University of California, San Diego
IN-3: Academy-Industry Connections

UC San Diego follows the Fair Political Practices Act regulations and the policy is available at: https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-028.pdf

Through this, all significant consulting contracts (e.g. those worth $5,000 or more a year) are required to be reported to a standing committee charged with reviewing and managing individual and institutional conflicts of interest:

As denoted in the UC’s financial disclosure policies (see https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-028.pdf section IV): When disclosure indicates that a financial interest exists, an independent substantive review of the disclosure statement and research project shall take place before a contract, grant, or gift is accepted. Chancellors, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Director, and the Vice President—Agriculture and Natural Resources, after consultation with appropriate academic and administrative groups, shall develop a procedure for independent substantive review including the designation or establishment of a committee to conduct the review. The committees shall review disclosure statements and relevant features of the research project and on the basis of the review recommend to the Chancellor, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Director, or the Vice President—Agriculture and Natural Resources whether funding for the research project should be accepted and, if so, whether any modifications or conditions are needed. The committees shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience of their members to promote respect for their advice. The committees should possess the academic, professional, and administrative competence and expertise necessary to review the subject matter of the proposed research and to assess the University and other public interests involved. The committee may include graduate students and one or more qualified members not affiliated with the University. The committee may consult with administrators, faculty, and others involved in the research and review process and the academic discipline in question. It may also consult with or request principal investigators and department chairs to provide information in order to make a fully informed recommendation. It may also invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review process which require expertise beyond, or in addition to, that available to the committee. The committee review should occur as early as possible in the overall review process to assure that commitments are not inadvertently made to the sponsors. The committee shall, in its written documentation of the review, address each of the principles set forth in the Guidelines. The basis for the recommendation should be clearly established in the documentation of the review.

As indicated at the following URL, faculty, students, postdoctoral fellows, medical residents, and other academic professionals are prohibited from engaging in industry-led “ghostwriting” or “ghost authorship”:

https://medschool.ucsd.edu/vchs/faculty-academics/academic-affairs/policy-and-resources/Documents/COI%20SelfAssessment%20Tool-%202009.pdf

In addition, as noted in the following excerpts from the UC’s Principles Regarding Future Research Results (https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2500487/PrinciplesRegardingResearchResults) and the Guidelines (https://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/_files/Principles%20Guidelines.pdf ) for implementing the Principles the University has developed a framework for addressing rights to future.

“When establishing or conducting University relationships with external parties, decisions made about rights to future research results shall be based upon legitimate institutional academic and business considerations and not upon matters related to the personal financial gain of any individual. The University prohibits participation in sponsored research that restricts investigator access to the complete study data or that limits investigators’ ability to verify the accuracy and validity of final reported results. Agreements with external parties shall not abridge the ability of University researchers to disseminate their research methods and results in a timely manner. The most fundamental tenet of the University is the freedom to interpret and publish or otherwise disseminate research results in order to support the transfer of knowledge to others and maintain an open academic environment that fosters intellectual creativity.
All University research activities, including sponsored research, are governed by the academic tradition, including the free exchange of ideas and timely dissemination of research results. The University is committed to an open teaching and research environment in which ideas can be exchanged freely among faculty, students, and peers within the University and the academic community for the purpose of sharing newly acquired knowledge and validating scientific findings. Such an environment contributes to the progress of teaching and research in all disciplines and supports the University’s mission of education, research, and public service. Provisions in agreements with external parties must preserve the University’s unfettered ability to pursue the continued use of the research results into the future and freely share andPer the UC distribute University-developed research tools and results within the academic, scientific, and non-profit communities.”

Per the UC’s “Publication Policy and Guidelines on Rights to Results of Extramural Project or Programs” (https://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/resources-tools/contract-and-grant-manual/chapter1/chapter-1-400.html ) it is noted that it is a long-standing University policy that freedom to publish or disseminate results is a major criterion of the appropriateness of a sponsored project, and particularly of a research project, thereby banning confidential corporate research.

Please see the following excerpt from the Principles Regarding Future Research Results (https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2500487/PrinciplesRegardingResearchResults ):

Agreements with external parties shall not abridge the ability of University researchers to disseminate their research methods and results in a timely manner. The most fundamental tenet of the University is the freedom to interpret and publish or otherwise disseminate research results in order to support the transfer of knowledge to others and maintain an open academic environment that fosters intellectual creativity.
From https://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/_files/Principles%20Guidelines.pdf: Provisions in agreements with external parties must preserve the University’s unfettered ability to pursue the continued use of the research results into the future and freely share and distribute University-developed research tools and results within the academic, scientific, and non-profit communities.

Supporting URLS:

• https://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/resources-tools/contract-and-grant-manual/

• https://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/resources-tools/contract-and-grant-manual/chapter1/chapter-1-400.html

• https://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/resources-tools/contract-and-grant-manual/chapter1/chapter-1-300.html#ch1-340

• https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-010.pdf

• https://www.ucop.edu/innovation-alliances-services/innovation/innovation-alliances/industry-partnership--sponsorship.html

• https://medschool.ucsd.edu/vchs/faculty-academics/academic-affairs/policy-and-resources/Documents/COI%20SelfAssessment%20Tool-%202009.pdf

See also https://www.ucop.edu/research-policy-analysis-coordination/policies-guidance/conflict-of-interest/