To the editor:

I read with interest David. Burress’ letter of March 6 in response to faculty objections to KU/KSU’s pre-invention assignment agreements. Clearly, the agreements are overreaches as they lay claim to inventions made when a faculty member is neither being paid by the university, nor using any university resources.

Although Mr. Burress notes “fairness,” “incentives,” and “academic freedom,” these issues are beside the point. At the heart of the matter is that the links between faculty and industry are being severed. That the Kansans who are most skilled in implementing the latest theories, computational tools, materials and methods are being prevented from working with Kansas companies is clearly “not in the public interest.” This is evidenced by the fact that not a single so-encumbered faculty member in the department representing the state’s largest manufacturing industry has been contracted for on-site summer work — while their counterparts who were hired before 2008 regularly work for industry when off appointment.  

As for ethics issues, they are not related to the policy itself but to its implementation. Prospective faculty members are not presented with this agreement in any way prior to appointment. Only once they are on campus, have resigned their old jobs and moved their families is the document shown to them. That this practice appears to be directly counter to Kansas Board of Regents, KU and KSU policy, rules and handbook is where the ethics challenge lies. Space constraints prevent a full airing of the issues, so readers are referred to on-line comments for details.