University of Texas at Austin
IN-1: Academy-Industry Connections
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.25 / 0.50 |
Jim
Walker Director of Sustainability, Financial, and Administrative Services University Operations |
Does the institution require that all significant consulting contracts be reported to a standing committee charged with reviewing and managing individual and institutional conflicts of interest?:
The policy language that requires that all significant consulting contracts be reviewed for conflicts of interest:
UTS 129 Internal Audit Activities
Sec. 2 Principles
Internal Audit (IA) at U. T. System Administration and the U. T. institutions shall be guided by the following principles:
a) Service to Organization – IA will assist the U. T. System Board of Regents and executive leadership enhance and protect U. T. organizational value by providing risk-based assurance, advice, and insight.
b) Professionalism – IA will perform its work with integrity, competence, and due professional care in conformance with The Institute of Internal Auditors’ International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS).
c) Independence – IA functions and the chief audit executives will be positioned and supported to ensure freedom from conditions that would threaten the performance of internal audit responsibilities in an unbiased manner.
d) Objectivity – IA will perform its responsibilities with an impartial, unbiased attitude and avoid conflicts of interest.
https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/policy-library/policies/uts-129-internal-audit-activities
Texas Government Code Chapter 2102 Internal Auditing:
Sec. 2102.011. INTERNAL AUDIT STANDARDS. The internal audit program shall conform to the Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, the Code of Ethics contained in the Professional Practices Framework as promulgated by the Institute of Internal Auditors, and generally accepted government auditing standards.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2102.htm
IPPF Standards 2017:
1120 – Individual Objectivity
Internal auditors must have an impartial, unbiased attitude and avoid any conflict of interest.
Interpretation:
Conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a
competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill
his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results.
A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in
the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair
an individual's ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.
1130 – Impairment to Independence or Objectivity
If independence or objectivity is impaired in fact or appearance, the details of the impairment must
be disclosed to appropriate parties. The nature of the disclosure will depend upon the impairment.
Interpretation:
Impairment to organizational independence and individual objectivity may include, but is not
limited to, personal conflict of interest, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records,
personnel, and properties, and resource limitations, such as funding.
The determination of appropriate parties to which the details of an impairment to independence
or objectivity must be disclosed is dependent upon the expectations of the internal audit activity’s
and the chief audit executive’s responsibilities to senior management and the board as described
in the internal audit charter, as well as the nature of the impairment.
1130.A1 – Internal auditors must refrain from assessing specific operations for which they
were previously responsible. Objectivity is presumed to be impaired if an internal auditor
provides assurance services for an activity for which the internal auditor had responsibility
within the previous year.
1130.A2 – Assurance engagements for functions over which the chief audit executive has
responsibility must be overseen by a party outside the internal audit activity.
1130.A3 – The internal audit activity may provide assurance services where it had previously
performed consulting services, provided the nature of the consulting did not impair
objectivity and provided individual objectivity is managed when assigning resources to the
engagement.
International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards)
Revised: October 2016 Page 6 of 25
Effective: January 2017
© 2016 The Institute of Internal Auditors
1130.C1 – Internal auditors may provide consulting services relating to operations for which
they had previous responsibilities.
1130.C2 – If internal auditors have potential impairments to independence or objectivity
relating to proposed consulting services, disclosure must be made to the engagement client
prior to accepting the engagement.
https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/documents/standards/standards-2017/ippf-standards-2017-english.pdf
Does the institution prohibit faculty, staff, students, postdoctoral fellows, medical residents, and other academic professionals from engaging in industry-led “ghostwriting” or “ghost authorship”?:
The policy language that prohibits industry-led “ghostwriting” or “ghost authorship”:
Does the institution prohibit 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?:
The policy language that prohibits sponsored research that restricts investigator access or verification:
UTS 125 Guidance for Negotiating Research Agreements with Sponsors and Processing Research and Intellectual Property Agreements
Sec. 3 Guiding Principles
In addition to the fundamental principles reflected in Regents’ Rule 90101, U. T. System places a high regard on the following guiding principles:
3.1 For purposes of Regents’ Rule 90101, the term "creator" includes the definition of "inventor" used in U.S. Patent Law and the definition of "author" used in the U.S. Copyright Act.
3.2 One of the goals of Regents’ Rule 90101 is to recognize and optimize the benefits of commercializing intellectual property not only for the public, U. T. System and U. T. System institutions, but also for the creator. Recognizing the significant role of the creator not only in the development, but also in the deployment of intellectual property, the creator should be encouraged to maintain an active role, in cooperation with the institution, in the entire process from conception to commercialization.
3.3 Sponsored research and the rights and obligations of creators to publish and disseminate research data and/or results for scholarly purposes are paramount to the institution’s educational mission and must be protected throughout the commercialization process. Regardless of ownership and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the creators and the U. T. institution shall retain a nonexclusive license to use such data and/or results for patient care, teaching, scholarly, and other academically related purposes and nonprofit research (see Section 9, Regents’ Rule 90101).
3.4 Subject to Section 11 of Regents’ Rule 90101 the Board of Regents, U. T. System and each member institution intend that faculty’s publication rights are fully protected to ensure that his/her publication rights are not restricted or limited in any manner.
3.5 The ownership rights of a creator as they relate to institutional projects, works-for-hire, and educational materials, should be discussed and determined in consultation with the creator, his/her institutional supervisor(s) and/or the institution’s office of commercialization (OTC). It is advisable that an institution or department classifies a project as an “institutional project” (see Section 8, Regents’ Rule 90101) at the outset of the effort or as early as possible and in concurrence with contributions made by other creators as the project evolves or is further developed.
3.6 The rights of the creator and the institution to use the data and/or results the creator generates or creates for patient care, teaching, scholarly, and other academically related purposes and for nonprofit research shall be protected, preserved and upheld except to the extent that rights to such research data and/or results are contractually assigned or licensed to another by the Regents (see Section 9, Regents’ Rule 90101).
3.7 Once the president through his/her institution’s OTC receives a reasonably complete and detailed invention disclosure from the creators(s), the OTC will promptly begin its due diligence to decide upon the appropriate protection and commercialization of the intellectual property. The institution’s goal is to expeditiously decide if the institution will: (a) maintain the Board of Regents’ ownership over the intellectual property; (b) seek additional information, clarification, data etc.; or (c) offer to release or license the intellectual property to the creator(s). Each institution is encouraged to adopt and make public its own target timelines to decide between (a), (b) and (c) above. The OTC will regularly and promptly communicate with the creators during this decision-making process. As outlined in Sections 11.1 and 11.2 of Regents’ Rule 90101, the institution’s president will notify the primary creator (and the U. T. System Office of General Counsel) in writing within 20 business days after the decision is made that the institution will release or license the disclosed intellectual property, except where prohibited by law or contractual obligations. If the president decides to not assert its ownership interest, then, after the creator(s) formally indicates his/her/their interest in commercializing such intellectual property, the OTC will promptly decide whether to release ownership of the intellectual property to the creator(s) or offer to license the intellectual property to the creator(s) and will comply with Section 11.2, Regents’ Rule 90101.
3.8 When recruiting scholars and/or evaluating current faculty for academic appointments and advancement, institutions are encouraged to give due regard and credit to the scholar’s or faculty’s creative works, including any digital media he or she creates.
Does the institution ban confidential corporate research?:
The policy language that bans confidential corporate research:
Website URL where information about the institution’s policies regarding industry-sponsored research is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.