In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

S I X Overview and Analysis of the Agreement A S DETAILED BY ZUCKER, Darby, and Armstrong (2002), commercially viable innovations may be expedited when academic and industrial scientists work closely together. Legal agreements between universities and commercial entities often define these relationships and associated financial arrangements. Numerous tutorials instruct practitioners in how to bridge the gap between university and business practices when drafting agreements of this type (American Council on Education and the National Alliance of Business 2001; Berneman 1995). UCB-N is one notable illustration of the complexities and challenges that can emerge in the process. With its ten appendices, the agreement runs sixty pages. It defines the parties’ joint interest in conducting basic science and NADI’s interest in developing commercial plant traits. During its brief history, in collaboration with PMB, NADI specialized in plant genomics with special attention to Arabidopsis and rice.1 The agreement terms and conditions detail the IPR of both parties. For the academic community, UCB-N stood out because it represented signi ficant industrial rather than government funding for Berkeley researchers. PMB’s financial objective in making the agreement was to secure a sponsored research agreement from an industrial sponsor of at least $5 million a year over five years. The effort’s success at winning industrial patronage on this scale was unique in UCB’s history. Of the twenty-six awards of $5 million or more received by UCB in fiscal years 1998 through 2003, only four were not from the federal government.Two of these came from foundations and one from the state government; the final one was UCB-N.2 Thus the continuing importance of S I X 84 sponsored research projects from federal agencies can be seen in the projects received by UCB over the term of UCB-N. At least for the life sciences, the bleak forecast for federal support that had informed a president’s retreat less than two years earlier had turned bright, as significant new and multiyear funding began to flow into genomics.3 For example, UCB’s Molecular and Cell Biology Department (MCB) received $38.6 million from the National Center for Human Genome Research in FY 1998. In 2002 UCB launched the Center for Integrated Genomics, which includes the Departments of MCB, Integrative Biology, Statistics, Computer Science, Bioengineering, Plant and Microbial Biology, Biostatistics, Mathematics, Physics, and Public Health, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Of particular relevance to PMB, the most significant opportunity for extramural support at the time was the collaborative research and infrastructure projects within NSF’s plant genome research program. PMB’s assertive effort to scale up its capacities in genomics was part of a larger competition for newly available federal funds, as well as the result of industrial interest in the field. At the same time that UCB/CNR/PMB were negotiating their agreement with Novartis, Cornell University assembled a genomics task force that defined the Cornell Genomics Initiative, Purdue University launched its Agricultural Genomics Initiative, and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri, was established as an independent nonprofit. Funding for the Danforth Center came from the Danforth Foundation and the Monsanto Fund to support researchers from the University of Illinois, the Missouri Botanical Garden , the University of Missouri (Columbia), Purdue University, and Washington University (St. Louis) to work alongside Monsanto scientists. Berkeley researchers and administrators proved successful in the subsequent competition for federal funds. Of the twenty NSF genome program awards of more than $5 million, UC was the lead institution on five and a partner on three others. Proper analysis of UCB-N relative to the more familiar support of the federal government requires sensitivity to the contested state of UIR norms at the time of the agreement.Attempts to commercialize biotechnology in the 1970s and 1980s exacerbated existing populist-progressive tensions within public universities. From the first patent issued in the field, the demarcation between academia and commerce fostered disagreement (Hughes 2001; U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 1978). By 1981 commercial interests were“seriously dividing members of the academic community ” (Fox 1981, 39). A few years later, the U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) examined industry-university relationships within land grant universities. OTA documented concerns “over who controls the university research agenda, the allegiance of scientists to their university A N A LY S I S O F T H E A G R E E M E...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.