mcgill university senate report of the …...480h report to senate – part b /april 20th 2017 – d...

480h Report to Senate – Part B /April 20th 2017 – D 16-52

480th REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE TO SENATE

Part B: on the APC meeting held on April 13th, 2017

I. TO BE APPROVED BY SENATE

(A) NEW TEACHING PROGRAMS REQUIRING SENATE APPROVAL

School of Continuing Studies Graduate Certificate in CPA Professional Education (24 cr.) – appendix A At a meeting on April 13th, 2017, APC reviewed and approved a proposal to create a new Graduate Certificate in CPA Professional Education (24 cr.). Currently, a Graduate Certificate in Professional Accounting (GCPA) is offered full time by the Desautels Faculty of Management and part-time by the School of Continuing Studies. However, it has become clear over the last two years that the clientele attracted to each program is very different. Therefore, while the Desautels Faculty of Management will continue to offer the GSPA, the School of Continuing Studies is creating this new certificate, which is tailored for profile of the students it attracts. Structured for working professionals, this certificate will be offered part-time, and its graduates will be prepared to take the examination to become obtain the CPA designation and practice as an accountant.

APC therefore recommends that Senate approve the following resolution: Be it resolved that Senate approve the proposed Graduate Certificate in CPA Professional Education (24 cr.).

Graduate Certificate in Legal Translation (15 cr.) – appendix B At a meeting on April 13th, 2017, APC reviewed and approved a proposal to create a Graduate Certificate in Legal Translation (15 cr.). This new certificate aims at providing students and working professionals in the legal and/or business communities with the necessary skills for the multilingual legal drafting, (co)writing and translation of documents used in the public, para-public and private organizations. It will also cover the principles and practices encountered in jurilinguistics using the most up-to-date techniques and tools

APC therefore recommends that Senate approve the following resolution: Be it resolved that Senate approve the proposed Graduate Certificate in Legal Translation (15 cr.).

Faculty of Science McGill Arctic Field Study Semester (15 cr.) – appendix C At a meeting on April 13th, 2017, APC reviewed and approved a proposal to establish a McGill Arctic Field Study Semester, which will allow students to get a hands-on training in a unique field setting. Students will be immersed in a program of work equivalent to a semester of work campus, while learning to handle the harsh conditions of the area and working to better understand and contribute to real Artic issues. Students will learn about the unique nature of the northern physical environment as well as the social and cultural framework of the Canadian North. Students will spend 8 to 9 weeks at various sites, including the McGill Arctic

Report of the Academic Policy Committee D16-52

McGILL UNIVERSITY SENATE

2

Research Station. The costs of this field study semester is $12,000, and some student funding will be made available by the University/Faculty. APC therefore recommends that Senate approve the following resolution:

Be it resolved that Senate approve the proposed the McGill Artic Field Study Semester (15 cr.).

(B) ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE ISSUES / POLICIES / GOVERNANCE/AWARDS Office of the Vice Principal (Research and Innovation) Revisions to the McGill Policy on Intellectual Property – appendix D At a meeting on April 13th, 2017, APC reviewed and approved revisions made to the current Policy on Intellectual Property, proposed by a working group convened by the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation). Those changes were necessary as the current policy has stood unaltered since 2001 and approaches to Intellectual Property have evolved. The working group considered similar policies in peer institutions, and consulted widely within the McGill community to establish the proposed documents, namely the Policy on Inventions and Softwares, the Policy on Copyright, and the Guidelines on the application of the Policy on Inventions and Softwares. The Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) will review these policies every five years, to ensure that they stay accurate and serve the interests of McGill University and its constituents. APC therefore recommends that Senate approve the following resolution:

Be it resolved that Senate approve the proposed revisions to the McGill Policy on Intellectual Property.

(C) CREATION OF NEW UNITS / NAME CHANGES / REPORTING CHANGES

Faculty of Medicine Proposal for the creation of the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute - appendix E At a meeting on April 13th, 2017, APC reviewed and approved a proposal from the Faculty of Medicine to create the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute. The creation of this institute, made possible by the generous donation of Mr. Lawrence Tanenbaum, is aligned with the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) ambition to become the first Open Science academic and research institution in the world. The Tanenbaum Open Science Institute will foster collaboration, lending visibility and focus to open science in the neuroscience field. APC therefore recommends that Senate approve the following resolution:

Be it resolved that Senate approve and recommend to the Board of Governors for approval the creation of the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute, on the understanding that the honorific naming is subject to approval by the Board of Governors, in accordance with the Policy Relating to the Naming of University Assets.

(D) CHANGES IN DEGREE DESIGNATION – none (E) INTER-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS – none (F) OTHER – none

3

II. TO BE ENDORSED BY SENATE / PRESENTED TO SENATE FOR DISCUSSION – none III. APPROVED BY APC IN THE NAME OF SENATE (A) DEFINITIONS – none

(B) STUDENT EXCHANGE PARTNERSHIPS / CONTRACTS / INTERUNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS - none

(C) OTHER - none

IV. FOR THE INFORMATION OF SENATE

A) ACADEMIC UNIT REVIEWS – none

B) APPROVAL OF COURSES AND TEACHING PROGRAMS

1. Programs

a) APC Approvals (new options/concentrations and major revisions to existing programs)

i. New Programs

Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies M.Sc. in Experimental Surgery; Non-Thesis (45 cr.) At a meeting on April 13th, 2017, APC reviewed and approved a proposal from Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies to create a new M.Sc. in Experimental Surgery; Non-Thesis. This Non-Thesis Master’s degree is designed to provide students and health care professionals the opportunity to gain skills and knowledge in surgical research with flexible options as per their interests and career paths demands. It provides an alternative for students who would rather learn through coursework rather than through research projects.

ii. Major Revisions of Existing Programs- none

b) APC Subcommittee on Courses and Teaching Programs (SCTP) Approvals

(Summary Reports: http://www.mcgill.ca/sctp/documents/)

i. Moderate and Minor Program Revisions Approved by SCTP on March 23rd, 2017, reported to APC on April 13th, 2017 Faculty of Arts B.A.; Concentration mineure en langue et littérature françaises – Langue française (18 cr.) B.Th. (120 cr.)

Faculty of Education B.Sc.(Kinesiology); Major in Kinesiology (90 cr.) B.Sc.(Kinesiology); Honours in Kinesiology (90 cr.) Approved by SCTP on April 6th, 2017, reported to APC on April 13th, 2017 Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences B.Sc.(Ag.Env.Sc.); Major in Environmental Biology (42 cr.) B.Sc.(Ag.Env.Sc.); Honours in Environmental Biology (54 cr.)

http://www.mcgill.ca/sctp/documents/

4

Faculty of Education and Schulich School of Music Concurrent B.Mus.; Major in Music Education/B.Ed. in Music Elementary and Secondary (137 cr.) Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Faculty of Dentistry M.Sc. in Dental Sciences; Non-Thesis (45 cr.) M.Sc. in Dental Sciences (45 cr.) Interfaculty Studies M.Eng. in Biological and Biomedical Engineering (45 cr.) Faculty of Law D.C.L. (0 cr.) D.C.L. in Air and Space Law (0 cr.) Schulich School of Music Ph.D. in Music; Gender and Women’s Studies (0 cr.) Faculty of Law B.C.L./LL.B. with Minor (123 cr.)

ii. Program Retirements

Approved by SCTP on March 23rd, 2017, reported to APC on April 13th, 2017 Faculty of Arts B.A.; Concentration mineure en langue et littérature françaises – Langue française (18 cr.)

2. Courses

a) New Courses b) Reported as having been approved by SCTP on March 23rd, 2017:17

Faculty of Arts: 3 School of Continuing Studies: 10 Faculty of Engineering: 2 Faculty of Medicine: 2 Reported as having been approved by SCTP on April 6th, 2017: Faculty of Arts: 3 School of Continuing Studies: 4 Faculty of Medicine: 3 Faculty of Science: 4

c) Course Revisions

Reported as having been approved by SCTP on March 23rd, 2017: 18 Faculty of Arts: 4 School of Continuing Studies: 6 Faculty of Education: 6 Faculty of Engineering: 2

5

Reported as having been approved by SCTP on April 6th, 2017:16 Faculty of Dentistry: 1 Faculty of Law: 9 Faculty of Medicine: 3 Faculty of Science: 3

d) Course Retirements Reported as having been approved by SCTP on March 23rd, 2017: 1 Faculty of Arts: 1 Reported as having been approved by SCTP on April 6th, 2017:1 Faculty of Law: 1

(B) OTHER - none

MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF THE PROVOST AND VICE-PRINCIPAL (ACADEMIC)

James Administration Building, Room 504

Tel: (514) 398-4177 Fax: (514) 398-4768

TO: Senate

FROM: Christopher Manfredi, Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) – Chair of APC

RE: Proposed revisions to the McGill Policy on Intellectual Property- for approval

DATE: Senate meeting of April 20th, 2017

Purpose: McGill’s existing Policy on Intellectual Property has been reviewed and revised by a

working group convened by the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) and the

resulting policies and accompanying guidelines have undergone a wide consultation

process with the McGill community.

Background: McGill’s current Policy on Intellectual Property (“IP Policy”) has been in effect, unaltered, since 2001. Over the past fifteen years, changes have occurred in the way intellectual property (“IP”) is protected, approaches to commercialization of University IP, internal IP protection processes, how the technology transfer office is organized, and the expectations of researchers interested in translating the outcomes of their research to the benefit of individuals and society.

In 2015, the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) convened a working group to review and update the IP Policy. The Working Group considered similar policies from peer institutions regarding IP ownership and income sharing. The resulting revisions to the IP Policy address the following:

• Clarity: Increased clarity and precision to all definitions and decision-making processes; removed extraneous/outdated clauses andsimplified language.

• Copyright and Inventions & Software require different treatment:Dividing the existing policy into two separate policies is in line with theapproach taken by peer institutions.

• Increasing flexibility through Operational Guidelines: Guidelines forimplementing the Policy on Inventions and Software are now separatefrom the policy itself, allowing internal procedures to adapt moreseamlessly and rapidly to changing practices.

• Sharing of Revenues & Expenses: Clarity on how equity is treated, how netincome is defined, and how the University’s share of income is distributedinternally. Revisions also simplify how net revenues are distributed when theinventor, and not the University, is commercializing the Invention orSoftware. Furthermore, the revisions allow administrative staff to share inrevenues the same way academic staff can.

• Dispute Resolution: created a more straightforward dispute resolutionprocess

The result is three (3) distinct documents: (a) Policy on Inventions and Software, (b) Policy on Copyright and (c) Guidelines on the Application of the Policy on Inventions and Software.

The Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) will lead the review of these Policies every 5 years to ensure that they accurately reflect the interests of the University and its constituents.

Prior consultations/approvals:

The IP Policy Revisions Working Group, formed in August of 2015 (the “Working Group”), is composed of members from the Innovation Steering Committee, PGSS, select research institutes, Associate Provost’s Office, Office of Innovation and Partnerships, and Legal Services. The group met several times throughout the fall and winter of 2015.

Members: Dr. Mark Weber, Associate Director, Invention Development and

Entrepreneurship assistance Ms. Suzanne Owen, McGill Legal Services Ms. Lea Cameron, Special Advisor Dr. Mark P. Andrews, Department of Chemistry Prof. Angela Campbell, Associate Provost, Policies, Procedures and Equity Dr. Michel L. Tremblay, Department of Biochemistry, Goodman Cancer Research

Centre

Dr. Danuta Radzioch, Department of Medicine and Human Genetics and ResearchInstitute of the McGill University Health Centre

Dr. Nathan Hordy, Postdoctoral Fellow

The revised policies were submitted for consultation to the following: Innovation Steering Committee, Faculty Deans, Research Advisory Council, Affiliated Hospital Research Institutes, P7, Senate, MAUT, AMURE, AMUSE, PGSS, MCSS, MCGSS, MACES, McGill Legal Information Clinic, Student Advocacy and University Affairs, Office of Copyright, Digital Rights Group, Faculty of Science Advisory Committee, SSMU, MUNASA/MUNACA, and external collaborators and stakeholders.

In addition, an online consultation on the revisions was available from January 12, 2017 to

February 12, 2017 for comment from the McGill Community.

The revised policies were reviewed and approved by APC on April 18th, 2017.

Attachments Appendix A – Policy on Inventions and Software (for approval)

Appendix B – Policy on Copyright (for approval)

Appendix C – Guidelines on the Application of the Policy on Inventions

and Software (for information)

Appendix D – Summary of Changes

Appendix A – Policy on Inventions and Software

POLICY ON INVENTIONS AND SOFTWARE

1. Principles and Objectives

This policy sets forth the rules applying to the ownership of, and rights to, intellectual property in the form

of Inventions and Software developed by McGill University academic staff, administrative and support

staff, students, as well as any other physical person working or doing research at or under the auspices of

the University. The rules applicable to the ownership and rights to intellectual property (other than

Software) covered by copyright are dealt with in the Policy on Copyright.

The primary functions of the University are education, research, and the creation and dissemination of

knowledge. The University affirms the principles of wide freedom of research and of free publication of

the information generated. In some cases, obtaining intellectual property and transferring it to the private

or public sector offers an optimal means of ensuring that University research positively affects the lives of

Canadians and the world. Where this is the case, the University supports and encourages Inventors who

so desire to pursue intellectual property protection and to seek appropriate transfer of the underlying

knowledge to private firms, philanthropies or civil society.

Intellectual property is the product of a cooperative relationship among academic staff, administrative

and support staff, students, and the University, and derives from the creative energies of the individual

fostered by the academic community and the environment. This includes facilities, equipment and

financial support, in the form of grant funding, provided and administered by the University. The

Inventor(s) and the University (and, where applicable, the affiliated institutions) have a shared interest in

intellectual property. As hospitals and research institutes affiliated with the University may have

contributed to the resources and the environment that led to Inventions or Software, separate

agreements between the University and its affiliated institutions will provide for proper recognition of the

financial, and other, interests of all parties.

Since the University draws its operating and research funds in large measure from the governments of

Quebec and of Canada, the commercial development of its intellectual property must, to the extent

possible, result in benefits to Quebec and Canada. Benefits take many forms including building up the

research and innovation capacity of Quebec and Canada, offering more training opportunities,

contributing to a knowledge infrastructure and responding to social and economic concerns. The

University further recognizes that the presence of a vibrant, local, knowledge-based economy is beneficial

to its members and seeks to foster its development by establishing McGill as a hub of knowledge

mobilization, technology transfer, and networking between researchers and industry.

The objectives of this policy are:

- to serve the public interest by increasing research capacity, knowledge transfer or by contributing

to the development of useful products, services, and processes;

- to ensure the continued vibrancy of the University, its research and its service to the community

through the dissemination and use of Inventions; and

- to contribute, to the extent possible, to the socio-economic well-being of Quebec and Canada.


2. Definitions

For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply:

2.1 “Field of Academic Research” means the particular areas of research in relation to which an

Inventor has published works, has received funding, or has made Inventions or developed Software,

in the course of his or her academic duties.

2.2 “Field of Academic Research and Teaching” means the fields in relation to which an Inventor has

been teaching, and the particular areas of research in relation to which he or she has published

works, has received funding, or has made Inventions or developed Software or Learnware, in the

course of his or her academic duties.

2.3 “Equity Holder” means an Inventor who holds more than ten percent (10 %) equity at the creation

of the spin-off company based wholly or in part on his or her Invention or Software.

2.4 “Guidelines” means the Guidelines on the Application of the Policy on Inventions and Software.

2.5 “Invention” means any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture, design or composition

of matter, or any new and useful improvement to any art, process, machine, manufacture, design

or composition of matter, which is or may be protected by patent, plant breeder’s right, industrial

design, utility model, or other similar intellectual property right.

2.6 “Inventor” means any student, employee, or appointee of the University, whether academic or

administrative and support staff, or any physical person, such as a visiting professor, working or

doing research at or under the auspices of the University, who satisfies the applicable statutory

requirements of inventorship. In this policy, the term “Inventor” shall also be used in reference to

the creators of Software covered by copyright.

2.7 “Lead Inventor” means that member of a group of Inventors designated by the group to act as its

contact person with the University.

2.8 “Learnware” means Software designed for teaching purposes that provides for interaction with the

user, or makes use of a multimedia product, or both. It includes technology-enabled learning

products in electronic format.

2.9 “Net Income” means all consideration, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

royalties, cash, equity, and options, received by the Inventor(s) and the University from the sale,

licensing, or other disposition of an Invention or Software, less the costs specifically related to the

protection, licensing, distribution, financial charges imposed by the University for fund

administration, or other charges related to the commercial development of the Invention or

Software.


2.10 “Software” means any set of instructions that is expressed, fixed, embodied, or stored in any

manner and that can be used directly or indirectly in a device in order to bring about a specific

result.

2.11 “Student Academic Inventions or Software” means any Invention or Software that is created,

conceived, developed, or first reduced to practice in the course of, or as part of, a student’s

coursework or extracurricular activity, unless such coursework or activity: (a) is a graduate student’s

thesis work; (b) involves activities for which the student is paid by the University; (c) involves

research or coursework that is the subject of an agreement with a third party; (d) was created,

conceived, developed or first reduced to practice with the creative input or invention contribution

of a non-student Inventor; or (e) makes substantial use of University facilities.

3. Application of the Policy

3.1 This policy is binding on all students and employees of the University and all physical persons

working or doing research at or under the auspices of the University. This policy also applies to

academic staff and administrative and support staff on sabbatical leave or leave of absence unless

the host institution or company has rules which preclude the application of this policy and, in the

case of a company, the University agrees in writing to other arrangements.

3.2 The policy shall apply to any and all Inventions and Software disclosed after the date fixed for

implementation of the policy.

3.3 This policy does not apply to Student Academic Inventions or Software. Student Academic

Inventions or Software shall remain with its creators and ownership shall be determined in

accordance with applicable law and shall not be impacted by this policy.

4. Guidelines on Application of the Policy on Inventions and Software

4.1 This policy shall be supplemented by the Guidelines. The Guidelines shall be used for the purpose

of clarifying this policy and setting evolving processes and practices implemented in support of this

policy. The Guidelines may be modified from time to time by the Vice-Principal (Research and

Innovation) after appropriate consultation with the Senior Administration, Deans, the Technology

Transfer Office, and members of the University community and affiliated institutions having

experience and expertise in matters of Inventions and Software and commercial development of

such.

4.2 Except as provided in the Guidelines or agreed to between the Inventor(s) and the University,

Inventions and Software are commercialized under the guidance and responsibility of the

University.


5. Ownership

5.1 Ownership of Rights to Inventions: Subject to section 5.3, the Inventor(s), on the one hand and the

University, on the other hand, will each hold an equal interest in the intellectual property underlying

Inventions created by the Inventor(s):

a) with University assistance; or

b) with the substantial use of University equipment, facilities, or resources; or

c) in the course of academic duties or work in the course of study, research, or teaching.

5.2 Ownership of Rights to Software: Subject to section 5.4, the Inventor(s), on the one hand, and the

University, on the other hand, will each hold an equal interest in the intellectual property underlying

Software created by the Inventor(s):


b) with the substantial use of University equipment, facilities, or resources; or

c) in the course of academic duties or work in the course of study, research, or teaching; and,

in the case of Learnware, in the fields in which the Inventor has been teaching and doing

research.

5.3 Specific Exceptions Applicable to Inventions: Notwithstanding section 5.1, the following categories

of Inventions are not jointly owned by the University and the Inventor(s), and may be owned by the

Inventor(s), the University, a third party, or jointly by two or more parties, as the case may be:

a) where developed in the course of research sponsored by a third party pursuant to a written

agreement with the University, wherein ownership rights are determined by specific terms

of the agreement. Unless the terms of the agreement give ownership of the Invention to the

third party, such Invention is owned by the University until all rights, such as a license or an

option, granted to the third party under the agreement have become extinguished, at which

point the Invention becomes jointly owned by the University and the Inventor(s);

b) where developed in the course of a consulting agreement between the Inventor(s) and a

third party, made in accordance with University policies and procedures. The ownership

rights are then determined by the specific terms of the agreement;

c) where made by an Inventor in a domain outside his or her Field of Academic Research, and

where there has not been substantial use of University facilities, equipment or resources.

The rights are then owned by the Inventor;

d) where made by an Inventor who is a member of the administrative and support staff of the

University, as a result of activities not covered by his or her contract of employment, and

where there has not been substantial use of University facilities, equipment or resources.

The rights are then owned by the Inventor;

e) where the University assigned its rights to the Inventor(s) in accordance with section 4.3 of

the Guidelines. The rights are then owned by the Inventor(s);

f) where the Inventor(s) assigned their rights to the University in accordance with section 6.4

of this policy. The rights are then owned by the University;

g) where the Invention is the product of work covered by a collective agreement. The ownership

rights are then determined by the specific terms of the collective agreement; and


h) where the Invention is the product of work covered by an agreement with the University.

The ownership rights are then determined by the specific terms of the agreement.

5.4 Specific Exceptions Applicable to Software: Notwithstanding section 5.2, the following categories of

Software are not jointly owned by the University and the Inventor(s), and may be owned by the

Inventor(s), the University, a third party, or jointly by two or more parties, as the case may be:

a) where developed in the course of research sponsored by a third party pursuant to a written

agreement with the University, wherein ownership rights are determined by specific terms

of the agreement. Unless the terms of the agreement give ownership of the Software to the

third party, such Software is owned by the University until all rights, such as a license or an

option, granted to the third party under the agreement have become extinguished, at which

point the Software becomes jointly owned by the University and the Inventor(s);

b) where developed in the course of a consulting agreement between the Inventor(s) and a

third party, made in accordance with University policies and procedures. The ownership

rights are then determined by the specific terms of the agreement;

c) where limited to the electronic form of a work, or where it is ancillary to a work. The rights

are then owned by the Inventor(s);

d) works of art, including works of art expressed in multimedia format. The rights are then

owned by the Inventor(s);

e) in the case of Software which does not constitute Learnware, where developed by an

Inventor in a domain outside his or her Field of Academic Research, and where there has not

been substantial use of University facilities, equipment or resources. The rights are then

owned by the Inventor;

f) where constituting Learnware developed by an Inventor in a domain outside his or her Field

of Academic Research and Teaching, and where there has not been substantial use of

University facilities, equipment or resources. The rights are then owned by the Inventor;

g) where developed by an Inventor who is a member of administrative and support staff of the

University, as a result of activities not covered by his or her contract of employment, and

where there has not been substantial use made of University facilities, equipment or

resources. The rights are then owned by the Inventor;

h) where the University has assigned its rights to the Inventor(s) in accordance with section 4.3

of the Guidelines. The rights are then owned by the Inventor(s);

i) where the Inventor(s) assigned their rights to the University in accordance with section 6.4

of this policy. The rights are then owned by the University;

j) where constituting Learnware developed as part of a web-based course specifically funded

by the University, the rights are then owned or apportioned in accordance with a written

agreement between the University and the Inventor(s);

k) where the Software is the product of work covered by a collective agreement. The ownership

rights are then determined by the specific terms of the collective agreement; and

l) where the Invention is the product of work covered by an agreement with the University.

The ownership rights are then determined by the specific terms of the agreement.


6. Commercialization

6.1 Disclosure: Inventor(s) are required to disclose to the Technology Transfer Office those Inventions

and Software described in sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3a), and 5.4a) that they wish to develop for

commercial purposes. This disclosure is to be made to the Technology Transfer Office, acting as the

delegate of the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation), through a Report of Invention (“ROI”). The

Inventor(s) may indicate in the ROI if they want to pursue commercialization of the Invention or

Software independently of the University. The Inventor(s) shall set out, in the ROI, reasons for

believing that seeking intellectual property protection over the Invention or Software will best serve

the University, the communities it serves and Quebec and Canada generally.

6.2 Decision of Inventors: Inventor(s) are not obliged to seek commercial development of their work,

and the University will respect the decision of the Inventor(s) not to commercialize their Invention

or Software.

6.3 Commercialization by Inventors: In the event that all of the Inventor(s) agree to pursue

commercialization of the Invention or Software independently of the University, the following shall

apply:

a) Assignment: All rights to the Invention or Software shall be assigned by the University to the

Inventor(s) in order for the Inventor(s) to be able to proceed with commercialization.

b) Sharing of Net Income: The University shall retain the right to receive its share of the Net

Income received from the commercialization of the Invention or Software by the Inventors,

as is further set out in the Guidelines.

c) Negotiation of Transaction: The Inventor(s) shall be responsible for commercializing the

Invention or Software and shall have full authority to negotiate the terms of any and all

agreements with third parties. The Inventor(s) shall assume all risks and costs associated with

entering into such agreements. The Inventor(s) shall keep the University informed on a

regular basis of their efforts to commercialize the Invention or Software and of any

agreements that may have been entered into in connection therewith, including providing

the University with an annual report of their activities.

d) Protection of Intellectual Property: The Inventor(s) shall be responsible for securing and

financing any intellectual property protection as appropriate. Except as otherwise provided

in this policy or the Guidelines, the costs incurred in the protection of intellectual property

shall be assumed wholly by the Inventor(s).

e) Documentation: The University shall execute any document reasonably required for the

purpose of protecting the Invention or Software and furthering its commercial development.

6.4 Commercialization by University: In the event that, after reviewing the ROI, the Inventors have not

declared in the ROI that they want to pursue commercialization of the Invention or Software

independently of the University and the University decides to commercialize the Invention or

Software, the following shall apply:

a) Assignment: All rights to the Invention or Software shall be assigned by the Inventor(s) to the

University in order for the University to be able to proceed with commercialization.


b) Sharing of Net Income: The Inventor(s) shall retain the right to receive their share of the Net

Income received by the University from the commercialization of the Invention or Software

as is further set out in the Guidelines.

c) Negotiation of Transaction: Inventor(s) shall be involved in the commercialization process by

providing their input and agreement on the development plan of the Invention or Software

as is further set out in sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Guidelines. Notwithstanding the foregoing,

the Technology Transfer Office shall be responsible for commercializing the Invention or

Software, and shall have full authority to negotiate the terms of any and all agreements

relating to such commercialization. The University shall assume all risks associated with

entering into such agreements.

d) Protection of Intellectual Property: The University may seek patent protection or copyright

registration of the intellectual property underlying the Invention or Software as appropriate.

It does not seek protection for Inventions or Software that, in its judgment, do not have

significant potential or will not benefit from such protection. The University will cease to

pursue protection of intellectual property where successful application of the technology

seems unlikely. Except as otherwise provided in this policy or the Guidelines, the cost

incurred in the protection of intellectual property is borne by the University.

e) Documentation: The Inventor(s) shall execute any document reasonably required for the

purpose of protecting the Invention or Software and furthering its commercial development.

6.5 Divergent Opinions on Use of Invention or Software: In cases where the University and the

Inventor(s) have divergent ethical concerns in relation to the use of the Invention or Software by

third parties, the matter will be resolved in accordance with section 8 of this policy.

7. Sharing of Net Income

7.1 Sharing of Income: Net Income derived from the commercialization of Inventions or Software shall

be shared between the Inventor(s) and the University in accordance with this policy and the

Guidelines.

7.2 Multiple Inventors: In cases where there is more than one Inventor, the proportion of the Inventors’

share of Net Income to be received by each Inventor, and any University contributors should the

Inventors so decide, shall be set out in the ROI. The ROI shall be signed by all Inventors and any

University contributors receiving a portion of the Inventors’ Net Income. The Lead Inventor is

responsible for the identification of all Inventors and University contributors, including students.

7.3 Equity Holders: An Inventor involved in the founding of a spin-off company may receive equity

(shares or options) over and above his or her share of Net Income as an Inventor under this policy.

In such cases and where the University is commercializing the Invention or Software, the Equity

Holder may be required by the University to waive, in favour of the University, their rights to their

share of the Net Income and the portion of the Net Income which would otherwise have been

allocated to the Equity Holder, as an Inventor, would be split pro rata between the University and

the other Inventor(s).


7.4 Sharing with Other Academic Institutions: Where an Invention or Software is developed jointly by

an Inventor working at the University and a member of another academic institution working at the

other institution, rights to such Invention or Software and Net Income shall be shared between the

University and the other academic institution, taking into account the policies of both institutions.

The sharing of Net Income will normally take into account the relative contributions of the

individuals and their institutions. If the other academic institution is a University-affiliated

institution, the sharing of ownership and Net Income shall be governed by agreements in place

between the University and its affiliated institutions regarding the management of intellectual

property.

8. Dispute Resolution

Parties to any dispute arising out of the application of this policy are encouraged first to attempt to try to

resolve the matter informally with the assistance of the Technology Transfer Office. If no such resolution

is reached, the matter may be referred to the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation). The Vice-Principal

shall only hear disputes that have been brought within one (1) year of the complainant having had

knowledge of the matter underlying the dispute. All material relevant to the dispute shall be provided to

the Vice-Principal by all parties to the dispute, within fifteen (15) working days of the day on which the

matter is referred to him or her. The Vice-Principal shall invite comments by interested parties and shall

be free to consult with experts, if required. All information provided to experts by the Vice-Principal shall

be treated as confidential by such experts. The Vice-Principal shall share the opinion of the experts with

all interested parties and shall invite them to comment within a fixed delay. The Vice-Principal shall

promptly advise the parties in writing of his or her decision in the matter. Any decision by the Vice-

Principal under this section 8 shall be final.

9. Enforcement

The University and Inventor(s) shall, within a reasonable timeframe, execute all documents, forms, and

agreements reasonably required to give full effect to this policy.

10. Review

10.1 After a further three (3) years of its operation, and if Senate so determines, this policy shall be

reviewed by a working group comprised of the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and

Innovation) as chair, the Office of the Provost, and one representative each of MCGSS, MAUT,

SSMU, PGSS, MACES, MCSS, AMURE, MUNACA, and MUNASA. The working group may make

recommendations for modification of this policy.

10.2 There shall be an annual meeting convened by the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and

Innovation), or delegate of the working group identified in 10.1, to review the operation of this

policy. The focus of such a meeting will be on enhancing the University’s efforts to meet the

principles and objectives articulated in section 1 while staying current to new developments and

technologies that could impact the policy.


Policy on Intellectual Property

History:

Approved:

Senate April 18, 2001 Minute 11

Board of Governors May 30, 2001 Minute 11

Amendments:

Executive Committee June 26, 2001 Minute 8

Appendix B – Policy on Copyright

POLICY ON COPYRIGHT

1. Principles and Objectives

This policy sets forth the rules applying to ownership of, and rights to, intellectual property covered by

copyright, but excluding Software, developed by McGill University academic staff, administrative and

support staff, students, as well as any other physical person working or doing research at or under the

auspices of the University. The rules applicable to the ownership and rights to Software covered by

copyright are set out in the Policy on Inventions and Software.

The primary functions of the University are education, research, and creation and dissemination of

knowledge. The University affirms the principles of wide freedom of research and of free publication of

the information generated from research. The University encourages, supports, and values the innovation

agenda pursued by its academic staff.

Works of authorship can be the product of individual effort or of a cooperative relationship among

academic staff, administrative and support staff, students, and the University. Such Works derive from

the creative energies of the individual(s) fostered by the academic community and environment, including

facilities, equipment and financial aid, in the form of grant funding, provided and administered by the

University.

This policy aims to encourage the development of original Works of authorship and to recognize the

contribution of both Authors and the University to Works of authorship.

2. Definitions

For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply.

2.1 “Author” means a student or employee of the University, whether academic or administrative and

support staff, or any physical person, such as a visiting professor, working or doing research at or

under the auspices of the University, who has written or created a Work.


manner and that can be used directly or indirectly in a device in order to bring about a specific

result.

2.3 “Student Academic Work(s)” means any Work that is created in the course of, or as part of, a

student’s coursework or extracurricular activities, unless such coursework or activity: (a) involves

research or coursework that is the subject of an agreement with a third party; or (b) is a Work of

joint authorship with another non-student Author.

2.4 “Work(s)” means any original literary, scientific, technical, dramatic, musical, artistic, or

architectural work or any other original production including performances, sound recordings and

communication signals covered by copyright, with the exception of Software.


3. Application of the Policy

3.1 This policy is binding on all students and employees of the University and all physical persons

working or doing research at or under the auspices of the University. This policy also applies to

academic staff or administrative and support staff on sabbatical leave or leave of absence unless

the host institution or company has rules which preclude the application of this policy and, in the

case of a company, the University agrees in writing to other arrangements.

3.2 This policy shall apply to any and all Works disclosed after the date fixed for implementation of this

policy.

3.3 This policy does not apply to Student Academic Works. Student Academic Works shall remain with

its creators and ownership and rights thereto shall be determined in accordance with applicable

law and shall not be impacted by this policy.

4. Policy on Copyright

4.1 Copyright: In relation to any Work, the Author owns copyright. The Author is entitled both to

determine how the Work is to be disseminated and to keep any income derived from the Work.

Should an Author wish to disseminate a Work with the assistance of the University, he or she may

contact the Technology Transfer Office. If the Technology Transfer Office agrees to assist with the

dissemination of the Work, the University may ask that a portion of any revenues derived from the

Work be attributed to the University. In such cases, the revenues would be split between the

University and the Author in accordance with section 5.1.1 of the Guidelines on the Application of

the Policy on Inventions and Software.

4.2 Exceptions: Notwithstanding section 4.1, copyright in a Work might not belong to the Author if:

a) the Work was created as a result of research sponsored by a third party pursuant to a written

agreement with the University, wherein copyright is determined by specific terms of the

agreement. Unless the terms of the agreement give ownership of copyright to the third party,

copyright is owned by the University until all rights, such as a license or an option, granted to

the third party under the agreement have become extinguished, at which point the Author

becomes the sole owner of copyright;

b) the Work was created pursuant to a formal agreement with the University, wherein copyright

is determined by specific terms of the agreement;

c) the Work contains Software as the primary constituent. In such cases the Work will be treated

as Software under the Policy on Inventions and Software; and

d) the Work is covered by a collective agreement, wherein copyright is determined by the

specific terms of the collective agreement.

4.3 License to University: The University is automatically granted a non-exclusive, royalty-free,

irrevocable, indivisible, and non-transferable license to use, for its own academic purposes, all

works created by an Author:



b) with the use of University equipment, facilities, or resources; or

c) in the course of academic duties or work in the course of study, research, or teaching.

This license shall confer to the University neither commercial rights, nor the right to reproduce

published Works. The University shall not disseminate Works in a way that would allow persons

who are not members of the University community to have electronic access to them. For the

purpose of this section, the University’s “own academic purposes” refers to research carried out at

the University by staff, including academic and administrative staff, and students of the University

and teaching by academic staff of the University to students registered at the University.


Should an Author disagree with the application of this policy, he or she may bring forward a grievance

under the appropriate University policy.

6. Enforcement

The University and Authors shall, within a reasonable time-frame, execute all documents, forms, and

agreements reasonably required to give full effect to this policy.

7. Review of Policy

7.1 After a further three (3) years of its operation, and if Senate so determines, this policy shall be

reviewed by a working group comprised of the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and

Innovation) as chair, the Office of the Provost, and one representative each of MCGSS, MAUT,

SSMU, PGSS, MACES, MCSS, AMURE, MUNACA, and MUNASA. The working group may make

recommendations for modification of this policy.

7.2 There shall be an annual meeting convened by the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and

Innovation), or delegate of the working group identified in 7.1, to review the operation of this

policy. The focus of such a meeting will be on enhancing the University’s efforts to meet the

principles and objectives articulated in section 1 while staying current to new developments and

technologies that could impact the policy.

History:

Approved:

Senate April 18, 2001 Minute 11

Board of Governors May 30, 2001 Minute 11

Amendments:

Executive Committee June 26, 2001 Minute 8

Appendix C – Guidelines on the application of the Policy on Inventions and Software

GUIDELINES ON THE APPLICATION OF THE POLICY ON INVENTIONS AND SOFTWARE

1. Purpose

The Guidelines on the Application of the Policy on Inventions and Software (the “Guidelines”) supplement

the Policy on Inventions and Software (the “Policy”). They shall be used for the purpose of clarifying the

Policy and setting evolving processes and practices implemented in support of the Policy. These Guidelines

may be modified from time to time by the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) after appropriate

consultation with the Senior Administration, Deans, the Technology Transfer Office, and members of the

University community and affiliated institutions having experience and expertise in matters of Inventions

and Software.

2. Definitions

For the purpose of these guidelines, the following definitions apply:

2.1 “Electronic research material”, or “ERM”, means the electronic representation, in whole or in part,

of an Invention or Software, and includes, but is not limited to, digitized blueprints, programming

source codes, and executable programs.

2.2 “Invention” means any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture, design, or composition

of matter, or any new and useful improvement to any art, process, machine, manufacture, design,

or composition of matter, which is or may be protected by patent, plant breeder’s right, industrial

design, utility model or other similar intellectual property right.

2.3 “Inventor” means any student, employee or appointee of the University, whether academic or

administrative and support staff, or any physical person, such as a visiting professor, working or

doing research at or under the auspices of the University, who satisfies the applicable statutory

requirements of inventorship. In this policy, the term “Inventor” shall also be used in reference to

the creators of Software covered by copyright.

2.4 “Net Income” means all consideration, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

royalties, cash, equity, and options, received by the Inventor(s) and the University from the sale,

licensing, or other disposition of an Invention or Software, less the costs specifically related to the

protection, licensing, distribution, financial charges imposed by the University for fund

administration, or commercial development of the Invention or Software.

2.5 “Net Royalties” means all royalties, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any

one-time payment, milestone payment, or pass-through royalty received by the Inventor(s) and the

University from the sale, licensing, or other disposition of an Invention or Software, less the costs

specifically related to the protection, licensing, distribution, financial charges imposed by the

University for fund administration, or commercial development of the Invention or Software.


manner and that can be used directly or indirectly in a device in order to bring about a specific result


2.7 “Tangible research material”, or “TRM”, means the tangible embodiment of an Invention or

Software, and includes, but is not limited to, biological materials, such as antibodies, cell lines, and

animal models or physical devices.

3. Commercialization of Inventions and Software

3.1 Receipt of the ROI: Once a report of invention (ROI) is submitted to the Technology Transfer Office,

the Office shall, within a reasonable time frame, acknowledge receipt of the ROI and assign the ROI

to a member of the Technology Transfer Office. In the event the ROI originates from an affiliated

institution, such affiliated institution will be informed of the receipt of the ROI.

3.2 Preliminary Review of ROI: Within sixty (60) days of acknowledging receipt of the ROI, the

Technology Transfer Office shall have met (whether by phone or in person) with the Inventor(s) and

completed a preliminary assessment of the Invention or Software. The objective of the meeting is

to clarify aspects of the Invention or Software, the information included in the ROI, such as the

correct identification of inventors and contributors, and whether the Inventor(s) have considered a

commercialization path in order to complete a preliminary assessment of the ROI. Upon completion

of this preliminary assessment, the Technology Transfer Office shall communicate to the

Inventor(s), and copy the affiliated institution where applicable, one of the following:

a) The Technology Transfer Office will proceed with a full due diligence review as set out in

section c) (the ROI will remain under review until such due diligence is completed); or

b) the ROI is incomplete or more data/experiments are required and the decision on whether

or not to proceed with a due diligence review will be deferred until the necessary details are

completed or obtained; or

c) the Inventor(s) have all agreed that they wish to commercialize the Invention/Software

independently of the University or the Technology Transfer Office has decided to decline the

ROI and will not commercialise the Invention/Software. In such cases, the University will

transfer its rights in the Invention or Software back to the Inventor(s) as is further set out in

sections 4.3 and 4.4.

3.3 Due Diligence Review: Any ROI that is under review per section 3.2a) shall undergo a due diligence

review by the Technology Transfer Office. The due diligence review includes, among other things,

an assessment of the patentability, third party rights, marketability, and commercial potential of

the ROI. This due diligence review shall be completed by the Technology Transfer Office within

ninety (90) days of completing the preliminary assessment set out in section 3.2. Upon completion

of the due diligence review, the Technology Transfer Office shall communicate to the Inventor(s),

and copy the affiliated institution where applicable, one of the following:

a) it has decided to accept the ROI and will proceed with commercialization of the Invention or

Software, in which case the Inventor(s) and the Technology Transfer Office will prepare a

development plan; or

b) it has decided to decline the ROI and won’t proceed with commercialization of the Invention

or Software. In such cases, the University will transfer its rights in the Invention or Software

back to the Inventor(s) as is further set out in sections 4.3 and 4.4.


3.4 Commercial Evaluation Meeting and Patent Protection: In the event that the Invention or Software

requires patent protection, the Technology Transfer Office will generally obtain approval of the

Commercial Evaluation Committee at a Commercial Evaluation Meeting before proceeding with

such patent protection. The Commercial Evaluation Meeting is a regular meeting of the members

of the Technology Transfer Office and may include from time to time representatives of a

valorisation society, affiliated hospitals, or other outside experts. The Inventor(s) and the

Technology Transfer Office will together prepare the presentation of the Invention or Software to

the Committee. The outcome of the Commercial Evaluation Meeting is a decision for the patent

protection phase and an outline of development milestones to be achieved prior to the next

decision point.

3.5 Development Plan: The development plan shall outline all of the events and milestones that need

to occur in order to bring the Invention or Software to the next step in the commercialization

process. While the development plan may change or be replaced from time to time as the

commercialization process advances, it shall always be subject to the approval of the Technology

Transfer Office and the Inventor(s). The plan will address matters such as the need for additional

research data, intellectual property protection, funding requirements (including potential sources

of financing), and industry contact to gauge interest for the Invention/Software and will include a

timeline. The plan shall clearly outline the responsibilities of both the Technology Transfer Office

and the Inventor(s) in the commercialization process and may include input from the Commercial

Evaluation Committee. Should the Technology Transfer Office and the Inventor(s) fail, at any time

in the commercialization process, to agree on a mutually acceptable development plan, the matter

shall, at the Inventor’s choice, be resolved through the dispute resolution process, pursuant to

section 8 of the Policy, or be resolved through the assignment of the Invention or Software to the

Inventor(s) pursuant to section 4.3. The Technology Transfer Office shall be under no obligation to

continue with the commercialization process (including the continued financial support of filed

patents or patent applications) if there is no agreement on the development plan or if the

milestones or tasks within the development plan are not completed.

3.6 Cooperation between the Inventor(s) and The Technology Transfer Office: Participation of both the

Inventor(s) and the Technology Transfer Office in the commercialization process is essential to the

development and implementation of a successful development plan. The Inventor(s) and the

Technology Transfer Office shall cooperate in assembling, updating, and implementing the

development plan, which will serve the interests of both the University and the Inventor(s).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Technology Transfer Office shall have full authority to negotiate

the terms of any and all agreements entered into by the University in connection with the

development plan.

3.7 Assignment: In the event that, pursuant to section 3.3a), the University decides to proceed with

commercialization of the Invention or Software, all rights to the Invention or Software shall be

assigned by the Inventor(s) to the University. If the Inventor(s) do not complete the assignments

and other required legal documents, the University will be unable to proceed with the

commercialization. Upon assignment, the University shall then become the sole owner of all rights


to the Invention or Software, however the Inventor(s) shall retain the right to receive their share of

the Net Income as set out in section 5.1.1.

3.8 Tangible Research Material: Tangible Research Material (TRM) may be distributed for academic

purposes under agreements forbidding transfer to third parties. Where TRM is distributed for

academic purposes, the Technology Transfer Office charges recipients only the costs related to

generation, shipping, and handling. Where commercial development is envisaged, or where TRM is

received from, or transferred to, a commercial entity, contracts concerning distribution or receipt

of TRM are made through the Technology Transfer Office.

3.9 Electronic Research Material: Electronic Research Material (ERM) may be distributed for academic

purposes under agreements forbidding transfer to third parties. Where ERM is distributed for

academic purposes, the Technology Transfer Office charges recipients only the costs related to

production, shipping, and handling. Where commercial development is envisaged, or where ERM is

received from, or transferred to, a commercial entity, contracts concerning distribution or receipt

of ERM, including, but not limited to, physical transfer on a storage medium and electronic transfer

via fax, telephone, or internet, are made through the Technology Transfer Office.

4. University Decision Not to Commercialize and Transfer of Rights to Inventor(s)

4.1 University Decision Not to Initiate Commercial Development: As set out in sections 3.2c) and 3.3b),

after an Invention or Software is disclosed to the University, the Technology Transfer Office may

decline to initiate commercial development. Should the Inventor(s) disagree with that decision,

they may, within thirty (30) days of the decision, in writing, refer the matter to the Vice-Principal

(Research and Innovation), who will accept or reject the Technology Transfer Office

recommendation and promptly communicate his or her decision to the Inventor(s). A decision by

the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) on such a matter shall be final.

4.2 University Decision to Stop Commercial Development: Once commercial development of an

Invention or Software has been initiated, the Technology Transfer Office may at some point in time

decide to cease efforts toward commercial development. Should the Inventor(s) disagree with that

decision, they may, within thirty (30) days of the decision, in writing, refer the matter to the Vice-

Principal (Research and Innovation), who will accept or reject the Technology Transfer Office

recommendation and promptly communicate his or her decision to the Inventor(s). A decision by

the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) on such a matter shall be final.

4.3 Transfer of Rights by the University: Subject to section 4.4, the University shall assign its share of

the rights to the Invention or Software to the Inventor(s) in the following cases. In such cases, the

Inventor(s) shall then become the sole owner of the rights to the Invention or the Software:

a) The University declines to pursue commercialization, or decides to cease its efforts to

commercialize the Invention or Software, per sections 4.1 or 4.2;

b) The Inventor(s) agree to commercialize the Invention or Software independently of the

University;


c) The Inventor(s) wish to develop the Invention or Software for the purpose of licensing or

distributing it without profit, or for the purpose of putting it in the public domain so that it is

easily accessible; or

d) The Technology Transfer Office and the Inventor(s) have failed to agree on a mutually

acceptable development plan, and the Inventor(s) has chosen not to take advantage of the

dispute resolution mechanism contained at section 8 of the Policy.

4.4 Conditions to a Transfer of Rights: A transfer of rights from the University to the Inventor(s) shall

be conditional upon, among other things, agreement by the Inventor(s) to the following, as

applicable:

a) to reimburse, prior to the distribution of any revenues received from commercialization of

the Invention or Software, all costs to the University specifically related to the protection,

licensing, distribution , or commercial development of the Invention or Software;

b) to share Net Income with the University as set out in section 5.1.2;

c) to report to the University, on a yearly basis, on the activities and efforts to develop and

commercialize the Invention or Software;

d) to grant back to the University a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license to

use the Invention or Software for academic and research purposes, including research

collaborations;

e) to release the University from any and all claims relating to the commercialization by the

University of the Invention or Software;

f) to agree to include indemnification for the University in any commercialization agreement

regarding the Invention or Software;

g) to agree to use best efforts to ensure the Invention or Software benefits Quebec and Canada;

h) to obtain written approval of the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) prior to entering

into any commercialization agreement that places him or her in a situation of potential

conflict of interest, in particular in the case of an agreement with an enterprise in which the

Inventor has a substantial interest;

i) to fulfill any obligations of the University that may exist to third parties in relation to the

Invention or Software.

4.5 Documentation: Whenever rights are assigned to the Inventor(s) under section 4.3, the University

shall execute any document reasonably required by the Inventor(s) for the purpose of protecting

the Invention or Software and furthering its commercial development.

5. Sharing of Income and Expenses

5.1 Sharing of Net Income: Net Income derived from the commercialization of the Invention or Software

shall be shared between the Inventor(s) and the University on the following basis:

5.1.1 Commercialization by the University: In the case where the University is responsible for the

commercial development of the Invention or Software, the first $10,000 of Net Royalties

shall accrue solely to the Inventor(s). Of the balance of Net Income, 60 % shall go to the

Inventor(s) and 40 % shall go to the University.


In the case where part of the Net Income received by the University is in the form of equity

in a company, the University shall, taking into account any legal restrictions and the wishes

of the Inventor(s) and the company:

a) arrange for the Inventor(s) to receive his or her share of the equity directly from the

company; or

b) have all equity (i.e. including the Inventor(s)’ share) issued in the name of the

University, in which case the University shall be the sole decision maker as regards to

disposition of the equity; the Inventor(s) sole right being the receipt of the appropriate

share of such equity or its cash equivalent at such time and in such form as the

University shall deem appropriate.

5.1.2 Commercialization by the Inventor(s): In the case where the University assigns the rights to

the Inventor(s) under section 4.34.4.3, and the Inventor(s) is responsible for the commercial

development of the Invention or Software, after the University has been reimbursed for

any out-of-pocket expenses it has incurred, if any, in the commercialization process, Net

Income shall be apportioned as follows: 80 % shall go to the Inventor(s) and 20 % shall go

to the University.

5.2 Allocation of University's Share of Income: Unless otherwise determined by OVPRI (the Office of the

Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation)), in consultation with the Provost, the University's share

of Net Income shall be apportioned as follows: 33 1/3 % to central administration, 33 1/3 % to the

faculties of the Inventors, and 33 1/3 % to OVPRI (50 % the Technology Transfer Office, 50 % OVPRI).

In respect of revenue received upon the liquidation of equity in a company, the share for central

administration shall be earmarked for special projects that are not covered by the general budget

of the University.

5.3 Where an affiliated institution or hospital is associated with the Invention or Software, a separate

agreement will direct what percentage of the University share will go to the affiliated institution or

hospital and the remaining amount will be shared per section 5.2. Any equity to be shared with the

affiliated institution will be done as indicated in section 5.1.1.


Any dispute with respect to the application of these Guidelines shall be referred to the Vice-Principal

(Research and Innovation) in accordance with the Policy.

7. Review of Guidelines

There shall be an annual meeting convened by the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation)

to review the operation of these Guidelines. The focus of such a meeting will be to ensure alignment

between the Guidelines and the Policy and update the Guidelines as required.


SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE REVISION AND UPDATE OF MCGILL’S IP POLICY DOCUMENTS

1) STRUCTURAL CHANGES

a) SPLITTING THE IP POLICY

The current IP Policy sets out a framework for the treatment of three categories of works created at the

University: 1) Inventions; 2) Software; and 3) Works. Inventions and Software are treated similarly

throughout the IP Policy, while Works, which are the subject of copyright protection, are treated entirely

differently. For example, Inventions and Software are owned jointly by the University and Inventors,

whereas Works are owned solely by the Author (the University simply has a right to use them for academic

and research purposes). In addition, should an Inventor wish to commercialize an Invention or Software,

they must first report it to the University and the University has a first right to undertake the

commercialization - no such obligation exists for Works. As a result, the Working Group has split the IP

Policy into two distinct policy documents: 1) Policy on Inventions and Software and 2) Policy on Copyright.

b) CREATION OF GUIDELINES

The current IP Policy contains several provisions setting out the processes by which the IDEA team

undertakes the commercialization of an Invention or Software. These internal processes are better suited

to a “guidelines” document, which could evolve with the processes, rather than a “policy” document. As

a result, several provisions relating to the operations of IDEA were moved to a document entitled

“Guidelines on the Application of the Policy on Inventions and Software”. The result of this approach

yielded a more streamlined and specific set of policies for Inventions, Policies, and Works.

2) NOTABLE CHANGES

The following section highlights the substantive changes for the three proposed documents: (a) Policy on

Inventions and Software; (b) Policy on Copyright; and (c) Operational Guidelines.

a) POLICY ON INVENTIONS AND SOFTWARE

i. Principles and Objectives (Section 1)

The preamble was revised to emphasize that the University supports and values efforts to protect

intellectual property and its commercialization. The preamble also now includes language indicating that

there is no obligation for inventor(s) to pursue commercialization after reporting an invention (this is

repeated in Section 6.2).

ii. Definition of Inventor (Section 2.6)

More precision was added to the definition of “Inventor” to ensure that the full range of possible Inventors

is addressed through the Policy.

iii. Definition of Net Income (Section 2.9)


“Administration” costs were added to the list of costs to be deducted from gross income received from

licensing to arrive at Net Income. This addition is meant to cover several things: (1) management fees

which may be charged by valorization societies when they are involved in the licensing and (2) internal

administration costs – for example financial services changes 3% (will go up to 4%) on every amount

received by the University.

iv. Definition of Student Academic Inventions or Software (Section 2.11)

This definition was added to help clarify the rights and roles of McGill students as Inventors.

v. Ownership (Section 5.3)

The original clause precludes administrative and support staff members who develop an invention in the

course of their employment at McGill from sharing in its ownership and receiving revenue. In consultation

with University stakeholders, this position was changed to allow administrative and support staff

members to share ownership of these inventions jointly with the University in the same manner as

academic inventors.

vi. Commercialization (Section 6.1)

A sentence was added to clarify that Inventor(s) may opt to commercialize independently of the

University.

vii. Dispute Resolution (Section 8)

The dispute resolution process was modified and now requires that disputes be brought within one year

of the complainant having had knowledge of the matter underlying the dispute. This was done to

encourage individuals to raise an issue once they hear of it and not just once there is money at stake.

In addition, Section 8 now provides that any decisions by the Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation)

pursuant to the dispute resolution process are final. The current IP Policy provided an appeals process

that was not included in the Policy on Inventions and Software. The appeals process was a cumbersome

process involving the creation of a standing committee which was almost never used. Given that the Vice-

Principal (Research and Innovation) is required to review all relevant material, invite comments from

interested parties, and is free to consult with experts (and in such cases will share the opinion of the

experts with interested parties and invite them to comment), it was felt that simply using this decision

making process was adequate, thereby eliminating the need for a standing committee to be struck. It was

the Working Group’s opinion that if the interested parties were not satisfied with the Vice-Principal’s

decision on the matter, they would likely not be satisfied with an appeal committee’s decision.

viii. Review of Policy (Section 10)

MCGSS, MUNACA, and MUNASA have been added to the list of University bodies to be consulted as part

of the review process. Updated the policy review term from every 5 years to every 3 years. Added an

annual meeting to review operation of the policy.


b) POLICY ON COPYRIGHT

i. Definition of “Works” (Section 2.4)

The definition of “works” was updated in consultation with the Schulich School of Music to capture

the full range or works subject to copyright.

ii. Dispute Resolution and Appeals (Section 5)

The provision on dispute resolution and appeals in the IP Policy has been removed and replaced with

language that provides that any dispute relating to the application of the Policy on Copyright will be

resolved via grievance under the relevant policy. The subject matter of disputes arising out of the

application of the Policy on Copyright are likely to be outside of the mandate of the Vice-Principal

(Research and Innovation) and therefore it did not make sense to have him/her hear and decide on such

matters.

iii. Review of Policy (Section 7)

MCGSS, MUNACA, and MUNASA have been added to the list of University bodies to be consulted as part

of the review process. Updated the policy review term from every 5 years to every 3 years. Added an

annual meeting to review operation of the policy.

c) OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES ON THE APPLICATION OF THE POLICY ON INVENTIONS AND

SOFTWARE

i. Sharing of Revenues and Expenses (Section 5.1).

In Section 5.1.1, language was added to clarify how income received in the form of equity by the University

will be treated.

In Section 5.1.2 the splitting of Net Income where the Inventors, and not the University, are

commercializing the Invention or Software was changed. Under the current IP Policy, for the first

$100,000 of Net Revenues, 80 % goes to the Inventors and 20 % goes to the University, and then for any

Net Revenues above $100,000, 70 % goes to the Inventors and 30 % goes to the University. It also provides

that for any income received in the form of equity, 70 % goes to the Inventors and 30 % goes to the

University. It was felt that this involved a lot of accounting and was overly complicated for a provision

that in practice was very difficult to enforce and under which the University received very little income.

As a result, the split was simplified such that for all Net Income received by the Inventors (whether in the

form of cash or equity), the Inventors would be entitled to 80 % and the University would be entitled to

20 %.

ii. Allocation of University’s Share of Income (Section 5.2)


The current IP Policy, at Section 9.2, sets out a rather complicated formula for the internal allocation of

the University’s share of Net Income, including different percentages depending on whether income is

received in the form of equity or cash and, in the case of equity, depending on the value of the equity.

Section 5.2 of the proposed operational Guidelines provides that the University’s share of Net Income

would be split equally (33 1/3% each) among Central Administration, Faculty(ies) of the Inventor(s), and

OVPRI (within OVPRI, 50 % to the Technology Transfer Office, 50% to OVPRI). We also provided language

that the above split may be varied by the OVPRI in consultation with the Provost, given that in potential

windfall scenarios there may be a desire to change the internal allocation of funds.

iii. Review of Guidelines (Section 7)

Added an annual meeting to review operation of the policy.

MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF THE PROVOST AND VICE-PRINCIPAL (ACADEMIC) James Administration Building, Room 504 Tel: (514) 398-4177 Fax: (514) 398-4768

TO: Senate

FROM: Christopher Manfredi, Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic)

RE: Creation of the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute (Faculty of Medicine) – for approval

DATE: Senate meeting of April 20th, 2017

Purpose: The Tanenbaum Open Science Institute will foster collaboration, lending visibility and focus to open science in the neuroscience field. Including a fund-raising and an outreach arms, it isbased on a think-tank concept to develop and spread a new model of discovery and innovation based on the usage of Open Science principles as accelerators, for the benefits of patients and community, and the development of best practices globally.

Background: The McGill Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) recently launched a major scientific initiative with the ambitious aim of becoming the first ever Open Science academic and research institution in the world. This unique initiative puts McGill and Canada in a scientific leadership position worldwide. Mr Lawrence Tanenbaum, member of the Neuro Advisory Board and famous philanthropist, convinced of the extraordinary power of open science, recently determined to make a $20M transformational donation to McGill University, enabling a major shift of the Montreal Neurological Institute's operations towards open science.

In further recognition of Mr Tanenbaum's remarkable gift, McGill and its MNI held a major public announcement event of national scope on December 16th 2016, with the presence of the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau. This event was a unique opportunity to highlight McGill and Canada's leadership in the global movement towards open science and to celebrate this new and highly promising model of collaboration.

D16-52 - PART BAppendix E

Prior consultations/approvals:

A Memorandum of Agreement was signed between Mr. Tanenbaum on September 29th, 2016 and includes the following signatories: Principal Fortier, Provost Manfredi, Vice-Provost Yalovski, VP Marc Weinstein, Dr Rouleau and Dean Eidelman.

On March 13th, 2017, the proposal was presented to the Faculty of Medicine Faculty Council by Dr. Guy Rouleau and was very well received.

APC reviewed and endorsed the proposal on April 13th, 2017.

Next steps: The proposal will be submitted to the Board of Governors for final approval, on the understanding that the honorific naming is subject to approval by the Board of Governors, in accordance with the Policy Relating to the Naming of University Assets.

Tanenbaum Open Science Institute (TOSI)

APC MeetingApril 13, 2017

2

• The digital age has brought about an ethos of transparency and information-sharing for the social good

• Complex global problems require unobstructed international collaboration

• Scientists recognize the limitations of a closed, proprietary system

• Powerful computers now allow secure, large-scale data sharing

• Visionary scientists, governments and philanthropists are ready to take the leap

Open Science - an idea whose time has come

Open science is an increasingly prevalent way of doing biomedical research. Aim is to spur innovation and

accelerate knowledge discovery and exchange.

Putting McGill and Canada in the lead

• The Neuro’s Open Science initiative will place Canada at the forefront of a global movement :

The EU and the government of Japan are both pursuing open science as national agendas

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the WellcomeTrust recently launched the Open Science Prize to encourage development of new products or services that will advance Open Science

The OECD has identified Open Science as a policy direction with significant social and economic benefits for its members

• Diseases of the brain and nervous system are one of the most compelling unmet medical needs of our time

• Millions of Canadians are affected by devastating diseases of the brain such as ALS, Parkinson’s and brain tumours

• At present, there are limited treatments and no cures for these conditions

• Neurodegenerative diseases are estimated to cost our economy $23B annually, both in direct health costs and in lost productivity

• According to the World Health Organization, diseases of the brain are predicted to surpass cancer as the second leading cause of death in Canada by 2040

Neurodegenerative diseases: devastating human and social costs

Founded in 1934 by neurosurgeon Dr. Wilder Penfield

World-leading integrated neuroscience research and clinical centre

A place where we can make real advances in neuroscience and our understanding and treatment of neurological diseases

The Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI)

The Neuro: positioned for leadership

• Unique breadth of expertise, from genes, to cells, to animal models, to patients

• Internationally recognized scientific leadership and credibility

• Access to powerful data infrastructure and specialized human resources

• The MNI Biobank: a one-of-a-kind resource of brain material and data

• Exceptional track record of attracting competitive research funding and philanthropy

• A willingness to take measured risks in service of enormous human gains

6

Open Science as a mission enabler

• From its inception, The Neuro’s singular mission has been to deploy scientific research in service of patients, families and society

• We see Open Science as a means to expand the impact of our research by sharing it with a global community of like-minded scientists

The result: accelerated discovery, new treatments,

and a healthier, more prosperous world

What makes the Neuro unique?

The Neuro is the only institution pursuing Open Science along 5 key axes:

Open Access: publishing research outputs without restriction;

Open Data: sharing experimental data freely with institutions around the world;

Open IP: refraining from pursuing patents on MNI-generated discoveries;

Open Biobank: free sharing of biological samples and other resources from the MNI Biobank, within the limits of supply and respecting patient confidentiality;

Open Commercialization: developing business models to bring open source discoveries to the marketplace, including new medicines.

The Tanenbaum Open Science Institute (TOSI)

Open Access Open AccessOpen Data

Open AccessOpen Data

Open IPOpen Biobank

Open Commercialization

Open Data

An informed decision

An 18 months consultation process:

A. Definition of Open Science for the MNI

B. Mapping of existing open science activities at the MNI

C. Consultation process (over a year) with MNI Faculty, staff and students (seminars, polls, town halls, and Q&A sessions)

D. Social science study (structured questionnaires) of potential barriers and limitations related to Open Science by an independent research group

E. Definition of Guiding Principles with final buy-in of all MNI members

F. Official support from McGill’s Principal

Mission

To foster collaboration, lending visibility and focus to open science in the neuroscience field. Including a fund-raising and an outreach arms, the TOSI is based on a think-tank concept to develop and spread a new model of

discovery and innovation based on the usage of Open Science principles as accelerators, for the benefits of patients and community, and the development of best practices globally.

Goals

1. To expand the impact of MNI research by sharing it with a global

community of like-minded scientists;

2. To develop key tools and infrastructures to support data sharing;

3. To measure open science impact;

4. To highly encourage the scientific community as a whole to embracethis new way of doing research.

TOSI Mission and Goals

• The MNI Biobank (NEURO-C-BIG)

Set to become the world’s largest library of brain imaging, clinical,demographic, genetic (DNA), and cellular data and samples from patients withneurological disorders, with data opened up to the world.

• The Open Drug Discovery Platform

Pilot project dedicated to bringing new drugs to market with unprecedentedcollaboration and efficiency involving a unique public-private partnership jointlymanaged by the Structural Genomic Consortium (SGC), the the Centre for DrugResearch and Development (CDRD) and the MNI. Three diseases will betargeted initially: brain tumours, ALS, and Parkinson’s.

• The Open Science Evaluation Committee

Assessing the impact of the Open Science initiative and facilitating informationflow with clear policies and best practices that will be adapted and updated asthe initiative takes shape. The findings of the Committee will then be madeavailable to other institutions wishing to follow in MNI’s footsteps.

Three core initiatives

Five guiding principles

Principle 1: Public release of scientific data and resources

The MNI and its researchers will render all positive and negative numericaldata, models used, data sources, reagents, algorithms, software and otherscientific resources publicly available no later than the publication date ofthe first article that relies on this data or resource.

Principle 2: External research partnerships

All data and scientific resources generated through research partnerships –whether with commercial, philanthropic, or public sector actors – are to bereleased on the same basis as set out in Principle 1.

13


Principle 3: Access to the MNI Clinical Biological Imaging and Genetic Repository (CBIGr)

The MNI CBIGr supports knowledge creation and innovation by maximizing thelong-term value of the contributions made by research participants and thescientific resources created by MNI researchers and their collaborators. TheCBIGr will generate revenues, while continuing to enrich and strengthen itsinformational content and the knowledge it provides. In the conduct of MNICBIGr, the MNI recognizes the primacy of safeguarding the dignity and privacyof patient-participants, and respecting the rights and duties owed them throughthe informed consent process.

14


Principle 4: Intellectual Property

Subject to patient confidentiality and informed consent given, neither theMNI nor its researchers in their capacity as employees or consultants ofMcGill – MNI unit will obtain patent protection or assert data protectionrights in respect of any of their research.

Principle 5: Autonomy

The MNI supports the autonomy of its stakeholders, including but notlimited to researchers, staff, trainees and patients, through recognizing theirright to decline to participate in research and associated activities under anOS framework. However, the MNI will not support activities that compromisethe previously outlined OS principles.

15

Jump Starting Neurological Research and New Models of Collaboration

• December 16, 2016 - A Transformative $20 Million Donation to the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital

• Tanenbaum Open Science Institute - opening new horizons and accelerating discovery in neuroscience

• http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/open-science-0

http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/open-science-0

1

FRAMEWORK FOR OPEN SCIENCE AT THE MNI:

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Principle 1: Public release of data and other scientific resources

The MNI and its researchers will render all positive and negative numerical data, models used,

data sources, reagents, algorithms, software and other scientific resources publicly available no

later than the publication date of the first article that relies on this data or resource.

Best practices:

1. Earlier dissemination will be encouraged where the release of the data or resource will not

compromise its quality, patient confidentiality and the ability of the researcher to acquire adequate

recognition for his/her work.

2. The MNI can encourage earlier dissemination through the creation of centralized procedures

(from consenting research participants to practical tools and infrastructure to facilitate data

submission – see #3), the availability of expert personnel to assist researchers to release these

data and resources, and tagging the data to identify their source.

3. The MNI can encourage earlier dissemination by offering a centralized informatics infrastructure

that combines the purposes of long-term, secure data curation and archiving for the PI, and of

data sharing with the PI’s team members, collaborators, or the public, at the PI’s discretion.

4. The MNI can encourage earlier dissemination by developing internal metrics for promotion and

other purposes that reward early and retrospective dissemination. The MNI can further work with

funding agencies, philanthropies and other institutions to develop national and international

metrics that serve this purpose.

5. The MNI can support attribution and recognition of a researcher’s investment in data or resource

creation by requiring, through simple click wrap online agreements, that users agree and use

reasonable efforts to cite the sharer and acknowledge the MNI and its funders in resulting

publications where practicable, as a requirement to gaining access to the resource.

2

Principle 2: External research partnerships

All data and scientific resources generated through research partnerships –whether with

commercial, philanthropic, or public sector actors – are to be released on the same basis as set

out in Principle 1.

Best practices:

1. All data and scientific resources generated in partnerships with external collaborators will be

subject to public release no later than the publication date of the first article that relies on this data

or resource.

2. The MNI supports evolving community norms regarding the public release of all negative and

positive clinical trials data. All such data generated by MNI researchers in collaboration with

industry will be shared through appropriate public repositories:

the full analyzable (raw) dataset will be released no later than 18 months after study completion

(with the exception of trial data intended to support a regulatory application).

the analytical data will be released no later than the publication date of the first article that relies

on this material.

3. The MNI will promote the transparency and accountability of clinical trials by requiring that the

details of clinical research undertaken by MNI researchers with industry are publicly registered,

including study goals, the intervention under investigation, projected primary and secondary

outcomes, target patient and sample size.

3

Principle 3: the Neuro Biobank (CBIG)

The Neuro Biobank supports knowledge creation and innovation by maximizing the long-term

value of the contributions made by research participants and the scientific resources created by

MNI researchers and their collaborators. The Biobank will be managed in such a way as to remain

financially self-sustaining, while continuing to enrich and strengthen its informational content and

the knowledge it provides. In the conduct of the Neuro Biobank, the MNI recognizes the primacy

of safeguarding the dignity and privacy of patient-participants, and respecting the rights and duties

owed them through the informed consent process.

Best practices:

1. The MNI will establish an access committee and will establish a clear mandate, decision-making

criteria and procedures to allow informed and fair evaluations of access requests.

2. The MNI will establish a budget model and pricing policy to ensure the long-term financial

sustainability of the Biobank. This may include PI participation to the costs of maintaining the

informatics infrastructure and services offered in terms of high quality and secure data archiving

and curation. The rates applied will be adjusted to the volume of data and resources contributed

(lower rates apply to larger volumes). PIs will be encouraged to place specific budget requests for

data and biobanking fees in their funding applications.

3. By default, the MNI will grant open non-exclusive and non-discriminatory access to biobank

resources to all registered researchers requesting data or biosamples. Some specific materials

(e.g. tissue samples in limited quantities) and resources may require rationing, which will be under

the control of the Access Committee. Access to resources in the Biobank will be available at a

cost commensurate with the costs of acquisition and the continued existence and quality of the

collection.

4. The MNI encourages its researchers to share data and resources openly. However, the decision

on the level of sharing (with lab members, selected collaborators, public) and conditions for

accessing (collaboration required on subsequent use vs. none) the contributed data is left to the

MNI researcher’s discretion.

5. The MNI prohibits those accessing the Neuro Biobank from further sharing of accessed resources

with third parties, other than with the written agreement of the MNI.

6. The MNI will require that all datasets that are derived from the use of accessed materials are

returned to the biobank in a timely manner for open access.

7. The MNI will support attribution by requiring that users agree to use reasonable efforts to cite the

sharer (if this individual is different from the MNI contributor) and acknowledge the MNI, the

4

original contributor and their funders where practicable in resulting publications as a requirement

to gaining access to biobank resources. Citation conditions are specified for every data and

resource in the Biobank.

8. The MNI can encourage attribution by producing an academic publication describing the Neuro

Biobank that can be cited by users.

9. The MNI can support measurement of the impact of the Neuro Biobank for use in reporting and to

guide evolution of policy and practice by developing ICT solutions to track users, uses and the

diffusion of biobank-derived resources.

5

Principle 4: Intellectual property

Subject to patient confidentiality and informed consent given, neither the MNI nor its researchers

in their capacity as employees or consultants of McGill – MNI unit will obtain patent protection or

assert data protection rights in respect of any of their research.

Best practices:

1. Subject to Best Practice 3 below, third parties working with the MNI may obtain IP rights in respect

of their own contributions to research, including to modifications, applications or additions to the

work conducted at the MNI.

2. Subject to Principle 5, MNI researchers, acting in their capacity as employees of or consultants of

the MNI or of McGill, will refuse to agree – to the extent their consent is required – to be listed as

inventors on patent applications.

3. In working with third parties, the MNI and its researchers in their capacity as employees of or

consultants to the McGill - MNI unit will ensure through contract that any IP obtained by those third

parties is made freely and non-exclusively and irrevocably available for research and educational

purposes and that these IP rights are not used to reach through to research outputs that do not

include the invention protected through IP itself.

6

Principle 5: Researcher and patient autonomy

The MNI supports the autonomy of its stakeholders, including but not limited to researchers, staff,

trainees and patients, through recognizing their right to decline to participate in research and

associated activities under an OS framework. However, the MNI will not support activities that

compromise the OS principles outlined above.

Best practices:

1. MNI researchers may choose to pursue patents in respect of their research outputs. However, the

MNI will not be named on these patents, nor will the MNI or McGill University pay any costs

associated with them – for example, professional, application or maintenance fees.

2. The MNI will not be a signatory to any contract that compromises the principles outlined above.

3. Patients at the Montreal Neurological Hospital may freely decline to participate in OS research,

with no repercussions on the quality of the clinical care they receive from their physicians.

4. The MNI recognizes the right of all researchers – particularly trainees and younger faculty whose

career development may be more vulnerable to competitive pressures – to decline to participate

in OS activities. However, it is the vision of the MNI that, ultimately, researchers will choose greater

openness because of the clear benefits it entails. Thus, the MNI will reward researchers for their

participations in OS activities without punishing those who do not.

OPEN SCIENCE REPORT A compilation of articles, media and social media

Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital March 2017

P a g e | 1

Table of Contents Coverage Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3

January 2016 ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Jan. 22 ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Jan. 25 ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Jan. 26 ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Jan. 27 ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

March 2016 ................................................................................................................................................... 8

Mar. 2016 .................................................................................................................................................. 8

May 12 ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

May 27 .................................................................................................................................................... 11

October 2016 .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Oct. 11 ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Oct. 27 ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

November 2016 .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Nov. 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

Nov. 18 .................................................................................................................................................... 14

Nov. 30 .................................................................................................................................................... 15

December 2016 ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Dec. 7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

Dec. 9 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

Announcement and Post Announcement Media Coverage ....................................................................... 18

December 16 - Gift to establish Tanenbaum Institute of Open Science ................................................ 18

Dec. 17 .................................................................................................................................................... 19

Dec. 19 .................................................................................................................................................... 19

Dec. 21 .................................................................................................................................................... 19

Announcement Coverage – Articles ........................................................................................................... 20

CBC .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

La Presse ................................................................................................................................................. 21

The Guardian ........................................................................................................................................... 21

Radio Canada .......................................................................................................................................... 22

Le Devoir ................................................................................................................................................. 22

BOINGBOING ........................................................................................................................................... 23

P a g e | 2

Journal de Montréal ................................................................................................................................ 24

Newspaper Ads ........................................................................................................................................... 25

GLOBE AND MAIL, December 17, 2016 .................................................................................................. 25

LA PRESSE, 17 décembre 2016 ................................................................................................................ 26

Social Media ............................................................................................................................................... 27

Reaction to Science Article: ..................................................................................................................... 27

Facebook: ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Twitter: ................................................................................................................................................ 28

Reaction to Nature Article: ..................................................................................................................... 30

Altmetric scores: ................................................................................................................................. 30

Twitter Reaction: ................................................................................................................................. 30

Wellcome Collection lecture by Guy Rouleau October 26, 2016 ........................................................... 32

Social Media Reaction ......................................................................................................................... 32

Reaction of December 16 announcement .............................................................................................. 38

January 2017 ............................................................................................................................................... 41

Jan 7 ........................................................................................................................................................ 41

Jan 11 ...................................................................................................................................................... 41

Jan 12 ...................................................................................................................................................... 41

Jan 20 ...................................................................................................................................................... 41

Jan 22 ...................................................................................................................................................... 41

February 2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 42

February 17 ............................................................................................................................................. 42

March 2017 ................................................................................................................................................. 42

March 16 ................................................................................................................................................. 42

March 17 ................................................................................................................................................. 42

March 19 ................................................................................................................................................. 42

P a g e | 3

Coverage Summary Following the publication of Science’s article “Montreal institute going ‘open’ to accelerate science” on

January 22, we received interest from the media to learn more about the initiative and saw very positive

reactions on social media. The original Science Facebook post received 1635 likes and 412 shares.

The article was published amid growing coverage of Open Science in both specialized and more general

media.

Since then, MNI’s Open Science initiative has been the focus of an article in Nature, the leading weekly

international scientific journal with a print circulation of over 50,000. Its website, nature.com, gets more

than six million visitors per month. Reaction on Twitter to the Nature article was intense, with Nature’s

social media monitor, Altmetric, recording 208 tweets on the subject. Altmetric put the article in the top

5% of all research outputs in terms of online attention.

Open Science at MNI has also been featured in Wired Germany, a leading technology/science magazine,

and by McGill’s Alumni Magazine.

The movement of Open Science got a major boost recently when the European Union announced it

would push that all scientific papers produced in its member states be made open to the public by the

year 2020. Please read more about the EU’s decision in this Science article published May 27, 2016 and

in this Guardian article published May 28, 2016.

The December 16 gift announcement and launch of the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute was widely

covered by mainstream media (CBC, Radio Canada, La Presse, Le Devoir, Globe and Mail) as well as on

Social Media. On December 16, #OpenScience was the top trending topic across Canada.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/dramatic-statement-european-leaders-call-immediate-open-access-all-scientific-papers

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/28/eu-ministers-2020-target-free-access-scientific-papers

P a g e | 4

January 2016

Jan. 22 Science. January 22 2016. “Montreal institute going ‘open’ to accelerate science”

Montreal institute going ‘open’ to accelerate science

Summary:

An interview with Guy Rouleau, Lesley Fellows, and Brian Nosek, a psychologist and director of the

Center for Open Science at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Rouleau outlines the reasons for

going Open Science, and the support from the MNI faculty.

“It’s an experiment; no one has ever done this before,” says Rouleau. The intent is that neuroscience

research will become more efficient if duplication is reduced and data are shared more widely and

earlier. Opening access to the tissue samples in MNI’s biobank and to its extensive databank of brain

scans and other data will have a major impact, Rouleau hopes. “We think that it is a way to accelerate

discovery and the application of neuroscience.”

After a year of consultations among the institute’s staff, pretty much everyone—about 70 principal

investigators and 600 other scientific faculty and staff—has agreed to take part, Rouleau says.

Staff at the institute were generally in favor of the plan, according to Lesley Fellows, a neurologist at

MNI, though there were concerns about how to implement some aspects of it—such as how to protect

patient confidentiality, and whether there would be sufficient financial support. Yet there is a “moral

imperative,” according to Fellows, for research to be shared as openly as possible.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6271/329.full

P a g e | 5

Advocates of open science have welcomed MNI’s move. Brian Nosek says he is “very impressed” with

the institute’s plans. “It’s clear they are looking to move the organization towards the ideals of science,”

he says.

Nosek says the decision to eschew patents is especially intriguing. “I haven’t seen others do that

before,” he says. But it’s not something that will necessarily work in other scientific fields, like

engineering, Nosek predicts. “There is lots of debate in the life sciences now about what should and

should not be patented, but that may not translate across disciplines smoothly.”

Jan. 25 La Presse. January 25 2016. “Libre accès : la peur des «parasites»”

Libre accès : la peur des «parasites» Summary :

Partager ou ne pas partager ? Pendant longtemps, un réflexe de beaucoup de chercheurs envers les

données que leurs labos généraient étaient, si l’on me permet de caricaturer un brin, de «s’asseoir

dessus». C’est-à-dire, grosso modo, les garder confidentielles et ne les partager qu’avec des projets de

recherche qui acceptent que les producteurs de données participent activement — et apparaissent

dans la liste des auteurs des articles à venir.

Le raisonnement se défendait (se défend toujours ?), remarquez. Si un chercheur travaille d’arrache-

pied pour obtenir des fonds de recherche, puis continue d’ahaner à qui mieux-mieux pour réaliser des

expériences et produire des données, n’est-il pas normal qu’il veuille recevoir le crédit qui lui revient ?

Mais voilà, de nombreuses voix ont dénoncé, ces dernières années, le fait que ce réflexe multiplie les

barrières en recherche. Des expériences déjà faites doivent être reprises inutilement parce que les

données ne sont pas partagées, des pans entiers de données ne sont jamais publiés parce qu’ils ne

contiennent pas de résultats «positifs» (condition souvent incontournable pour que les grandes revues

savantes s’intéressent à vos travaux), des collaborations potentiellement très fructueuses ne voient

pas le jour parce que les partenaires potentiels n’ont pas connaissance des données produites ailleurs,

etc.

C’est pourquoi une décision récente de l’Institut neurologique de Montréal, ébruitée la semaine

dernière, est si intéressante. Essentiellement, l’INM a choisi de rendre ses données accessibles à

n’importe qui et de ne pas tenter d’obtenir de brevets. Ses chercheurs seront libres d’en demander,

mais ils n’auront plus l’assistance légale de l’INM pour ce faire. L’idée, a expliqué son directeur Guy

Rouleau au magazine Science, est qu’en se convertissant au libre accès, «nous espérons accélérer les

découvertes et les applications en neurosciences»

http://blogues.lapresse.ca/sciences/2016/01/25/libre-acces%C2%A0-la-peur-des-%C2%ABparasites%C2%BB/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/montreal-institute-going-open-accel-erate-science


P a g e | 6

Jan. 26 Ici Radio-Canada. January 26 2016. “Science ouverte à l'Institut neurologique de Montréal”

Science ouverte à l'Institut neurologique de Montréal

Summary :

À partir de cette année, tous les travaux et découvertes de l'INM seront rendus publics dès leur

publication. Cette initiative du directeur de l'établissement lié à l'Université McGill, Guy Rouleau, a pour

but d'accélérer la transformation de la recherche en soins. L'urgentologue Alain Vadeboncoeur parle à

Catherine Perrin des frustrations qui ont inspiré cette mesure.

With audio file

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/medium_large/2015-2016/chronique.asp?idchronique=395983

P a g e | 7

Jan. 27 770 am Calgary “At Night” with Dan Riendeau

Interview with Dr. Rouleau on Open Science Initiative

MP3 recording of the interview available

CBC Homerun

Interview with Dr. Rouleau on Open Science Initiative

MP3 recording of the interview available

P a g e | 8

March 2016

Mar. 2016 Wired Germany, March Issue

P a g e | 9

May 12 Nature Article, Data sharing: Access all areas

Data sharing: Access all areas

Summary:

Guy Rouleau speaks about his belief that sharing data will accelerate progress in treating neurological

disease. He also acknowledges that as a publically funded institution, The Neuro has a duty to do

whatever is in the public’s best interest.

The article then talks about the five principles. Viviane Poupon explains that having a solid

understanding of brain mechanisms is important for pharmaceutical companies working to develop

new treatments “Without mechanisms, they're just fishing randomly,” she says. “We're trying to help

diminish the 95% failure rate of drug candidates targeting the central nervous system.”

It then mentioned Richard Gold, who will be monitoring the institute's performance.

“The specific metrics he will use are yet to be decided, but he suggests that he will be looking at how

closely the institute follows its own principles, whether it inspires others to follow suit, whether

people make use of its open resources, and how successful it is at attracting funding and staff.”

Björn Brembs, a neurobiologist and open-science advocate at the University of Regensberg in

Germany, is quoted as saying open science is one method to improve replication of results. His opinion

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7602_supp/full/533S71a.html?platform=hootsuite

P a g e | 10

is supported by Mike Ehlers, the chief scientific officer of Pfizer's Neuroscience and Pain Research Unit

in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Christof Koch, president of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington, thinks that

having all the data from every experiment freely available will go a long way towards alleviating this

problem. “If science wants to overcome this crisis, this lack of reproducibility, we have to practice what

we preach, and practice open science,” he says.

Christof Koch, president of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington, thinks that

having all the data from every experiment freely available will go a long way towards alleviating this

problem. “If science wants to overcome this crisis, this lack of reproducibility, we have to practice what

we preach, and practice open science,” he says.

The next section focuses on other organizations that have also dedicated themselves to Open Science. It

then talks about the no patents policy as something unique to the MNI initiative.

The big pharmaceutical companies can see the value of working more openly with academic

neuroscientists and with each other to mitigate those expenses and risks. “It's a very complex field,”

says Hans Lindner, head of global external innovation and alliances at the pharmaceutical company

Bayer in Berlin. “Combining efforts is essential to deal with complex matters.”

“When you can get academics to share, and get industry to share, you get a hell of a lot more and better

data out of that collaboration,” says Aled Edwards, the SGC's director. “It's a fantastic way to do

science.”

P a g e | 11

May 27 McGill News Alumni Magazine, A bold experiment in Open Science

A Bold Experiment in Open Science

More than 80 years ago, when it first

opened its doors, the Montreal

Neurological Institute offered up a

bold vision for the future of

neuroscience. Clinicians treating patients

and researchers examining different

neurological disorders and diseases

began collaborating more closely than

ever before.

The Neuro is about to shake things up

again.

The institute recently announced that it

will embark on a five-year project during

which all of its research results, and all of

the data associated with that research,

will be made widely available. The Neuro

won’t pursue patents on any of its

discoveries.

“We’ve been doing a lousy job of

advancing neuroscience,” says Neuro

director Guy Rouleau. He isn’t talking

about the institute he leads, but about

the field in general. “We just aren’t progressing quickly enough. Part of the reason is that the brain is

so incredibly complex. We need to find ways to do things differently.

Richard Gold then speaks about the scope of OS at The Neuro and how it is different from other

initiatives. The Neuro’s Brain Imagine Centre is then put forward as an example of an organization

within The Neuro that already shares its data on a wide scale. Sylvain Baillet concedes, however, that

institution-wide OS will be more of a challenge because while the BIC only handles data, a neuro-wide

OS initiative will include physical samples as well.

The article ends with Gold again speaking about the evaluation process, and that they will measure

based on how much is shared, how it is used, whether other organizations also go OS, etc.

http://publications.mcgill.ca/mcgillnews/2016/05/24/a-bold-experiment-in-open-science/

P a g e | 12

October 2016

Oct. 11 Research Data Canada, Open Science, Open Data: Lessons from the Montreal Neurological Institute

Open Science, Open Data: Lessons from the Montreal

Neurological Institute

Summary:

The article is from the Research Data Canada, a stakeholder-driven and supported organization

dedicated to improving the management of research data in Canada. It begins by stating the five

principles of OS at The Neuro. “These principles stem from a few areas,” explains Guy Rouleau, the

Neuro’s Director. “We think that by sharing data quickly, we’ll be able to accelerate the discovery of

mechanisms and eventually new medicines.’”

Vivane Poupon, the institute’s director of partnerships and strategic initiatives explains the initiative was

an attempt to diminish the ~95% failure rate of drug candidates. Rouleau goes further to clarify “open”

as “meaningfully available” with infrastructure supporting the use of huge amounts of data. The BIC,

CBRAIN and LORIS are mentioned as ways of distributing and organizing the massive amount of data

produced by the MNI.

“Finally, for Research Data Canada, the Neuro, and the implemented systems and best practices

highlight what a research organization can do when it embraces a deliberate and sustainable approach

to research data management. The Neuro has taken a leadership role in the Open Data/Open Science

community by announcing a 5-year period where they will abide by an Open approach and share all

their research outputs. When combined with the recent announcement of an $84 million CFREF grant

for the Neuro, the next 5 years should indeed prove interesting.

https://www.rdc-drc.ca/open-science-open-data-lessons-from-the-montreal-neurological-institute/?utm_source=hootsuitetwitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=regularposts

P a g e | 13

This public commitment is a model for all publicly-funded research organizations in Canada and should

be emulated by more labs, especially those where the benefits for society are substantial. We hear

about efforts to share data openly when public health emergencies like Zika emerge, but imagine how

far research and discovery would advance if all research domains took a similar approach…Surely much

farther than we see with the current 350-year old model of knowledge dissemination.”

Oct. 27 TedX Toronto (Youtube), Why biomedical philanthropy supports redundant science

Summary:

Aled Edwards is the founding CEO of the Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC), a U.K.-based charitable

company that carries out open-source research to support the discovery of new medicines, with support

from the public and private sectors. He discusses the need of prioritizing the share of data for the

advancement of biological sciences.

November 2016

Nov. 1 Neuron – part of issue devoted to Global Neuroscience

Article on Brain Canada: One Brain One Community

By Inez Jabalpurwala

Biomed Central, Publishing better science through better data

Publishing better science through better data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtp7R97jz5k

http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(16)30799-1

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2016/11/01/publishing-better-science-better-data/

P a g e | 14

Summary:

Biomed Central is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher with a large portfolio of peer-

reviewed open access journals. The article is written by Andrew Cosgrove, senior editor at Genome

Biology.

It was his summary of a conference he attended called Publishing Better Science Through Better Data at

the Wellcome Collection. Among the presenters was Guy Rouleau, who focused on OS at the MNI. “The

talk that perhaps generated the most interest was from Guy Rouleau, describing the efforts of the

Montreal Neurological Institute at McGill University to become the first large department to become

completely open (as far as he is aware),” he writes. “This entails all patients being asked to sign on

admission consent forms for data release, a biobank for samples available to researchers on request,

and the department not pursuing intellectual property rights on any discoveries made. This move was

voted for unanimously by the faculty, and will be monitored for effectiveness as it goes along.”

See Social Media section for positive reaction to this.

Nov. 18 Globe and Mail, OpEd by Richard Gold, In the Trump era, Canada can be a beacon for innovators

In the Trump era, Canada can be a beacon for innovators Summary:

This is an OpEd in the Globe and Mail by Richard Gold, shortly after the U.S. presidential election. He

argues that as the U.S. becomes a more closed society, Canada is presented with a great opportunity to

become a powerhouse for research and scientific discovery. To take advantage, Canada must foster an

open and accessible environment where immigrants can come to conduct research and data is freely

available.

“The good news is that Canadian institutions are willing to experiment,” he writes. “McGill’s Montreal

Neurological Institute took a leap forward by throwing aside the losing proposition that universities

need to spend on patents that go nowhere and that slow down or impede partnerships. What excites

me most about this is that we expect research in neuroscience to generate innovation in another

industry, information technology, where the analytic and visualization software will be developed.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/in-the-trump-era-canada-can-be-a-beacon-for-innovators/article32898581/

P a g e | 15

Nov. 30 Nature jobs, want to embrace open data but don’t know where to start? The tools are out there, says

Matthew Edmonds.

Summary:

The Publishing Better Science through Better Data conference, or #scidata16 for short, took place at the

Welcome Collection in London at the end of October. This one-day event organised by the journal

Scientific Data, Springer Nature and the Welcome Trust explored the challenges facing early-career

researchers as we enter the era of open data.

“In contrast, neuroimaging datasets require huge number-crunching power to provide outputs relevant

to whole networks of neurons, even up to the level of the whole brain. Individual researchers often

don’t have the required computing power at their disposal at their institutions, or must wait their turn

to use them. This bottleneck inspired the Montréal Neurological Institute to create resources open to

anyone.”

http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2016/11/30/opening-doors-to-open-data-at-scidata16/

http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2016/11/30/opening-doors-to-open-data-at-scidata16/

P a g e | 16

December 2016

Dec. 7 PLOS Biology: Accelerating Translational Research through Open Science: The Neuro Experiment

Article by Richard Gold

Translational research is often afflicted by a fundamental problem: a limited understanding of disease

mechanisms prevents effective targeting of new treatments. Seeking to accelerate research advances

and reimagine its role in the community, the Montreal Neurological Institute (Neuro) announced in the

spring of 2016 that it is launching a five-year experiment during which it will adopt Open Science—open

data, open materials, and no patenting—across the institution. The experiment seeks to examine two

hypotheses. The first is whether the Neuro’s Open Science initiative will attract new private partners.

The second hypothesis is that the Neuro’s institution-based approach will draw companies to the

Montreal region, where the Neuro is based, leading to the creation of a local knowledge hub. This article

explores why these hypotheses are likely to be true and describes the Neuro’s approach to exploring

them.

Dec. 9 CBCNews, the patent trap? Open science advocates want CRISPR technology to be free

Summary:

CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) is a revolutionary gene editing tool

that allows scientists to edit DNA with unparalleled ease and precision. Two prominent public

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/crispr-gene-editing-technology-patent-1.3888259?cmp=rss

P a g e | 17

institutions — MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute and University of California Berkeley — are locked in a

legal cage match, fighting to privatize CRISPR.

If it were up to Aled Edwards at the University of Toronto, that's what would happen. Watching the

CRISPR fight from Toronto, Edwards just shakes his head.

At the Montreal Neurological Institute at McGill University, they're also giving their science away.

Also featured in:

MyInforms, THE PATENT TRAP? OPEN SCIENCE ADVOCATES WANT CRISPR TECHNOLOGY TO BE

FREE

Nature World News, Gene-Editing Technology for Free? MIT, Harvard, UC in Heated Debate to

Privatize CRISPR.

http://myinforms.com/en-ca/a/44977227-the-patent-trap-open-science-advocates-want-crispr-technology-to-be-free/


http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/33830/20161212/crispr-crispr-cas9-gene-editing-open-science-genetics.htm

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/33830/20161212/crispr-crispr-cas9-gene-editing-open-science-genetics.htm

P a g e | 18

Announcement and Post Announcement Media Coverage

December 16 - Gift to establish Tanenbaum Institute of Open Science

MONTREAL NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE RECEIVES $20M FOR OPEN SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTRE

CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-neurological-institute-donation-open-science-

1.3901055

DON DE 20 MILLIONS À L'INSTITUT NEUROLOGIQUE DE MONTRÉAL

La Presse

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/sante/201612/16/01-5052049-don-de-20-millions-a-linstitut-

neurologique-de-montreal.php

COULD THE BEST WAY TO MAKE MONEY FROM SCIENCE BE TO GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE?

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/dec/16/could-the-best-way-to-make-

money-from-science-be-to-give-it-away-for-free

UN ACTIONNAIRE DES MAPLE LEAFS DONNE 20 M$ AU NEURO DE MONTRÉAL

Radio-Canada

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1006390/tanenbaum-actionnaire-leafs-toronto-don-20-millions-

neuro-montreal-institut-neurosciences

SCIENCES - FENÊTRE SUR LE CERVEAU | LES MÉGADONNÉES SONT À L’ORIGINE D’UNE NOUVELLE

RÉVOLUTION EN NEUROSCIENCES

Le Devoir

http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/science-et-technologie/487334/fenetre-sur-le-cerveau

MCGILL NEUROLOGY WILL NO LONGER PATENT RESEARCHERS' FINDINGS, INSTEAD EVERYTHING WILL

BE OPEN ACCESS

BoingBoing

http://boingboing.net/2016/12/17/mcgill-neurology-will-no-longe.html

DON DE 20 MILLIONS $ À L'INSTITUT NEUROLOGIQUE DE MONTRÉAL

TVA / Journal de Montréal

http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2016/12/16/don-de-20-millions--a-linstitut-neurologique-de-montreal

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/12/16/maladies-neurologiques-don-de-20-millions--a-

linstitut-neurologique-de-montreal

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-neurological-institute-donation-open-science-1.3901055


http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/sante/201612/16/01-5052049-don-de-20-millions-a-linstitut-neurologique-de-montreal.php


https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/dec/16/could-the-best-way-to-make-money-from-science-be-to-give-it-away-for-free


http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1006390/tanenbaum-actionnaire-leafs-toronto-don-20-millions-neuro-montreal-institut-neurosciences




http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2016/12/16/don-de-20-millions--a-linstitut-neurologique-de-montreal

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/12/16/maladies-neurologiques-don-de-20-millions--a-linstitut-neurologique-de-montreal


P a g e | 19

McGill Reporter/McGill Alumni News

Ushering in a bold new era for open science

http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2016/12/a-bold-new-era-for-open-science/

[Daniel McCabe/McGill]

Video (Youtube) Open Science – Science re-imagined

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X0kNwo9Hp8

Dec. 17 SCIENCES - FENÊTRE SUR LE CERVEAU | LES MÉGADONNÉES SONT À L’ORIGINE D’UNE NOUVELLE

RÉVOLUTION EN NEUROSCIENCES

Le Devoir


Dec. 19 Radio Canada

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/gravel_le_matin/2016-

2017/archives.asp?date=2016/12/19&indTime=2535&idmedia=7651160

Globe and Mail

ANDRÉ PICARD: IN MONTREAL, A WEE OPENING IN THE CLOSED WORLD OF SCIENCE RESEARCH

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/in-montreal-a-wee-opening-in-the-closed-world-of-science-

research/article33372907/

Needless to say, there will be a study to determine if the Open Science approach is effective. Research,

led by Richard Gold, a professor of law and human genetics at McGill University, will test two

hypotheses: 1) Will the Open Science initiative attract new private partners to invest in The Neuro? 2)

Will the Open Science approach draw companies to the Montreal area and lead to the creation of a local

“knowledge hub”?

Dec. 21 AROUND THE WEB: CELEBRATING THE TANENBAUM OPEN SCIENCE INSTITUTE AT THE MONTREAL

NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE AND HOSPITAL Science Blogs

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2016/12/21/around-the-web-celebrating-the-tanenbaum-open-

science-institute-at-the-montreal-neurological-institute-and-hospital/

http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2016/12/a-bold-new-era-for-open-science/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X0kNwo9Hp8


http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/gravel_le_matin/2016-2017/archives.asp?date=2016/12/19&indTime=2535&idmedia=7651160

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/gravel_le_matin/2016-2017/archives.asp?date=2016/12/19&indTime=2535&idmedia=7651160

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/in-montreal-a-wee-opening-in-the-closed-world-of-science-research/article33372907/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/in-montreal-a-wee-opening-in-the-closed-world-of-science-research/article33372907/

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2016/12/21/around-the-web-celebrating-the-tanenbaum-open-science-institute-at-the-montreal-neurological-institute-and-hospital/

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2016/12/21/around-the-web-celebrating-the-tanenbaum-open-science-institute-at-the-montreal-neurological-institute-and-hospital/

P a g e | 20

Announcement Coverage – Articles

CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-neurological-institute-donation-open-science-

1.3901055

Montreal Neurological Institute receives $20M for open science research centre - New centre will

keep research on neurological diseases patent-free, make findings freely accessible worldwide

Posted: Dec 16, 2016 8:54 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 16, 2016 8:54 PM ET

The Montreal Neurological Institute is hoping to change the way discoveries are made with the help of a

multi-million dollar donation. Larry Tanenbaum and his wife Judy are giving $20 million to create the

Tanenbaum Open Science Institute, which will collect and make available research on neurological

diseases. The official announcement was made Friday in conjunction with McGill University, which is

affiliated with the institute, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Modeled after the idea of open source software, the institute will also keep the research patent-free

and make its findings freely accessible worldwide. The approach is meant to speed up the time it takes

for research to translate into treatment for patients. "Our goal is simple: to accelerate brain research

and discovery to relieve suffering," said Tanenbaum. Tanenbaum, a Canadian businessman and

chairman of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, sad many of his loved ones suffered from

neurological disorders.

"I lost my mother to Alzheimer's, my father to a stroke, three dear friends to brain cancer, and a brilliant

friend and scientist to clinical depression," said Tanenbaum.

He hopes the institute will serve as the template for science research across the world, a thought that

Trudeau echoed. "This vision around open science, recognizing the role that Canada can and should

play, the leadership that Canadians can have in this initiative is truly, truly exciting," said Trudeau.

The Neurological Institute says the pharmaceutical industry is supportive of the open science concept

because it will provide crucial base research that can later be used to develop drugs to fight an array of

neurological conditions.



P a g e | 21

La Presse http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/sante/201612/16/01-5052049-don-de-20-millions-a-linstitut-

neurologique-de-montreal.php

Publié le 16 décembre 2016 à 13h41 | Mis à jour le 17 décembre 2016 à 11h46

Don de 20 millions à l'Institut neurologique de Montréal

Le premier ministre du Canada Justin Trudeau était présent à l'annonce aux côtés de Larry Tanenbaum.

PHOTO RYAN REMIORZ, LA PRESSE CANADIENNE

PHILIPPE TEISCEIRA-LESSARD

La Presse

Suivre

Résumé :

Le grand patron des Maple Leafs, des Raptors et des Argonauts de Toronto a réussi une échappée en

zone adverse, hier, en donnant 20 millions de dollars à l'Institut neurologique de Montréal. Selon le

milliardaire Larry Tanenbaum, il s'agissait de la meilleure institution pour faire avancer la recherche sur

les maladies du cerveau.

The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/dec/16/could-the-best-way-to-make-

money-from-science-be-to-give-it-away-for-free

Could the best way to make money from science be to give it away for free?

By Jack Stilgoe

The normal approach to science may be bad for science and bad for the economy

Friday 16 December 2016 18.16 GMT

Summary:

With the help of Tanenbaum’s gift of 20 million Canadian dollars (£12million) the ‘Neuro’, the Montreal

Neurological Institute and Hospital, is setting up an experiment in experimentation, an Open Science

Initiative with the express purpose of finding out the best way to realise the potential of scientific

research.

It is hard to be against ‘open science’. Openness – the public sharing and challenging of knowledge – is

held up as one of the foundational ideals of science. During the cold war, Niels Bohr was not alone in

arguing that this principle should apply to politics too: ‘The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but

the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness’. For much of its history, science

has been ahead of the curve when it comes to openness. However, as access to online information has

exploded, scientific research, much of which is hidden behind paywalls, looked like a closed shop.



https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=004348325735519040616:xugxk9rp5mm&q=Philippe+Teisceira-Lessard

https://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lapresse.ca%2Factualites%2Fsante%2F201612%2F16%2F01-5052049-don-de-20-millions-a-linstitut-neurologique-de-montreal.php&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&region=follow_link&screen_name=Philippetei&tw_p=followbutton





P a g e | 22

Radio Canada http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1006390/tanenbaum-actionnaire-leafs-toronto-don-20-millions-

neuro-montreal-institut-neurosciences

Un actionnaire des Maple Leafs donne 20 M$ au Neuro de Montréal

PUBLIÉ LE VENDREDI 16 DÉCEMBRE 2016 À 15 H 00 | Mis à jour le 16 décembre 2016 à 20 h 07

Résumé :

La générosité d'un actionnaire minoritaire des Maple Leafs de Toronto permettra à l'Institut et hôpital

neurologiques de Montréal, le Neuro, d'accélérer les découvertes en neurosciences et de stimuler le

partage de données dans ce domaine.

La famille Larry et Judy Tanenbaum a annoncé vendredi qu’elle donne 20 millions de dollars à cet

établissement lié à l’Université McGill pour mettre sur pied l’Institut de sciences ouvertes Tanenbaum. Il

s'agit d'une des contributions financières les plus importantes de l'histoire de McGill.

L’annonce a été officialisée en début d’après-midi, à Montréal, en présence du premier ministre Justin

Trudeau, qui dit partager cette « vision ambitieuse et audacieuse », même si le gouvernement fédéral

ne contribuera pas directement au projet. Le nouvel institut « facilitera le partage de données en

neurosciences à travers le monde afin d’accélérer les découvertes d’agents thérapeutiques de pointe

pour traiter les patients qui souffrent de maladies neurologiques », mentionne l’Université dans un

communiqué.

Le Devoir http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/science-et-technologie/487334/fenetre-sur-le-cerveau

Fenêtre sur le cerveau

Les mégadonnées sont à l’origine d’une nouvelle révolution en neurosciences

17 décembre 2016 |Pauline Gravel | Science et technologie

Photo: Institut et hôpital neurologiques de Montréal

Les chercheurs tentent de découvrir comment un cerveau sain se développe et comment il se

transforme quand apparaît une maladie.

Résumé :

Alors que les mégadonnées accumulées au cours des dernières années commencent à révéler leurs

multiples secrets grâce à l’expertise de mathématiciens et d’informaticiens, ainsi qu’à la puissance de

calcul des réseaux de superordinateurs du pays et d’ailleurs, une nouvelle révolution pointe dans la

recherche sur le cerveau. Et ce, grâce également à la mise en libre accès de ces mégadonnées et des

outils mis au point pour les analyser.




http://www.ledevoir.com/auteur/pauline-gravel

http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/science-et-technologie

P a g e | 23

BOINGBOING http://boingboing.net/2016/12/17/mcgill-neurology-will-no-longe.html

McGill Neurology will no longer patent researchers' findings, instead everything will be open access

The Neurological Institute at Montreal's McGill University is host to the "Tanenbaum Open Science

Institute," endowed by a $20M contribution; since last spring, the unit has pursued an ambitious open

science agenda that includes open access publication of all research data and findings, and an end to the

practice of patenting the university's findings. Instead, they will all be patent-free and usable by anyone.

They see this as a pilot program for open science across disciplines and institutions.

The CBIG-Repository is already partnering with the Quebec Parkinson Network. “That pilot project is the

best example of what we hope to do,” says Karamchandani. “We already have more than 100 patients

[with Parkinson’s disease] who have altruistically agreed to donate to CBIG. Fifty of those patients will

receive high-level imaging and all of this will be anonymous, de-identified and placed on a secure server

where researchers with an ethically valid and scientifically valid question can access the elements of the

data that they require to answer their research questions.”

Tanenbaum hopes that the Neuro’s open science practices won’t be a one-way street. “One of the first

challenges is to get other institutions that are dealing with neurological research and brain disease to

open up their science, too. That’s why part of my gift is a challenge fund to encourage other institutions

to do this.” The Neuro expects its open science policies will spur new partnerships with other

organizations and companies that are trying to develop treatments for brain diseases. Patents can get in

the way of these sorts of collaborations.

In a recent piece published in the journal PLOS Biology, McGill law professor Richard Gold, BSc’84, wrote

that the Neuro hopes its approach to open science “will draw companies to the Montreal region, where

the Neuro is based, leading to the creation of a local knowledge hub.” Gold, an expert on intellectual

property issues who has been serving as an open science adviser to the Neuro, added that the plan was

already bearing fruit – Thermo Fisher Scientific, a multinational biotech firm interested in

neurodegenerative diseases, will be partnering with the Neuro.


P a g e | 24

Journal de Montréal

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/12/16/maladies-neurologiques-don-de-20-millions--a-

linstitut-neurologique-de-montreal

Maladies neurologiques: don de 20 millions $ à l'Institut neurologique de Montréal

MONTRÉAL – L’Institut et hôpital neurologiques de Montréal (INM) a annoncé vendredi un don de 20

millions $ de la famille de l’homme d’affaires torontois Larry Tanenbaum.

Ce don à l’INM permettra de faciliter le partage de données en neurosciences à travers le monde, et ce,

afin d’accélérer les découvertes d’agents thérapeutiques de pointe pour traiter les patients qui souffrent

de maladies neurologiques.

«Aujourd’hui, nous prenons un premier pas important pour ouvrir de nouveaux horizons en matière de

recherche et de découvertes en neurosciences», a déclaré Larry Tanenbaum, grand patron de Maple

Leaf Sports & Entertainment, propriétaire des Maple Leafs, des Raptors et du Toronto FC, notamment.

Le premier ministre Justin Trudeau était présent au moment de l’annonce vendredi.

Selon l’INM, les maladies neurologiques et mentales, les dépendances et les lésions médullaires et

cérébrales affectent directement un Canadien sur trois.

«Une partie du don de la famille Tanenbaum servira à encourager d’autres chercheurs et établissements

canadiens à adopter un modèle de science ouverte, renforçant ainsi le réseau d’instituts œuvrant dans

ce domaine qui partagent la même vision», a déclaré le Dr Guy Rouleau, directeur de l’Institut et hôpital

neurologiques de Montréal et président du département de neurologie et de neurochirurgie de

l’Université McGill.



P a g e | 25

Newspaper Ads

GLOBE AND MAIL, December 17, 2016

P a g e | 26

LA PRESSE, 17 décembre 2016

P a g e | 27

Social Media Reaction to Science Article:

Facebook:

Posts of the article on both Science and The Neuro’s Facebook account

Original post from Science:

Total number of likes: 1635

Total number of shares: 412

Posting of the article on The Neuro’s Facebook:

P a g e | 28

This post has performed better than any other content posted on The Neuro’s Facebook page in the

past 12 months (as measured by the number of shares, comments and likes).

Twitter:

Original Science post:

Total number of likes: 104

Total number of retweets: 96

The news quickly started a dialogue on social media. The Neuro’s account was addressed in over 100

comments which were overwhelmingly positive and congratulatory in nature.

(In depth statistics to come)

P a g e | 29

P a g e | 30

Reaction to Nature Article:

Altmetric scores:

Twitter Reaction:

Our original post gained 7521 impressions, more than any other in the previous 91 days. Reaction on

Twitter was almost completely positive and came from many high-profile people in the world of science:

P a g e | 31

P a g e | 32

Wellcome Collection lecture by Guy Rouleau October 26, 2016

Bringing Open Science to the Montreal Neurological Institute October 26, 2016

The lecture by Guy Rouleau at the conference Publishing Better Science Through Better Data at the

Wellcome Collection generated a lot of positive feedback on Twitter:

Social Media Reaction

a lot

P a g e | 33

P a g e | 34

P a g e | 35

P a g e | 36

P a g e | 37

CBC Friday December 9, 2016


http://myinforms.com/en-ca/a/44977227-the-patent-trap-open-science-advocates-want-crispr-

technology-to-be-free/




P a g e | 38

Reaction of December 16 announcement

December 16, 2016 (#OpenScience top trending topic across Canada):

https://twitter.com/trendinaliaCA/status/809840486164754432

Trendinalia Canada on Twitter twitter.com

“⒈ #OpenScience ⒉ #FridayFeeling ⒊

#NationalUglySweaterDay ⒋ Jhonas Enroth ⒌

#DecorateAFilm 2016/12/16 13:15 CST

https://t.co/SHjd3tkINE”

Top tweets:

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/809871181381832704

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/809870877277978624

https://twitter.com/McGillU/status/809830527809241088

https://twitter.com/CanadianPM/status/809853678010200064

https://twitter.com/TheNeuro_MNI/status/809828174368567300



http://twitter.com/

https://t.co/SHjd3tkINE


P a g e | 39

Neuro Facebook Posts (selected)

P a g e | 40

P a g e | 41

January 2017

Jan 7 The Globe and Mail TO SPARK MEDICAL INNOVATION, CANADA SHOULD EMBRACE OPEN SCIENCE (Op-ed by Aled Edwards is founding and current CEO of the Structural Genomics Consortium, professor at the University of Toronto and visiting professor at the University of Oxford) « McGill University’s Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital is the first to attempt this bold experiment, and it has already attracted well over $100-million in federal, provincial and philanthropic donations as a result. More significantly, it has entered into multiple agreements with leading biomedical firms. The Institute and Hospital is betting Open Science means open for business. And my money is betting they’re right. Even if I’m wrong, they deserve all praise for trying. That’s what real innovators do. » http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/to-spark-medical-innovation-canada-should-embrace-open-science/article33533010/

Also featured in Technology and Doctors

Jan 11 McGill Tribune

$20 million donated to the Montreal Neurological Institute

On Dec. 16, the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) received a donation of $20 million from Larry

Tanenbaum, the chairman of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. The MNI is the largest specialized

neuroscience research centre in Canada and, as part of McGill’s Faculty of Medicine, offers students a

variety of research opportunities. The $20 million will sponsor the creation of an affiliated institute: The

Tanenbaum Open Science Institute.

Jan 12 CTV Montreal

A better way to do science

Guy Rouleau, director of the MNI, was on CTV with Mutsumi Takahashi speaking about our institute's

new Open Science Initiative.

Jan 20 Biomed Central- Genome Biology

Open Science at an institutional level: an interview with Guy Rouleau

The director of the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI), Guy Rouleau, discusses the recent

announcement that the MNI will be completely committed to open science.

Jan 22 The Varsity (UofT)

Open science may open doors for Canadian research

Scientists ponder functionality of open science approach in the wake of Tanenbaum Open Science Institute announcement.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/to-spark-medical-innovation-canada-should-embrace-open-science/article33533010/



http://www.canhealth.com/technology-for-doctors/stimulate-medical-innovation-with-open-science/

http://www.mcgilltribune.com/news/20-million-donated-to-the-montreal-neurological-institute-123321/

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.3237044

http://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-017-1152-z

http://thevarsity.ca/2017/01/22/open-science-may-open-doors-for-canadian-research/

P a g e | 42

February 2017

February 17 An Experiment in Open Science – Jump Starting Neurological Research and New Models of

Collaboration. Presentations by Guy Rouleau and Richard Gold at the AAAS Annual Meeting in Boston

March 2017

March 16 Neuro-CDRD –Merck Partnership Announcement: Health Science Leaders Join Forces to Accelerate

Development of Treatments for Neurological Diseases

http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/channels/news/health-science-leaders-join-forces-accelerate-

development-treatments-neurological-diseases-267104

March 17 EurekAlert!, March 17, New partnership to accelerate development of treatments for neurological

diseases

The NeuroCDRD is a new partnership to advance therapeutics for debilitating diseases like ALS and

Parkinson’s. The initiative is led by the Centre for Drug Research and Development, the Montreal

Neurological Institute, and Merck. "The burden of neurological diseases and injuries on society is

growing each year, and as a physician I see the impact on patients and families every day. At the

Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, our mission is to drive forward innovation, discovery and

advance patient care. We are grateful to CDRD and Merck for developing this partnership and sharing

this goal with us," said Dr. Guy Rouleau, Director of the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital.

Also in: Biotechnology Focus

March 19 Agence Science-Presse, le 19 mars, Fausses nouvelles, science ouverte : changement de culture

[entrevue / émission de radio]

L’institut neurologique de Montréal est le premier établissement au monde qui ouvrira un centre

dévoué à la science ouverte. Guy Rouleau, directeur de l’Institut et hôpital neurologique de Montréal,

est allé présenter une initiative ambitieuse de cinq ans à ses confrères américains : devenir plus

transparent et plus ouvert.

http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/channels/news/health-science-leaders-join-forces-accelerate-development-treatments-neurological-diseases-267104

http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/channels/news/health-science-leaders-join-forces-accelerate-development-treatments-neurological-diseases-267104

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/mu-npt031717.php

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/mu-npt031717.php

http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/baladodiffusion/2017/03/19/fausses-nouvelles-science-ouverte-changement-culture

mcgill university senate report of the …...480h report to senate – part b /april 20th 2017 – d...

Documents