early stages of a new area of neuroscience which maps and exploits the neural output control centers of the brain. This work serves as the signal output to machines and prosthetic devices that are guided solely through signals from the brain. This brain-machine interface exploits electrocorticography which involves brain mapping methods. Biomarkers for human brain injury Jack Ladenson (Pathology and Immunology) has developed unique reagents (antibodies) for the purpose of detecting human brain injury (e.g. stroke and Alzheimer’s). Human fluids containing higher than normal amounts of the proposed biomarkers (e.g. Visinin-like 1 and neuroserpin) may provide an early indication of brain injury. Current stroke biomarkers are not sufficiently specific to the brain. Such an early intervention tool should provide more rapid diagnosis of stroke, and thus a more favorable patient outcome. Method and Apparatus for Compressing Computed Tomography Raw Image Data Kyongtae Bae and Bruce Whiting (Radiology) have developed software to improve results from diagnostic radiology. The algorithms compress tomographic images to enhance images of the abdominal region. Computer aided diagnostics of polyps in the lung and colon is one example of the possibilities for this technology.


24

Derivatives of 2,3-dihydroimidazol [1,2-a] pyridine and their use as asymmetric acylation catalysts Vladimir Birman (Chemistry) has created a new composition of matter that can be used in creating new and existing compounds requiring steriochemical derivatives. This compound—2,3-dihydroimidazol [1,2-a] pyridine and its derivatives—is used to catalyze acylation of alcohols with anhydrides. Pharmaceutical and fine chemical manufactures could use these catalysts in the preparation of chiral alcohols and/or their esters in the optically active form.

G protein biosensor and cell line expressing biosensors and receptors Narasimhan Gautam (Anesthesiology) has developed a fluorescence based biosensor that directly measures activation of a variety of mammalian cell membrane receptors. This fluorescence based biosensor permits non-destructive assays and, therefore, offers new potential means to conduct drug screening and identification of new drug targets. Diagnosis of human metapneumovirus (hMPV) infection using real-time quantitative PCR and immunoassays Michael Holtzman (Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine) has developed a real-time quantitative PCR assay to detect human metapneumovirus. This research creates the potential to generate anti-hMPV antibodies and to develop new immunoassays and could help in the diagnosis of this infection. Poly-ubiquitinated firefly luciferase fusion reporter plasmid and cells David Piwnica-Worms (Radiology) has developed an assay to measure real-time, in vivo analysis of 26S proteasome activity. This technology will enable researchers to monitor the efficacy of proteasome inhibitors and investigate function and impairment of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway in a variety of diseases.

New Mouse Calicivirus Herbert Virgin (Pathology and Immunology) has discovered a new RNA virus that causes the majority of epidemic nonbacterial gastroenteritis in adult humans. This new calicivirus has high homology to epidemiologically important human pathogens. The mouse model will lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms for protective responses in humans. Mouse embryo fibroblast (MEF) propagation Jason Weber (Molecular Oncology) has developed a novel process for passaging MEFs in tissue culture. This new process allows for passaging greater numbers of MEFs for longer periods of time using equivalent numbers of embryos. The process will yield more fibroblasts for medical research.


25

Inhibitors of Adipocyte development Richard Gross (Biorganic Chemistry) has found that key phospholipid enzymes function in the transformation of cells into adipocytes, which play a major role in fat metabolism. This research could possibly lead to the creation of drugs that impact fat formation. Stem cells for spinal cord repair Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert (Biomedical Engineering) is developing a matrix/tube delivery system that will allow 50 percent to 75 percent survival of the stem cells introduced into the site of injury. Prior efforts by others have resulted in situations where most of the stem cells die after transplantation. Safely delivered embryonic stem cells can repopulate injured spinal cord and serve as a source of nerve growth factors during regeneration. Enhancing particle charging and collection by using soft X-ray irradiation coupled with unipolar coronas Pratim Biswas (Environmental Engineering) and a team of researchers has devised a new process for effectively charging particles, especially nanoparticles and submicrometer sized particles. This technology might apply in the deactivation of bacteria or viruses suspended in air, oxidation of contaminant gases, or in the cleaning of air generally. Rapid database searches Roger Chamberlain (Computer Science and Engineering) use magnetic sensing systems already present in modern magnetic storage devices to facilitate searches of unstructured databases (80% of all databases are unstructured)using analog signatures. This new approach can search 10 gigabytes in the same time that conventional systems require to search 200 megabytes. This technology will have applications in DNA sequencing, genome assembly and security. Database for Cardiovascular Care Reporting and Tracking Sam Wickline and Lynn Coulter (Cardiology) have created a database that allows the cardiovascular physician to track myriad forms of information on patients, ranging from demographics to scar imaging. The database tracks demographics; cardiac past and current medical history; risk factors; current medications; allergies; nursing history; technical details; echocardiogram; functional MR; perfusion and scar imaging; coronary anatomy; and vascular system.


26

8 4

70

1

58

63

1

1010

62

0

713

71

0

79

86

0

0 20 40 60 80

100 120

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Arts & Sciences Engineering

Medicine Social Work

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

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

Figure 11 Invention Disclosures by School – FY00 to FY04

Table 15 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

Arts & Sciences 8 5 10 7 7 Engineering 4 8 10 13 9 Medicine 70 63 62 71 86 Social Work 1 1 0 0 0

Total 83 77 82 91 102

Invention Disclosures by School

27

Table 16 Invention Disclosures by School-Department – FY03 and FY04

School -Department FY03 FY04 Arts & Sciences Biology 3 1 Chemistry 0 1

Earth & Planetary Sciences 1 2

Physics 2 0 Psychology 1 2

Joint Disclosures-Physics/Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 0 1

Subtotal Arts & Sciences 7 7 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 0 0 Chemical Engineering 1 0 Computer Science 5 5 Electrical Engineering 6 2 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 0 0

Mechanical Engineering 0 2

System Science & Mathematics 0 0 Joint Disclosures-Electrical Engineering/Computer Science 1 0 Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 13 9

Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 1 2

Anesthesiology 2 2 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 0 0 Bioorganic Chemistry & Molecular Pharmacology 0 6

Cell Biology & Physiology 3 3

Comparative Medicine 0 0 Genetics 2 3 Institute of Biological Computing 0 0 Internal Medicine 18 21 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 4 3

Molecular Microbiology 3 1

Neurology 2 3 Neurosurgery 1 3

Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 1

Occupational Therapy 1 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 1 1 Orthopedic Surgery 0 0 Otolaryngology 0 1

Pathology & Immunology 6 11

Pediatrics 10 3 Psychiatry 2 1 Radiation Oncology 3 2 Radiology 11 9 Siteman Cancer Center 1 0 Surgery 0 10 Subtotal Medicine 71 86 Social Work 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 Total New Disclosures 91 102

Invention Disclosures by School

28

The OTM office filed a total of 117 U.S. provisional and non-provisional patent applications. Patent applications on inventions have potential commercialization as well as social value. Frequently, the first step is to file for a provisional patent. This filing is not actually examined by the Patent Office, but rather serves to establish a filing date and “patent pending” status for a year. Provisional filings because of their relative ease and speed – are particularly useful for managing the sometimes conflicting demands between publication and commercialization. The OTM will later file for a non-provisional patent that will be examined by the patent office before it is granted. Patent protection strengthens the University’s position with respect to potential licensees, particularly in a field such as pharmaceuticals where the investment to bring a product to market can be large. A company seeking return on investments will perceive unpatented technology as less valuable. The OTM will seek foreign patents if warranted.

Figure 12 US Patent Applications by School – FY00 to FY04

64

62

0

23

52

0

59

31

0

67

52

0

8

12

97

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Art s & S c ie nce s Enginee r ing Me dic ine S oc ia l Work

Table 17

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Arts & Sciences 6 2 5 6 8 Engineering 4 3 9 7 12 Medicine 62 52 31 52 97 Social Work 0 0 0 0 0 Total 72 57 45 65 117

Patent Applications by School

29

Table 18: Total US Patent Applications for FY03 and FY04 School-Department FY03 FY04 Arts & Sciences Biology 6 6 Chemistry 0 1 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 Physics 0 0 Psychology 0 1 Subtotal Arts & Sciences 6 8 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 0 0 Computer Science 4 6 Electrical Engineering 2 5 Mechanical Engineering 0 0 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 1 0 Systems Science & Mathematics 0 0 Joint US Patent Applications Computer Science & Electrical Engineering 0 1 Engineering & Applied Science 7 12 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 3 2 Anesthesiology 2 3 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 2 Bioorganic Chemistry & Molecular Pharmacology 0 7 Cell Biology & Physiology 0 3 Comparative Medicine 0 0 Genetics 1 6 Inst. For Biomedical Computing 0 0 Internal Medicine 11 11 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 4 8 Molecular Microbiology 3 6 Neurology 5 2 Neurosurgery 0 3 Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 2 0 Orthopedic Surgery 0 0 Otolaryngology 0 1 Pathology & Immunology 6 18 Pediatrics 3 5 Psychiatry 1 1 Radiology 8 7 Radiation Oncology 1 3 Surgery 0 2 Joint US Patent Application Anesthesiology & Pediatrics 0 1 Internal Medicine & Mol. Bio. & Pharm. 0 3

Bioorganic Chem. & Mol. Pharm. & Internal Medicine 0 1

Neurology & Internal Medicine 0 1 Renal Division & Internal Medicine 1 1 Subtotal Medicine 52 97 Social Work Social Work 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 Total 65 117

US Patent Applications by School and Department – FY03 and FY04

30

4

44

80

1

56

59

0

45

26

3

53

34

4

29

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Arts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Social Work

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

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

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

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

License Modifications:

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

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

Figure 13 Licenses by School – FY00 to FY04

Licenses by School

31

Medicine48%

Social Work48% Engineering

and Applied Science

2%

Arts & Sciences

2%

Figure 14 Percent of Licenses by School – FY04

Table 19 Licenses by School – FY00 to FY04

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Total Arts & Sciences 1 1 1 2 3 7 Engineering and Applied Science 4 1 0 3 4 11 Medicine 44 56 45 53 29 218 Social Work 80 59 26 34 20 219 Total 129 117 72 92 56 455

Licenses by School

32

Table 20

Licenses by School and Department – FY03 and FY04

School/Department FY03 FY04 Arts & Sciences Biology 2 3 Subtotal Arts and Sciences 2 3 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 0 0 Computer Science 0 0 Electrical Engineering 2 4 Mechanical Engineering 1 0 Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 3 4 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 0 2 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 0 1 Cell Biology & Physiology 4 1 Dermatology 0 0 Genetics 11 4 Institute of Biological Computing 0 1 Internal Medicine 9 5 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 4 2 Molecular Microbiology 3 3 Neurology 1 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 3 1 Otolaryngology 3 0 Pathology & Immunology 8 6 Pediatrics 3 0 Psychiatry 0 0 Radiology 4 1 Surgery 0 2 Subtotal Medicine 53 29 Social Work Social Work 34 20 Subtotal Social Work 34 20 Total Licenses 92 56

Licenses by School

33

Table 21

License Type by School and Department – FY04

Non-Exclusive

Department Exclusive Roy. Bearing Paid-up No Fee

Arts & Sciences Biology 1 2 0 0 Subtotal Arts & Sciences 1 2 0 2 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 0 0 0 0 Computer Science 0 0 0 0 Electrical Engineering 3 1 0 0 Mechanical Engineering 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 3 1 0 0 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 1 1 0 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 0 0 0 Cell Biology & Physiology 0 1 0 0 Dermatology 0 0 0 0 Genetics 0 2 2 653 Institute of Biological Computing 0 1 0 22 Internal Medicine 1 4 0 0 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 1 1 0 0 Molecular Microbiology 1 1 1 0 Neurology 0 0 0 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 0 0 1 0 Otolaryngology 0 0 0 0 Pathology & Immunology 0 6 0 0 Pediatrics 0 0 0 0 Psychiatry 0 0 0 2 Radiology 0 1 0 0 Surgery 1 1 0 0 Subtotal Medicine 6 19 4 677 Social Work Social Work 0 0 20 2 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 20 2 Total 10 22 24 679

Licenses by School

34

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

Licensing Income Distribution 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 – FY00 to FY04

$-$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000

$10,000,000$12,000,000$14,000,000$16,000,000


Arts & Sciences Engineering

Medicine Social Work

Table 22

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 Arts & Sciences $ 21,801 $ 223,286 $ 171,433 $ 810,051 $ 91,445 Engineering $ 2,315,960 $ 840,410 $ 861,541 $ 937,343 $ 764,034 Medicine $ 5,928,862 $ 7,938,441 $ 6,997,028 $ 12,508,499 $ 8,689,587 Social Work $ 222,360 $ 182,055 $ 100,070 $ 70,634 $ 36,520 TOTALS $ 8,488,983 $ 9,184,192 $ 8,130,072 $ 14,326,527 $ 9,581,586

License Revenue

35

Table 23

License Revenue – FY00 to FY04

00 01 02 03 04 Income Licensing Income $7,259,349 $7,687,256 $6,546,707 $12,815,429 $8,174,816 Misc. Income $- $- $- $- $-

Expense reimbursements OTM Current FY (External) $944,963 $1,080,046 $992,793 $800,900 $719,325

Expense reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External) $- $- $- $91,349 $(8,041)

Expense reimbursements for Dept. (External) $- $- $20,503 $15,227 $49,266

Expense Credits $232,412 $367,503 $547,298 $592,687 $638,601 Other $52,260 $49,390 $22,770 $10,934 $7,620 Subtotal Income $8,488,984 $9,184,195 $8,130,071 $14,326,526 $9,581,586 Expenses Legal $1,325,939 $1,758,822 $1,696,924 $1,585,941 $1,555,481 Other $11,857 $44,165 $(105) $4,284 $3,561 Subtotal Expenses $1,337,795 $1,802,987 $1,696,819 $1,590,225 $1,559,042 Distributions Distribution to inventors $3,270,166 $3,534,864 $2,954,063 $5,625,302 $3,742,581 Distribution to schools (Lic. Income) $2,999,166 $3,147,532 $2,542,439 $5,062,039 $3,276,202 Distribution to schools (Other Income) $- $- $22,770 $10,934 $7,620 Distribution to third parties $515,230 $501,508 $579,395 $889,129 $554,331

Expense Payback to Third Parties from Lic. Rev. $- $- $10,807 $608 $1,500

Expense Payback to Dept. from Lic. Rev. $- $4,887 $8,019 $75,376 $41,107

Expense Reimbursements for Dept. (External) $- $- $20,503 $83,089 $49,266

Expense Reimbursement OTM from Distribution $- $- $- $65,281 $52,043

Carry forward - - Expenses Held/Paid in Advance $- $11,240 $8,827 $-

CFU legal expense recovery $69,998 $- $- $- $- Transfer to reserve $- $- $- $- $- Patent Expenses held in advance $16,647 $- $(4,615) - $- Patent expense adjustment $- $- $- $- $-

Subtotal Distributions $6,871,207 $7,188,792 $6,144,621 $11,820,585 $7,724,650

Contribution to OTM operations $(0) $192,416 $288,631 $980,997 $349,937

License Revenue

36

The OTM handles all sponsored research agreements where the sponsor is a commercial or for-profit entity. “Research” is defined primarily in the context as laboratory activities that may result in the discovery of new intellectual property. Specifically excluded from this group are clinical trials (handled by the Center for Clinical Studies).

Figure 16

Industry Sponsored Agreements by School – FY04

Table 24

New Arts & Sciences 1 Engineering & Applied Science 11 Medicine 19 Social Work 0 Total 31

Industry Sponsored Research Agreements

Medicine 62%

Arts & Sciences3%

Engineering & Applied Science

35%

Social Work0%

Arts & Sciences

Engineering & Applied Science Medicine

Social Work

37

Table 25 Industry Sponsored Research

Agreements by School and Departments – FY04

School-Department FY04 Arts & Sciences Biology 1 Chemistry 0 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 Physics 0 Psychology 0 Subtotal Arts and Sciences 1 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 0 Chemical Engineering 3 Civil Engineering 0 Computer Science 5 Electrical Engineering 3 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 0 Mechanical Engineering 0 System Science & Mathematics 0 Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 11 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 0 Anesthesiology 0 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 3 Biostatistics 1 Cell Biology & Physiology 0 Comparative Medicine 0 Genetics 1 Institute of Biological Computing 0 Internal Medicine 6 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 0 Molecular Microbiology 0 Neurology 1 Neurosurgery 1 Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 Occupational Therapy 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 0 Orthopedic Surgery 0 Otolaryngology 0 Pathology & Immunology 1 Pediatrics 0 Psychiatry 0 Radiology 1 Surgery 4 Subtotal Medicine 19 Social Work Social Work 0 Total Social Work 0 Total 31

Industry Sponsored Research Agreements

38

210

41

0

13

150

2030 33

43

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Confidentiality Evaluation &Option

Interinstitutional Sales & Service

Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Social Work

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

Figure 17 Other Agreements by School – FY04

Table 26 Other Agreements

Confidentiality Evaluation & Option Inter-institutional Sales &

Service

Arts & Sciences 2 1 2 3 Engineering & Applied Science 10 3 0 3 Medicine 41 15 3 43 Social Work 0 0 0 0 Total 53 19 5 49

Other Agreements

39

Table 27 Other Agreements by School and Department – FY04

School -Department Confidentiality Evaluation & Option

Inter-institutional

Sales & Service

Arts & Sciences Biology 2 1 2 1 Chemistry 0 0 0 2 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 Physics 0 0 0 0 Psychology Subtotal Arts & Sciences 2 1 2 3 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 1 0 0 0 Chemical Engineering 0 0 0 1 Computer Science 4 1 0 0 Electrical Engineering 2 1 0 0 Engineering & Applied Science 0 1 0 0 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 3 0 0 0 Mechanical Engineering 0 0 0 2 System Science & Mathematics 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 10 3 0 3

Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 1 0 0 0 Anesthesiology 1 0 0 3 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 0 0 0 0 Cell Biology & Physiology 0 0 0 0 Comparative Medicine 0 0 0 0 Genetics 2 1 0 0 Institute of Biological Computing 0 0 0 0 Internal Medicine 9 3 1 7 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 5 1 0 3 Molecular Microbiology 0 2 0 1 Neurology 4 2 1 3 Neurosurgery 0 0 0 0 Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 0 1 Occupational Therapy 0 0 0 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 1 0 0 0 Orthopedic Surgery 0 0 0 0 Otolaryngology 0 0 0 0 Pathology & Immunology 5 4 1 0 Pediatrics 1 0 0 4 Psychiatry 2 0 0 5 Radiology 5 2 0 15 Surgery 5 0 0 1 Subtotal Medicine 41 15 3 43 Social Work Social Work 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 0 0 Total 53 19 5 49

Other Agreements

40

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

Figure 18 Material Transfer Agreements – FY04

351

372

0

60

418

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

Incoming Outgoing

Arts & Sciences Engineering & Applied Science Medicine Social Work

Table 28

Incoming Outgoing Total Arts & Sciences 35 6 41 Engineering & Applied Science 1 0 1 Medicine 372 418 790 Social Work 0 0 0 Total 408 424 832

Material Transfer Agreements

41

Table 29

Material Transfer Agreements by School and Department – FY04

Department Incoming Outgoing Arts & Sciences Biology 35 5 Chemistry 0 0 Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 Physics 0 0 Psychology 0 1 Subtotal Arts & Sciences 35 6 Engineering & Applied Science Biomedical Engineering 1 0 Chemical Engineering 0 0 Computer Science 0 0 Electrical Engineering 0 0 Mechanical & Civil Engineering 0 0 Mechanical Engineering 0 0 System Science & Mathematics 0 0 Subtotal Engineering & Applied Science 1 0 Medicine Anatomy & Neurobiology 26 1 Anesthesiology 9 1 Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 9 0 Bioorganic Chemistry & Molecular Pharmacology 1 1 Cardiology 5 9 Cell Biology & Physiology 20 10 Comparative Medicine 0 0 Genetics 13 1 Institute of Biological Computing 0 0 Internal Medicine 118 156 Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 17 76 Molecular Microbiology 14 39 Neurology 11 16 Neurosurgery 0 0 Obstetrics & Gynecology 7 0 Occupational Therapy 0 0 Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 14 4 Orthopedic Surgery 3 1 Otolaryngology 5 0 Pathology & Immunology 32 65 Pediatrics 27 19 Psychiatry 6 3 Radiation Oncology 4 0 Radiology 16 13 Surgery 15 3 Subtotal Medicine 372 418 Social Work Social Work 0 0 Subtotal Social Work 0 0 Total 408 424

Material Transfer Agreements

Documents

FY04 Annual Report