|
UW CSE Commercialization and the Academic Environment |
|
 CSE Home |
About Us |
Search |
Contact Info |
Edited by Stefan Savage, Michael Ernst, et al.
This document summarizes a graduate student discussion about the impact of commercialization on our academic environment and outlines some proposals to address specific concerns. We hope that this will serve as a starting point for open discussions about this topic by students and faculty.
Computer science departments and the computer industry have long had a symbiotic relationship. Traditionally, computer science departments have delivered new ideas and fresh graduates to the computer industry while industry provided funding and access to information or technology. However, as the computer industry has grown rapidly, our relationship with it has changed also. There are now strong pressures and incentives to protect the intellectual property created here and there are great opportunities for direct commercialization through consulting, licensing, or entrepreneurship. This new relationship can add energy and relevance to research while rewarding researchers, but it can also undermine the department's culture and impair its research mission.
We face the challenge of adapting to this new environment while still preserving the qualities that make UW CSE special -- possibly sacrificing some measure of academic purity and some potential for commercialization. It is especially important that we make these decisions explicitly, rather than unconsciously supporting a culture we wouldn't have chosen, or failing through inertia to seize new and valuable opportunities.
This document addresses several aspects of university life potentially affected by commercialization:
Not all research is equally marketable. Commercially viable technologies tend to be incremental improvements to current practice and have far higher quality control standards than required to demonstrate a research result.
The tens of thousands to millions of dollars recouped by department members is a financial incentive for students and faculty to eschew risky or long-term research, instead developing complete short-term solutions to problems with an established or emerging market. A financial windfall can powerfully, even if unconsciously, tempt us to focus our research in a commercially viable direction.
We feel that a general bias favoring commercial ideas is unhealthy. Universities are unique in their ability to focus on risky research questions. If we sacrifice this distinction then universities have few advantages over industrial research labs or commercial development groups. Several students were concerned that the department culture was changing to increasingly reward commercial relevance and success more than research merit.
The aims of academia and industry are frequently in conflict. The traditional goal of academic research is the advancement and widespread dissemination of information, and everyone wins when the pool of knowledge increases. By contrast, a commercial enterprise is rewarded for the unique value of its products, so companies generally try to keep information proprietary or even to mislead others.
This conflict has already had direct and indirect effects within our community. It is increasingly difficult to obtain research artifacts (from other universities or even locally, in source or binary form) as they are being saved for or restricted to commercial purposes. Other agreements prohibit publication of source code or algorithms. These restrictions are intended to increase the commercial value of the technology, because organizations licensing technology from the university place a high price on exclusivity.
These restrictions raise a number of concerns. First, restricting the transfer of ideas and technology undermines the traditional mission of academic research: expanding the pool of knowledge. Second, academic careers depend on publication and dissemination; students without an established academic reputation are especially vulnerable. Finally, direct exclusive technology transfer is risky: if the exclusive licensee is unable to market the technology successfully, then the research underlying it may be lost.
UW CSE is notable, and is often praised, for its egalitarian culture. Students and faculty expect that all members are treated fairly and have roughly the same opportunities and rights. While there will always be some inequality between department members (academic success, grants, fellowships, etc.), commercialization has the potential to create powerful imbalances. Differences in fame, control, and especially compensation can lead to suspicion, distrust, and jealously. In these circumstances it seems important that those involved bend over backwards to act fairly and preserve an environment of mutual trust.
Students feel particularly vulnerable. The potential for inequity stems from the unequal relationship between students and faculty. Faculty control how research artifacts are commercialized. A professor is generally the point person in negotiating licenses, dealing with OTL (the Office of Technology Licensing), and forming startups with venture capitalists. Venture capitalists favor faculty founders and do not usually encourage faculty to invite their students to become co-founders. Students frequently do not understand whether the compensation terms they are offered are fair and often cannot afford, or do not appreciate the need for, private counsel. When conflicts do occur, students are in a poor position to argue or negotiate, because they are uninformed about the process, because the arrangement is presented as a fiat accompli, and because their academic careers depend on the good will of the faculty with whom they are negotiating. Finally, few resources represent student interests. The potential for bad blood on these issues is enormous.
The department needs to make a conscious choice about its direction and the culture it wants to pursue -- not drift by degrees into a different place than the UW CSE whose strengths we love, despite its shortcomings -- and we need to be publicize our decisions (our norms, standards, and expectations). Below we offer seven student suggestions for making some of these choices. We would like the faculty to clarify their position on each of these points and offer their own suggestions as well.
1. RESERVE RIGHTS
Department policy should state that, as a minimum, commercial contracts involving department research may not limit publication of research results nor preclude the voluntary distribution of research artifacts to other research organizations.
2. SEPARATION OF ROLES
Faculty should never negotiate with their students regarding commercialization or compensation. These tasks are best left to third parties (OTL, other company representatives, etc.). Similarly, faculty should not sit on both sides of the negotiating table during company-university talks.
3. EQUITABILITY
The department, OTL, and other organizations should treat student co-inventors like partners, not employees. All participants should be consulted regarding strategic decisions.
4. EDUCATION
a. The department should educate students involved in research about both the letter of the law and the realities of department practice concerning ownership, control, compensation; about OTL, the conflict of interest committee, and other resources; and about other aspects of commercialization.
b. The department should keep a public tally of compensation received by students and faculty resulting from the commercialization of university research, like we do for salaries received by graduating students; this will help us determine what's fair.
5. MODEL AGREEMENTS
The department should publish, and encourage the use of, model agreements, from consulting contracts to startup compensation plans. These should be considered equitable, workable, and effective by all parties. Translations into plain English should also be provided.
6. STUDENT REPRESENTATION
Student interests should be represented in the case of conflicts. The conflict of interest committee should be expanded to include at least one student member, and its charter should include protecting the interests of students and mediating conflicts.
7. EVALUATION
After each patent, licensing agreement, or startup, the department should solicit feedback from all those involved regarding the process, and it should take action to correct any problems reported. The department should encourage OTL to do the same.
 |
Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington Box 352350 Seattle, WA 98195-2350 (206) 543-1695 voice, (206) 543-2969 FAX [comments to webmaster] |