An open letter to the VCU Community

May 23, 2008

Dear Colleagues:

An article in Thursday’s New York Times has raised some issues in the University community about research at Virginia Commonwealth University.  I want to address the issues and VCU’s position on doing research with industrial sponsors.        

VCU accepts funding from industry for sponsored research.  In doing so, VCU affirms a climate of academic freedom to pursue important questions and expects industrially-sponsored research to be conducted responsibly and with the highest ethical standards.  We frequently accept sponsored funds to do research that is health related or connected to our health care delivery mission.  In such instances, this research is aimed exclusively at promoting health.

Industry sponsored research is conducted in two ways.  Investigator-initiated research conducted under standard research agreements composes the bulk of VCU’s research enterprise. There are also a handful of research services agreements in which the research is initiated by the sponsor. These agreements stem from a need of the sponsor for specific expertise or facilities that the sponsor may not have. 

The New York Times article revolved around a research services agreement, but applied the standards of investigator-initiated research.  In other words, it failed to make the very important distinction between the two types of contracts, and therefore, information was taken out of context.

Research services agreements are not unusual in higher education. They provide for publication of research results while providing protection for the intellectual property that the sponsor and other research partners bring to the table. Accordingly, the review time before publication is longer than it is for standard research agreements involving investigator-initiated research. It is important to note that the research services agreement for sponsor-initiated research that was provided to the New York Times states that "nothing in this agreement shall be construed as prohibiting any publication or presentation by a VCU employee ..."

An article in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch accurately reflects the nature of the research services contract.  The article is attached below.

VCU has a robust and growing research enterprise because of the strength of investigator-initiated, groundbreaking research.  I regret the concern that this news article may have raised, and assure you that our corporately-sponsored research meets the highest standards of conduct in keeping with our overall mission to create new knowledge that may be translated to the benefit of society.

Sincerely,

Eugene P. Trani
President, Virginia Commonwealth University
and
President and Chair, VCU Health System

                             

VCU, Philip Morris partners in research
Agreement is one of several the university has with companies

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 01:10 AM Updated: 01:32 AM

By DAVID RESS
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

VCU staff members are researching data on nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into rivers and on the onset of lung disease for cigarette giant Philip Morris USA.

The researchers are doing consulting work under one of a half-dozen research services agreements Virginia Commonwealth University has with corporations, said Francis Macrina, the school's vice president for research. Those agreements allow companies to review any proposed publication of research in order to protect patent and intellectual property rights.

The New York Times published a story yesterday that described VCU's agreements with Philip Morris as "highly unusual" and "extremely restrictive."

But Virginia Tech, Duke University, Auburn University, Cornell University, New York City's Rockefeller University and the State University of New York at Stony Brook are among the many universities that give corporate funders similar rights.

The agreements often provide for the sponsors' confidentiality.

The standardized agreements at some schools, including the University of Texas' Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas and the University of Louisville, make no specific provision for publication while protecting sponsors' confidential information.

Macrina said VCU's basic research policy is that publication should not be restricted.

"None of this research is about safer cigarettes," Macrina said. "All of what we're about is research that promotes health . . . all of our agreements are for research that can be published without reservation or restriction."

He said the Philip Morris agreement included specific language saying it could not be construed as restricting publication.

Macrina said research services agreements such as the one signed in 2006 with Philip Morris differ from VCU's standard research agreements because they involve work for which the company is soliciting the research.

The standard agreements do not allow corporate review to protect patent rights, but are meant to protect VCU researchers seeking grants for their own research.

Generally, university research agreements that allow review or that guarantee to keep sponsors' information secret are reserved for narrowly focused research, such as testing products.

Often, that data belongs to the corporate funder -- although in Philip Morris's case, some belonged to a third party, Macrina said.

He said that was why the Philip Morris agreement includes a longer period of time for review than some of VCU's other contracts -- 120 days against the usual 90 days. The school has signed other agreements allowing for longer-than-90-day reviews, he said.

Philip Morris asked the school to look into runoff as part of its efforts to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus flowing into the James River watershed from its Park 500 tobacco processing plant in Chesterfield County, said spokesman Bill Phelps.

Philip Morris has paid VCU $286,000 to fund research this year, including the runoff and lung disease projects, Macrina said. That's about 0.1 percent of the research grants the school expects to receive this year.