Susie calls this an end run.
However, when the Faculty member tries to get the $ into the system, the
linebacker, i.e., the senior research administrator, gets to make the
tackle.  It may even be better to have the senior research executive do the
tackle, and you merely get an "assist" for bringing the matter up.

When you refuse to accept the award, you could have the senior research
executive send a letter (i.e., sign the one you wrote) to Roche explaining
that only X office may make agreements for the University, and that the
terms they have offered do not meet the University's standards.

Of course, that is the Draconian response.  Your intent to courteously
contact Rosche and set them straight makes sense.

Their "offer" to make an award under these conditions is only an offer, and
no commitment can be made to accept that offer except by an affirmative
action of an officer of the U. with contracting authority, and the fact
that the faculty member submits directly, without approval, does not make
it an offer just because Roche advised that the faculty member do the right
thing.  Roche's lawyers certainly know that.

This sort of thing pops up regularly as for-profit companies get new
executives who think up new ways to try to increase their profits by
grabbing intellectual properties!

Chuck

At 01:47 PM 3/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I was recently approached by a faculty member who is interested in
>something known as Roche Frontiers.  According to a brochure from the
>company, "Roche Frontiers is an initiative between Roche and interested
>universities to allow Roche to gain fast access to high-quality targets
>originating from academia."  (Drug discovery, development and diagnostics).
> The brochure reads that "An easy submission process (web based) for target
>proposals ensures an uncomplicated interaction between universities and
>Roche."  The brochure speaks of "fixed terms" with very little detail
>provided - although they do state that "results from the use of the target
>are owned by Roche."  The brochure also urges faculty to "ensure that the
>University Technology Office, or equivalent, is aware of (your)
>submission."  I think one could reasonably interpret the brochure to say
>that a faculty member's submission of a proposal implies institutional
>acceptance of pre-established, non-negotiable licensing conditions.
>
>I am uneasy with much of what I read in this brochure and, unfortunately,
>no telephone numbers or contact names are provided.  An e-mail address is
>offered for those who have "any further questions about submitting a
>proposal" and I am pursuing that.  However, my faculty researcher is
>anxious for input and I thought ResAdm-L might be a good source of
>information.
>
>I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has had experience with this
>program.   Thank you.
>
>
>-------------------------------
>Thomas O. Murphy
>Director, Office of Grants & Sponsored Research
>St. John's University, New York
>Tele:  718-990-6236     Fax:  718-990-6020
>
>
>======================================================================
> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
> via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
>======================================================================
>
Herbert B. Chermside, CRA
Director, Sponsored Programs Administration
Virginia Commonwealth University
PO BOX 980568
Richmond, VA  23298-0568
Express Delivery Only:
 Sanger Hall, Rm. 1-073
 11th & Marshall Streets
 Richmond, VA  23219
Voice:  804-828-6772
Fax     804-828-2521
OFFICE e-mail   xxxxxx@VCU.EDU
Personal e-mail xxxxxx@vcu.edu
http://views.vcu.edu/ospa/

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================