Faculty Senate clarifies research data ownership

Nicholas Valenzuela Arizona Daily Wildcat Ara Arabyan, associate professor of aerospace and mechanical engineering, speaks at the Faculty Senate meeting Monday. Arabyan is chairman of the Research Policy Committee for the Senate.

The Faculty Senate passed one of several resolutions Monday that will "alert university faculty to their responsibilities as researchers," said Ara Arabyan, associate professor of aerospace and mechanical engineering and chair of the Faculty Senate's Research Policy Committee.

The resolution states that while some grant contracts give researchers (faculty or students) ownership of the data, researchers are still bound by federal regulation to keep detailed records for at least seven years. These records must also be available to the university and funding agencies upon request.

"We needed the policy because federal funding agencies require it," Arabyan said.

It is the only way the agencies can investigate charges of impropriety, he said. For example, a faculty member may submit one research proposal to two funding sources. If one funds the research, the faculty member is legally required to notify the other agency and decline the funds.

Cases have arisen at other universities where researchers have accepted money from two sources for one project, Arabyan said.

In these cases, he said, "the university would be held liable, not the principal investigator."

By requiring researchers to maintain their records and provide access to them, Arabyan said the university is able to protect itself from lawsuits.

However, if the grant does not stipulate ownership, or if the research is unsponsored, "the University of Arizona retains ownership of the data," as stated in a 1987 Arizona Board of Regents policy.

"I have concerns over the university owning the data. I think sharing the data is more appropriate," said Sen. Marlys Witte, professor of surgery.

As other senators expressed similar concerns, Michael Cusanovich, vice president for research and graduate studies, interjected to clarify that the proposal "is not about intellectual property, it is about data ownership."

Data ownership is one part of the complete puzzle of research and intellectual property issues, Arabyan told the Senate. He said the entire system should be considered before judging any single area.

For example, intellectual property, which includes inventions, art work, music compositions, books and computer software, is handled in a different manner from data ownership.

"As far as the regents is concerned, everything produced by faculty at the university belongs to the state, in cases where the grant does not specify ownership," Arabyan said.

That, however, is only the legal aspect. He said financial gains resulting from the intellectual efforts of a faculty or student are not retained exclusively by the university.

In a case-by-case review, profits or royalties from the work are shared between the university and the individuals.

The Technology Transfer Committee is reviewing the entire system of data ownership and intellectual property. That committee is trying to answer questions such as:

• If a researcher leaves the UA, does ownership of the research go as well? And how will records be kept accessible from the time spent at the UA?

• If a UA faculty member creates or discovers something while on vacation, during the summer, or while on sabbatical, does the UA have any claim to the results?

The Faculty Senate will consider several related proposals in the next few months. The next item to be presented is the Conflict of Interest and Commitment Policy, followed by a proposal on consulting policies.