Text of a news release issued in mid-June by the Canadian Graduate Council, which represents a number of graduate student associations across Canada, including the one at UW: The Canadian Graduate Council (CGC) is releasing a research paper entitled Research and Ownership: Intellectual Property Issues in Canadian Graduate Schools. This paper highlights and addresses concerns faced by graduate students in protecting their research. Arising from this research paper is a policy developed in February 1994 which sets out guidelines that universities can employ to protect the interests of all university community members, provided that they are implemented evenly and fairly: this is included as part of the press release. In the natural course of graduate programmes, either research or course-work based, graduate students generate intellectual property (IP) during the process of learning. Unfortunately, graduate students are far too often undercredited for research that they perform and results (whether patents, or appropriate authorship recognition on academic papers) they generate. Frequently, it is a supervising faculty member that receives undue credit instead. Within the university structure, there is an inherent power imbalance between the graduate student and the faculty member, despite the joint role they play in the research and teaching functions of the institution. This imbalance renders it difficult for graduate students to defend their IP rights should faculty members attempt to misappropriate their work. While the extent of this misappropriation of graduate student work is unknown, the effect of a single instance of IP theft can be devastating for the student concerned. As the CGC IP paper demonstrates, most Canadian universities are not able to adequately guarantee that a graduate student's work will remain theirs: some universities actually appropriate the work for themselves, while others offer no assistance to the student protecting what is theirs. This problem is becoming increasingly visible, and as Canada moves into the information-based economy, the proper allocation of creation will become increasingly important. The Canadian Graduate Council, which is dedicated to presenting and promoting the interests of graduate students in their roles as researchers, teachers and students, has prepared this comprehensive research paper to highlight the concerns of graduate students and it makes 20 recommendations for fixing the problems discussed. Canadian Graduate Council (CGC) Intellectual Property Policy Definitions: Intellectual Property (IP): The tangible products of research and creative intellect; the fixed expression of ideas including but not limited to inventions, compositions, software, music, art, designs, photographs, and processes. Motivation: Graduate students often create IP in the course of their studies and research. University policies on the ownership of such property are not consistent and are often not formed with the student's best interests in mind. It must also be acknowledged that graduate students are not on an equal footing when negotiating IP rights with supervisors, departments, or university administrators. These people often have influence over the student's access to funding, examination committee recommendations, Teaching Assistant assignments, and letters of recommendation. Coercion, whether implicit or explicit is still coercion, and is common. Policy: The power dynamic between the graduate student and the supervisor, department, and administration is a direct result of the university structure, and therefore the university has an obligation to ensure the interests of the student are protected. The Technology Transfer Policy - Position Paper from Queen's University (1987) observed that "it is in the best interest of the University and of members of the University community for IP to be owned by the creator." The Ad Hoc IP committee at Queen's (1991) further stated that "... the fact that the creators are employed by the University or happen to be student here is not in itself a sufficient justification for the University to tax net revenues from the commercialization of their IP." The same premise underlies this policy. As such, the CGC supports the following points on IP ownership: 1) Unless the student is being paid to produce a specific piece of work (ie: employed), the student should have all rights to any IP s/he generates. 2) When any contracts with external parties are negotiated in which the student would lose rights to IP s/he generated, the university should take action to ensure the student interests are protected. This should include allowing the student to participate in the con tract negotiations and providing the student with access to independent legal counsel. 3) Universities must take action to ensure any student owned IP is not exploited illegally by other members of the campus community both during and after the student's program. Because students are usually not in a position to defend against exploitation, that responsibility should rest with the university. 4) Universities must have policy to attribute authorship of academic papers. Such policies should include: ù Authorship credits should be assigned to only those who made significant intellectual contributions to the paper; ù The author making the most significant contribution should be listed first; ù Editorial work and financial support are not sufficient in themselves to warrant authorship; ù The student should be the primary author on publications arising from their dissertation material;ù All publications should properly reference previous student work. 5) Universities must have fair guidelines to attribute inventorship. The university must have an effective mechanism in place to resolve disputes over authorship or inventorship of IP. Such mechanisms must be sensitive to the awkward situation students find themselves in when appealing such disputes. They must acknowledge the power dynamic problems. 6) Universities should have an office to assist students with the commercialization of the student's IP. Such offices must be on guard to ensure the students' interests are protected. 7) Assistantships provided for general funding purposes should be treated as scholarships in terms of their impact on IP ownership; that is, the Assistantships should not reduce the student's claim to ownership of his or her own IP. 8) Universities should have clear policies regarding the employment of students at faculty-owned companies. Such policies should ensure that students are not coerced into providing unpaid or under paid labour to companies owned by faculty. 9) In many cases, students contribute to large projects that span timeframes longer than their program. In these cases, universities should have policies in place to ensure that the student's contributions are recognized when the project is eventually commercialized and that their share of ownership in the final product is protected.