A Letter from The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research

LEADERSHIPSUPPORTSERVICEINTEGRITYINNOVATIONOPPORTUNITYPARTNERSHIPQUALITYENTREPRENEURSHIPOUTREACHETHICSCOMPLIANCEINVENTIONEDUCATIONRESEARCHKNOWLEDGEANNUALREPORT

Letter from theVice Chancellor for ResearchLike any Annual Report, this year’s Summary of Sponsored Research contains retrospectivedata, summary reflections, and forward-looking statements. In a year of continuedeconomic challenge, funding uncertainties, and constant change, we have nonetheless seenan unwavering constant. That constant is the passion and excellence of our faculty, staff,and trainees -- for inquiry, the creation of new knowledge, and the dissemination of thatknowledge for public good. Our position as a leader in research continues to benefit theworld, long after the research is concluded and results published, and our students havebecome alumni.Fiscal year 2011 realized the anticipated waning of the funding “bolus” which was infusedinto the nation’s research enterprise by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009. Washington University’s ARRA funding was $47M in FY11, compared to $105M inthe ARRA apex year of FY10. Nonetheless, total FY11 research funding of nearly $618Mevidenced the overall health and competitiveness of the University research enterprise, andthe strength of our faculty in competing successfully for increasingly sought-after funding.As in previous years, Washington University in FY11 received the majority of its extramuralresearch funding from the federal government. Federal agency support accounted for nearly76% of total research funding. The majority of that support derived from the NationalInstitutes of Health, which provided almost 68% of total University sponsored projectdollars and more than 89% of the federal support.The unwinding of ARRA, which saw a 12% decrease in overall federal research spending,from FY10 to FY11, was mirrored in a 13% decrease in total Washington Universityresearch support. Our faculty, like the American research community, will be challengedgoing forward, to maintain and grow their individual research enterprises. Increasedcompetition for federal research support has and will continue to necessitate greaternumbers of federal research applications by faculty and diversification of funding sources,such as foundations and the private sector. Washington University faculty, who currentlyenjoy greater-than-average success rates in federal funding, have already responded to theserealities. From FY06 to FY11, research funding from private sources grew 63%.

Private providers of research funding, in the form of sponsored laboratory and clinicalresearch grants, and philanthropy, from industry, corporations foundations, and diseaseadvocacy organizations, continue to provide substantial benefit to Washington University.Moreover, industry-sponsored research agreements represent the types of partnerships thatWashington University can forge with the private sector in moving research advancementsthrough development, toward commercialization, and, ultimately, to improve the lives ofpeople all over the world.The overall Washington University goal to “Enhance our global leadership today to benefitthe world tomorrow” took a new direction in FY11, with a University-wide initiative ofInnovation and Entrepreneurship. In March, Chancellor Mark Wrighton provided anaddress to the University community on this theme, and I followed with a presentation onInnovation, Intellectual Property, Commercialization, and Entrepreneurship in Research.These presentations may be viewed on the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research(OVCR) website, at http://research.wustl.edu/Pages/default.aspx. Together we set forth anambitious goal, to expand the University research culture and to enhance the role of WU incommercializable innovation -- creating intellectual property and advancing the fruits ofresearch for the greatest public benefit. The coming year will see the implementation of ourambitious plans to realize these goals.New initiatives have not been limited to the agenda of innovation and entrepreneurship.FY11 saw the debut, and phenomenal success, of a new pilot grant program sponsored bythe OVCR, designed to stimulate and support new collaborative research. Termed theUniversity Research Strategic Alliance (“URSA”, Latin for Bear, the Washington Universitymascot), it requires that applications represent a new collaboration between faculty fromdifferent disciplines working together in a new area of research or approaching a problem inan innovative way. The goal is to promote new collaborations that build on differentscientific and scholarly backgrounds to facilitate breakthroughs in solving challengingresearch questions in a collaborative manner. The program attracted over forty applications,most from teams of investigators from different Washington University Schools. Theapplications were outstanding in their quality and novelty of collaborations, and six werefunded with the resources available. Hopefully many if not all of the new collaborations,funded and unfunded by URSA, will persist and succeed. The URSA Program will returnannually.This Annual Report presents funding and expenditure data and accounts of innovativeresearch and technology from the past year. As we strive to attract the best faculty andstudents, and support them in their research endeavors, next year will entail revising andstrengthening our operational and regulatory infrastructure, establishing and maintainingentrepreneurial partnerships, and supporting and encouraging innovative faculty and alumni,to help guarantee Washington University’s place as a global leader well into the future.Evan D. Kharasch, MD PhDVice Chancellor for Research

Table of ContentsPageSponsored Research FundingSponsored Research Funding Executive Summary ........................................................................ 1Funding History by Sponsor Type .................................................................................................... 9Funding History by School ............................................................................................................... 16Funding by Sponsor .......................................................................................................................... 23Funding by Sponsor and School ...................................................................................................... 28Funding – School of Arts & Sciences Departments ..................................................................... 32Funding – School of Engineering Departments ........................................................................... 34Funding – School of Medicine Departments ................................................................................ 36Technology Management and Intellectual PropertyTechnology Management and Intellectual Property Executive Summary................................. 39Technology Highlights – FY11 ........................................................................................................ 41Bear Cub Fund ................................................................................................................................... 51Invention Disclosures ....................................................................................................................... 53Patent Portfolio .................................................................................................................................. 55Licenses ............................................................................................................................................... 57License Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 59Industry Sponsored Research Agreements by School .................................................................. 61Other Agreements by Department.................................................................................................. 63Material Transfer Agreements by Department .............................................................................. 65Social and Financial Impact .............................................................................................................. 66i

Clinical Trials – Industry SponsoredIndustry Sponsored Clinical Trials Executive Summary .............................................................. 68Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials (School of Medicine) ............................................................ 71Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials (Department of Internal Medicine) .................................... 72New Contracts .................................................................................................................................... 73Sponsored Research ExpenseSponsored Research Expense Executive Summary ...................................................................... 75Expenditures ....................................................................................................................................... 80ii

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingSponsored Research FundingExecutive SummaryThe Washington University in St. Louis (WU) research program had another successful year infiscal year 2011 (FY11), receiving $617.7M of sponsored research awards. This amount offunding continues to demonstrate the strength of the WU research program and facultyengaged in research, a particularly successful achievement in light of a struggling nationaleconomy, intense scrutiny of government spending, and the end of the American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.Funding HistoryFunding growth over five years (FY06-FY11) was a healthy 13.2%, largely due to the boom yearof FY10, which was also the peak year for ARRA funding. As expected, the ARRA awardsdropped in FY11 since most agencies completed awarding their ARRA funds in FY10. Asexplained later in this Executive Summary, ARRA was a one-time, unique occurrence in theresearch funding environment that all academic institutions experienced. WU certainlybenefited from this unusual funding opportunity, but ARRA funding decreased as expected,from $105M in FY10 to $47.4M in FY11 (54.9%). More importantly, however, WU facultymanaged to soften the effect of the ending of ARRA funding by acquiring $570.3M of non-ARRA funding, so that total funding in FY11 ($617.7M) decreased from FY10 ($706.3M) bymuch less (12.6%) than expected. Removing the ARRA funds from the total funding picturefor the sake of comparative analysis, the total funding in FY11 was 5.2% less than FY10, butgrew 1.2% over two years and 4.4% over five years.Total ($M)GrowthTotal (withARRA)Total (w/outARRA)FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 5-yr 4-yr 2-yr 1-yr546 537 548 567 706 618 13.2% 15.1% 9.0% -12.6%546 537 548 563 601 570 4.4% 6.1% 1.2% -5.2%The percentages of funding per major sponsor type related to total funding of $617.7M weresimilar or the same as for the prior year. Federal support accounted for 75.8% of total funding;state, local, and international for 4.2%; and private for 20.1%.Federal Agency FundingFederal agency support at $468M is by far the leading source of research award dollars for theUniversity, accounting for 75.8% of the total ($617.7M) for FY11. Federal dollars in FY11accounted for the same percentage of the total in FY10, a sign that University faculty remainedcompetitive for important federal support, particularly from the National Institutes of Health(NIH). The decrease in total federal funding dollars (12.5%) closely mirrors that of the totalfunding decrease (12.6%).1

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingThe amount of federal direct costs received decreased by about $54M (13.6%) in FY11, andfederal Facilities & Administrative (F&A) costs received decreased by $13.0M (9.4%). For moredetails on direct and F&A costs, see Tables 5 through 6A on pages 25 through 27, and theSponsored Projects Expense section of this report.Key Federal Research SponsorsThe number one federal sponsor of University research is the NIH. Its total awardobligation of $418.1M to WU (13.5% less than the previous fiscal year) represents 67.7%of WU’s total sponsored project funding and 89.3% of itsfederal dollars. NIH was also the primary contributor ofARRA funding in the amount of $42.6M, which accountedfor 89.9% of total ARRA funding, 10.2% of total NIHdollars, and 6.9% of total funding to WU in FY11. NIHARRA funding to WU saw a 53.9% decrease from FY10 toFY11, correlating with the decrease in total ARRA funding(54.9%).School of Medicine NIH award dollars in FY11 ($390.5M)decreased by $57.1M (12.8%) compared to FY10($447.6M). The decrease in NIH funding to the School ofMedicine ($57.1M) was 87.3% of the total NIH decrease ofNIH is the primarycontributor of both totalfunding and ARRAfunding to the University.Subsequently, all Schoolsreceiving NIH fundingsaw decreases in supportfrom that federal agencyin FY11compared toFY10.$65.4M, 85.2% of the total federal dollar decrease of $67M, and 64.9% of the total fundingdecrease for the University ($88M). The Medical School and University continue to becompetitive for NIH dollars, however. The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research(BRIMR) ranks WU fourth among medical schools for NIH funding provided during thegovernment’s FY2011. 1Total NIH dollars awarded to the School of Engineering in FY11 ($9.7M) decreased by19.2% from the previous year. NIH award dollars in FY11 to the George Warren BrownSchool of Social Work decreased by $3.5M (32.7%), bringing it to just above the FY09funding level. Arts & Sciences experienced a similar decline to that of FY10, receiving 17.5%fewer NIH dollars in FY11.The National Science Foundation (NSF) remains the second largest contributor of federaldollars to University research with obligations of $14.8M for FY11, a 36.8% decrease fromthe prior year. The University received no ARRA funding directly from NSF in FY11. TheSchools of Arts & Sciences and Engineering typically receive the majority of NSF funding toWU. Engineering received $6.2M (a decrease of 17.3% from FY10), and Arts & Sciencesreceived $6.8M (a decrease of 49.3% from FY10). As with prior years, increases anddecreases in Arts & Sciences are due not from the loss or gain of one single grant butmultiple grants spread across the departments within the School. NSF funding to the Schoolof Medicine decreased by $483,000 (a decrease of 22.7% compared to the prior year). TheSchool of Social Work, which typically receives little or no funding from NSF each year,received no funding from NSF in FY11.1 The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR). www.brimr.org.2

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingDepartment of Energy (DOE) total funding to WU decreased 13.8% ($1.3M) from FY10($9.5M) to FY11 ($8.1M). The International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy andSustainability (I-CARES) received a DOE grant for nearly $1.5M in FY11.Tables 6 and 6A (page 26 and 27) list the different sponsoring agencies with dollar volumeand change from FY10 to FY11. Tables 7 and 7A (pages 28 and 29) further break outagency funding by School.Award data are often affected by unusual events such as large, multi-year private awards inwhich all funds are provided at the beginning of the project. Though the work on these projectsis spread over the course of several years, the amount of the total award is registered entirely inone year. For that reason, annual award levels may vary significantly year to year and do notnecessarily reflect the amount of funding available for use in any given fiscal year. In addition,the receipt or completion of a single significant award may have a dramatic affect on percentagesshown in this report. The award data picture over the last two years has been uniquely affectedby the one-time implementation of the ARRA program.American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA)The ARRA program enacted in 2009 provided WU and other institutions a unique andpositive opportunity to conduct research on certain eligible programs in a short-two yearwindow. This national reinvestment program was designed to help the U.S. economyrecover from a deep recession by funding programs that would sustain or create new jobs.As a result of this program, WU faculty benefited significantly from the new and additionalfunds supporting their research. Through FY11, WU received more than $157M in stimulusfunding provided by the federal government under ARRA. In FY11, $47.4M in ARRAfunding was received by WU, a 54.9% decrease from the peak year of FY10. After aremarkable FY10, wherein already-healthy research funding levels were supplemented bymore than $105M in ARRA obligations, the federal government’s spending under thestimulus program slowed.Three factors are important to remember when comparing ARRA funding in FY11 to FY10.• Activity peaked in the first full year of ARRA funding, FY10 ($105M), as expected dueto the U.S. government’s stipulation that funds be distributed and expended within anarrow window of time. ARRA dollars received during FY11 were largely those awardedto new proposals for stimulus funding, whereas in FY10, ARRA funding came not onlyfrom new proposals but also supplements to existing awards and proposals thatpreviously had been declined due to lack of money rather than lack of worthiness.• Although ARRA funding was originally provided by federal agencies, in FY10 and FY11the University also benefited from funding that originally went to other institutions andagencies. Stimulus funding was received from local and state governments, internationalorganizations, and private donors as a result of their receiving federal ARRA funds andpassing them through to the University.3

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research Funding• All universities that received ARRA funding will see a similar peak-and-valley picture oftheir research funds as the ARRA program comes to a close.The table below shows the stimulus dollars received each year since the reinvestment andrecovery program began in FY09. The total of $47.4M in ARRA funding for FY11represents 7.7% of total sponsored research funding to WU ($617.7M).ARRA (000s)Sponsor TypeFY09 FY10 FY11Federal $4,730 $98,530 $43,130State/Local/Int'l 0 2,344 1,065Private 0 4,159 3,188TOTAL $4,730 $105,033 $47,383Private Sources: Industry and Non-Profit Sponsor SupportWU has experienced a trend of increased funding from private (industry and non-profit)sources, playing an important role in filling the gap left by declining federal support. Growth inthis sector reached 63.2% over a five-year-period, and increased 11.7% from FY09. Whilefunding from FY10 to FY11 declined 15.7%, part of the decrease can be attributed to a lack oflarge, multi-year grants from non-profits and industry, which also experienced a negative effectfrom the U.S. economic troubles. Industry funding of $19.3M was 24.3% ($6.2M) less than inFY10, and non-profit funding of $104.6M was 13.5% ($16.4M) less than in FY10.Federal ARRA dollars flowing through non-federal sources to WU had a negligible influence onprivate sources, accounting for just 2.6% of the total private funding received in FY11(compared to 14.9% in FY10).The School of Medicine received three notable grants totaling more than $17M in FY11, fromnon-profit entities. Of note also are two contracts totaling nearly $7M from industry sponsors tothe School of Medicine.The School of Arts & Sciences received a $1M award from a corporate foundation, and an$800,000 award from a not-for-profit institute.The Effect of ARRAARRA was an historic infusion of funding into research institution programs. Its effect onfunding cannot be emphasized enough when discussing the total sponsored research funding formultiple fiscal years. The importance of the ARRA funding era is particularly evident whenviewing federal funding levels across fiscal years 2006 through 2011.4

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingAs the table and figure below show, ARRA greatly enhances the picture of federal fundinggrowth over several years. Although the University showed overall growth in total federalresearch funding from FY06 to FY11 (3.5%) and from FY09 to FY11 (7.1%), those figuresinclude ARRA funding. Without stimulus dollars, as the second line in the table below shows,federal funding for FY06 to FY11 would have decreased by 6.0%, and decreased by 1.8% for theperiod FY09 to FY11.Federal(with ARRA)Federal(w/out ARRA)Total ($M)GrowthFY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 5-yr 4-yr 2-yr452 444 440 437 535 468 3.5% 5.4% 7.1%452 444 440 433 437 425 -6.0% -4.3% -1.8%The following graph clearly shows the peak for ARRA in FY10. Funding provided by ARRA inFY10 accounted for 18.4% of federal funding to WU. If no ARRA funding had been received,federal funding would have been flat over the last six years.600Federal FundingARRA Rec'd inFY09-FY11Dollars ($M)5004003002001000FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11If No ARRA Rec'din FY09-FY11ARRA rec’d:7.1% FY09-FY115.4% FY07-FY113.5% FY06-FY11No ARRA rec’d:-1.8% FY09-FY11-4.3% FY07-FY11-6.0% FY06-FY11While ARRA funding received directly from federal agencies decreased 56.2% from FY10($98.5M) to FY11 ($43.1M), total federal funding decreased by a much lesser degree – 12.5%($468.0M in FY11 versus $535.0M in FY10) – and when discounting ARRA dollars altogether,federal funding in FY11 at $424.9M decreased by an even lesser amount – 2.7% – from FY10($436.5M).5

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingThe effect on total funding by ARRA directly correlates with that on federal funding. Totalfunding decreased 12.6% and federal funding decreased 12.5% from the prior year. Whenfunding is examined without taking ARRA dollars into account, it becomes clear that theUniversity remained competitive in total funding. While total ARRA funding decreased 54.9%from FY10 to FY11, and direct federal ARRA funding decreased 56.2%, total research funding at$617.6M decreased from FY10 ($706.3M) by a lesser degree – 12.6% ($88.6M) – and whendiscounting ARRA dollars altogether, total funding at $570.3M decreased by an even lesseramount – 5.2% ($31.0M) – from FY10 ($601.3M).Although the University showed overall growth in total research funding from FY06 to FY11(13.2%) and from FY09 to FY11 (9.0%), those figures include ARRA funding. Withoutstimulus dollars, funding for FY06 to FY11 would have increased by 4.4%, and increased by1.2% for the period FY09 to FY11.Total ($M)GrowthTotal (withARRA)Total (w/outARRA)FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 5-yr 4-yr 2-yr 1-yr546 537 548 567 706 618 13.2% 15.1% 9.0% -12.5%546 537 548 563 601 570 4.4% 6.1% 1.2% -5.2%800700600Total FundingARRA Rec'd inFY09-FY11If No ARRA Rec'din FY09-FY11Dollars ($M)500400300200100ARRA rec’d:9.0% FY09-FY1115.1% FY07-FY1113.2% FY06-FY11No ARRA rec’d:1.2% FY09-FY116.1% FY07-FY114.4% FY06-FY110FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY116

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingA decrease in research funding from FY10 to FY11, including acorrelative decrease in federal funding, was expected as thenumber of ARRA awards declined after the apex year of FY10.Total funding decreased 12.6% and federal funding decreased12.5% from the prior year. State, Local, and International (“othergovernment”) awards increased by 4.0% from FY10, a result offederal ARRA flow-through dollars. (Without ARRA funding, thiscategory would have experienced a 0.3% decrease.) Privateindustry and non-profit funding in total decreased 15.7% from theprior year, but was 11.7% higher than FY09.The completion of the ARRA stimulus era may coincide with anhistoric shift in the way the federal government, particularly NIH,views its investment in research. There has already been an effortWhile ARRA had apositive, short-termimpact on WU, it isimportant to rememberthat the core of theWU research programremained strong, asdemonstrated by thegrowth of non-ARRAfunding between FY09and FY11 of 1.2%.to concentrate a greater proportion of funding toward centers and other collaborative efforts asthe continued economic strain forces federal agencies to consider ways to stretch their fundingdollars further. Other research institutions may also find increased competition for federaldollars; all will be looking for new strategies.The spending of ARRA funds nationally can be monitored through the federal government’swebsite: www.recovery.gov.Fiscal Year 2010It is important to note FY10’s uniqueness in that it was also the peak for non-ARRA funding,a testament to the efforts of WU faculty to remain competitive in a struggling economy andchanging funding environment.Non-ARRA funding highlights of FY10 included $12M from private industry for energyresearch, $19M from NIH toward the Human Microbiome Project, a $20M grant from a nonprofitentity for children’s medical research, $5M from a foundation toward eliminatingtropical diseases, and nearly $8M for the first year of a DOE grant to establish an EnergyFrontier Research Center. The approximately $64M in non-ARRA funding provided by justthese examples accounted for nearly 46% of the $139M increase in total funding from FY09($567M) to FY10 ($706M). Even without that infusion of non-ARRA funding, total FY10funding would have increased by approximately 13.2% over FY09.Large Center FundingAs predicted previously by several observers of the research funding environment, NIH istargeting collaborative multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary initiatives. Two of the largestgrants received by WU researchers in FY11 were to multi-institution projects: one with fiveinstitutions and the other with nine. Because the University has long recognized that Centersand Institutes are integral to a healthy research environment and successful fundingacquisition, it has established many innovative, vibrant, and thriving collaborative centers, andwill continue to do so.7

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFunding to centers can come from any source, whether governmental or private. The objectiveof the large multidisciplinary and/or multi-institutional center is to concentrate applicableexpertise and knowledge in specific areas of research.A list of centers at WU can be found at http://www.wustl.edu/academics/centers-institutes.html.A Top American Research UniversityIn its 2010 Annual Report, The Center for Measuring University Performance (published byArizona State University) ranked WU twentieth (20) among top American research universitiesin total research expenditures and fourteenth (14) in federal research expenditures. Among topprivate research universities, the University was ranked sixth (6) in total research expendituresand seventh (7) in federal research expenditures. The rankings in the report are based on anumber of factors, and rankings for other categories – such as number of faculty who areNational Academy Members and doctorates granted – are also shown. 2In a ranking conducted by the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) 3 in HorseShoe, North Carolina, WU is ranked fourth (4) in NIH Funding to U.S. Medical Schools for thefederal fiscal year 2011. Additional data regarding NIH funding to U.S. Medical Schools can befound by visiting www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2011/NIH_Awards_2011.htm.Overview and Details of FY11 Sponsored Research FundingThe following Sponsored Research Funding section of the Annual Report presents an overviewof external funding for sponsored projects at WU during the University’s fiscal year of 2011(FY11). In addition to the information provided here in the Executive Summary, it includesdetails of funding broken down into sponsor type among the various Schools for both ARRAand non-ARRA funding. All references within Tables and Figures to “Fiscal Year” are to WU’sfiscal year, which begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. The awardsreported within are those with start dates on or between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, and theassociated funds represent new money only (i.e., no carry-over funds from year to year for thesame grant award are included).2 The Top American Research Universities, 2010 Annual Report. The Center for Measuring UniversityPerformance. Arizona State University. Capaldi, E, Lombardi, J., Abbey, C., Craig, D. http://mup.asu.edu.3 The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.www.brimr.org.8

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFunding HistoryThe figures and tables in this section present WU’s funding history for five years, including threeyears – FY09, FY10, and FY11 – in which ARRA stimulus dollars benefited funding totals. Inaddition to direct federal ARRA funding, stimulus dollars were received from non-federalorganizations that passed federal stimulus dollars through to the University in FY10 and FY11.Figure 1 and Table 1 break down the total dollars received by three broad sponsor types: (1)Federal, (2) State/Local/International, and (3) Private. The totals for FY09, FY10, and FY11include ARRA stimulus funding. Total sponsored research funding for FY11 reached $617.7M,a decrease of 12.6% from FY10.FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Federal 444,018 439,551 437,435 535,043 467,981State/Local/Int'l 16,765 21,389 18,662 24,805 25,791Private 76,691 87,411 111,285 146,439 123,873TOTAL $537,474 $548,351 $567,383 $706,288 $617,646Table 1Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY07 to FY11(000s)800700600FederalDollars ($M)500400300444 440437535468State/Local/Int'lPrivate200100017 211977 87 111146 124FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Figure 1Funding History by Sponsor Type – FY07 to FY1125269

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingA decrease in research funding from FY10 to FY11, including a correlative decrease in federalfunding, was expected as ARRA awards dwindled after the peak year of FY10. Total fundingdecreased 12.6%, and federal funding decreased 12.5% from the prior year. State, Local, andInternational (“other government”) awards increased by 4.0% from FY10, a result of federalARRA flow-through dollars. Without ARRA funding, this category would have experienced a0.3% decrease. Private industry and non-profit funding in total decreased 15.4% from prior yearFY10, but was 11.7% higher than FY09. Without ARRA the total funding for FY11 would havebeen 5.2% less than for FY10 and only 1.2% more than FY09.Figure 1A illustrates the effect of ARRA on total sponsored research, especially in FY10, thepeak year for both ARRA and non-ARRA funding. Over a period of five years (FY06-FY11)WU funding grew 13.2%, and over a period of two years (FY09-FY11) grew 9.0%, due toARRA funding.Dollars ($M)8007006005004003002001000Total FundingFY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11ARRA Rec'd inFY09-FY11If No ARRA Rec'din FY09-FY11ARRA rec’d:9.0% FY09-FY1115.1% FY07-FY1113.2% FY06-FY11No ARRA rec’d:1.2% FY09-FY116.1% FY07-FY114.4% FY06-FY11Figure 1AGrowth (with ARRA vs. without ARRA) – FY06 to FY11Another way of illustrating ARRA’s importance on research funding at WU is to compareaverages over a period of time, with and without ARRA funding. For the period FY06-FY11,the average per year with ARRA funding is $587M, while without ARRA funding it is $561M, adifference of $26M average per year. For the period FY09-FY11, with ARRA dollars the averageper year is $630M, while the average for the same period without ARRA funding is $578M, adifference of $52M average per year.ARRA is not the only unique factor affecting the total funding for FY11 ($617.6M) versusFY10 ($706M). The FY10 non-ARRA total included $12M from private industry for energyresearch, $19M from NIH toward the Human Microbiome Project, a $20M grant from a nonprofitentity for children’s medical research, $5M from a foundation toward eliminating10

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research Fundingtropical diseases, and nearly $8M for the first year of a DOE grant to establish an EnergyFrontier Research Center. The approximately $64M in non-ARRA funding provided by theseexamples accounted for nearly 46% of the $139M increase in total funding from FY09($567M) to FY10 ($706M).Note in Table 1A that ARRA stimulus funding in FY11 was received not only directly fromfederal agencies but also from non-federal agencies that received federal ARRA funding andpassed it through to the University.ARRA (000s)Sponsor TypeFY09 FY10 FY11Federal $4,730 $98,530 $43,130State/Local/Int'l 0 2,344 1,065Private 0 4,159 3,188TOTAL $4,730 $105,033 $47,383Table 1AARRA Funding by Sponsor Type(000s)Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.11

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFederal Research FundingFederal research funding refers to the dollars awarded by federal agencies directly to WU for usein its sponsored research programs. Federal funding accounted for 75.8% of total Universityaward dollars in FY11 (the same percentage as in FY10).Figure 2 shows the effect that ARRA had on FY11 compared to years FY09 and FY10. InFY10, funding provided by the stimulus program was at its peak, accounting for 18.4% of thefederal funding received by the University. In FY11, as less new stimulus funding was availableand existing stimulus-funded projects came to an end, ARRA funding accounted for only 9.2%of WU’s federal funding.Dollars ($M)550500450400350300250200150100500535444 440 433 437 437468425FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Federal (without ARRA) Federal (with ARRA)Figure 2Federal Funding (000s) – FY07 to FY11Table 2Federal ARRA Funding – FY11(000s)Total FederalFY11ARRA from DirectFederal SourcesFederal ARRAas % of TotalFederal$467,981 $43,130 9.2%When federal funding is examined even without taking ARRA dollars into account, it becomesclear that the University remained competitive. While ARRA funding itself decreased 54.9%($57.7M) from FY10 to FY11, total federal funding decreased by a lesser degree – 12.5% ($67.1M)– and when discounting ARRA dollars total federal funding decreased by an even lesser amount –2.7% ($11.6M).12

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingAdditionally, while the overall growth in total federal funding from FY07 through FY11 (5.4%)was much lower than the growth for the period of FY06 through FY10 (18.4%), without takingARRA dollars into account the growth delta is slim. Growth from FY07 through FY11 wouldhave been -4.3%, compared to -3.3% for years FY06 through FY10.Not surprisingly, since ARRA funding originated with the federal government and federalfunding is the major sponsor of WU research funding, the decrease in total federal fundingdollars (12.5%) closely mirrors that of the total funding decrease (12.6%). Figure 1B shows,when discounting stimulus dollars, federal funding decreased 1.8% over the last two years and6.0% over the last five years.Dollars ($M)6005004003002001000Federal FundingFY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11ARRA Rec'd inFY09-FY11If No ARRARec'd in FY09-FY11ARRA rec’d:7.1% FY09-FY115.4% FY07-FY113.5% FY06-FY11No ARRA rec’d:-1.8% FY09-FY11-4.3% FY07-FY11-6.0% FY06-FY11Figure 1BFederal Growth (with ARRA vs. without ARRA) – FY06 to FY1113

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingState, Local, and International (“Other Government”) FundingCommonly referred to as “Other Government”, this category most often includes stateuniversities that subcontract to WU after receiving federal funding. It also includes fundingfrom other U.S. States, international government agencies, and local entities such as the Stateof Missouri, St. Louis City, and St. Louis County.Of the $25.8M received in FY11, $1.1M was a result of other institutions receiving federalARRA funding and subcontracting it to WU.While federal funding’s overall growth from FY07 to FY11 declined by 5.4%, overall growthfor the State, Local, and International category increased over the same period by 53.8%, witha negligible effect from ARRA dollars.3025Dollars ($M)2015101721192523262550FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11State, Local, & Int'l. (with ARRA)State, Local, & Int'l. (without ARRA)Figure 3State/Local/International – FY07 to FY1114

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingPrivate FundingPrivate funding received from companies and organizations fall into two main categories:Industry and Non-Profit. In FY11 this category included federal ARRA funding passedthrough to the University by non-federal entities. As in FY10, Private funding accounted forapproximately 20% of total University funding.Industry typically includes commercial (for-profit) entities such as Ameren, Arch Coal,Peabody Energy, Pfizer, and Monsanto.Non-Profit includes foundations and trusts, such as charitable organizations established byfamily foundations or employees of a company, and voluntary health-specific or diseasespecificagencies such as the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society.Other non-profit entities may include hospitals, individuals, institutes, and organizations suchas The Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, andNFL Charities.Figure 4 illustrates how the two main components of private funding – industry and nonprofit– compare to each other in dollars. The University experienced a sizable decrease(15.4%) in total private funding from FY10 to FY11. Although both industry and non-profitfunding decreased from the prior year (24% and 13.2% respectively), it should be noted thatfunding in FY10 benefited uniquely from two large, one-time receipts: $12M from industryand $20M from a non-profit entity. Even without similar instances in FY11, the total privatedollars were strong enough to represent an 11.3% increase over two years from FY09.160140120Dollars ($M)10080604020061777087931121211461051241617192519FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Industry Non-Profit Total PrivateFigure 4Private Funding – FY07 to FY11(000s)15

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFunding by SchoolResearch is a university-wide endeavor at WU. As collaborative and interdisciplinary researchincreases, a single prime award may fund projects at multiple Schools. The numbers for each Schoolin the following table and figures most likely include dollars allocated to them by other Schools.Although much of the decrease in federal dollars is due to the “downhill” activity of the ARRAstimulus program, decreases in any fiscal year numbers can be attributed to the expiration of a largegrant or contract, the timing of a sizable award near fiscal year end, or continuing work on a multiyeargrant or contract for which the funding was awarded up front but for which research continues.The following table and figures show a five-year history of funding to the four most researchintensiveSchools. “Administration & Other” in Table 2A includes central fiscal units (CFUs),Schools not listed here, and some Centers. Data for all Schools is shown in Table 3.FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Administration & Other $1,099 $3,470 $1,798 $14,986 $1,623Arts & Sciences 44,007 41,278 42,924 46,993 33,482Engineering 22,103 23,480 24,010 28,624 23,284Medicine 464,444 471,753 483,915 596,130 545,158Social Work 5,820 8,370 14,735 19,555 14,099Total $537,474 $548,351 $567,383 $706,288 $617,646Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.Table 2AFunding History by School – FY07 to FY11(000s)The School of Arts & Sciences received 28.7%fewer total research dollars in FY11 than inFY10. This includes a 29.2% decrease infederal dollars from FY10 to FY11.Figure 5 – School of Arts and Sciences16

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingThe School of Engineering received 18.7%fewer total research dollars in FY11 than inFY10, closely reflecting the 19.7% decrease infederal dollars from FY10 to FY11.Figure 6 – School of EngineeringThe School of Medicine received 8.6% fewertotal research dollars in FY11 than in FY10,including a 10.4% decrease in federal dollars.Figure 7 – School of MedicineThe School of Social Work received 27.9%fewer total research dollars in FY11 than inFY10, mirrored by a decrease of 31.1% infederal funding for the same period.Figure 8 – School of Social Work17

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingTable 2B below illustrates the breakdown of total and ARRA award dollars between Schools andthe effect of ARRA on the total funding for FY11. As expected, ARRA funding was less of afactor in research funding compared to FY10, when ARRA made up for 14.9% of the University’stotal research funding. In FY11, ARRA stimulus funding represented only 7.7% of total externalresearch funding.SchoolFY11 FY11 ARRA asTotal ARRA % of TotalAdministration & Other $1,623 $257 15.8%Arts & Sciences 33,482 831 2.5%Engineering 23,284 548 2.4%Medicine 545,158 45,586 8.4%Social Work 14,099 162 1.1%TOTAL $617,646 $47,384 7.7%Table 2BARRA Funding by School – FY11(000s)Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs), Schools not listed, and some Centers.18

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingThe following table compares FY11 award dollars with the prior year, broken out by Direct and F&A costs for each School. Changefrom one fiscal year to the next is tracked in the far right column of Table 3, expressed in dollars and percentage. The 92.6% decreasein Administration & Other from FY10 to FY11 is due mainly to a single receipt in FY10 of $12M to a Center.SchoolDirectCostsFY10F&ACostsTotalDirectCostsFY11F&ACostsTotalChangeAdministration & Other $13,571 $522 $14,094 $566 $483 $1,050 ($13,044) -92.6%Arts & Sciences 34,764 12,230 46,993 24,585 8,897 33,482 (13,511) -28.8%Business 235 115 349 147 58 206 (143) -41.0%Design & Visual Arts 191 81 273 72 9 81 (192) -70.3%Engineering 21,223 7,401 28,624 16,711 6,574 23,284 (5,339) -18.7%Law 211 60 270 257 29 287 16 6.0%Medicine 458,613 137,516 596,130 411,849 133,308 545,158 (50,972) -8.6%Social Work 15,356 4,199 19,555 11,216 2,883 14,100 (5,456) -27.9%TOTAL $544,163 $162,124 $706,288 $465,405 $152,241 $617,646 ($88,642) -12.6%Table 3Award Dollars by School and Cost CategoryFY10 and FY11(000s)Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs) and some Centers. In FY10 it included the $12M award to the International Center for Advanced RenewableEnergy Sustainability (I-CARES).Table 3A on the next page further breaks down the FY11 awards to show how ARRA funding affected each School.19

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingSchoolDirectCostsFY11 TOTALF&ACostsDollarsDirectCostsFY11 ARRAF&ACostsDollarsARRA as% of TotalDollarsAdministration & Other $566 $483 $1,050 $34 $17 $51 4.9%Arts & Sciences 24,585 8,897 33,482 550 281 831 2.5%Business 147 58 206 111 57 168 81.6%Design & Visual Arts 72 9 81 0 0 0 0.0%Engineering 16,711 6,574 23,284 360 187 548 2.4%Law 257 29 287 25 13 38 13.2%Medicine 411,849 133,308 545,158 33,273 12,313 45,586 8.4%Social Work 11,216 2,883 14,099 110 52 162 1.1%TOTAL $465,405 $152,241 $617,646 $34,462 $12,921 $47,383 7.7%Table 3AARRA Award Dollars by School and Cost Category – FY11(000s)Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs) and some Centers.20

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingThe term “Project Type” refers to the distinct types of awards received by the University. Table 4 breaks award dollars into three projecttypecategories: Research (projects and activities that discover new scientific areas, procedures, and devices), Research Training(support provided to pre/postdoctoral students and fellows involved in research training programs), and Other Sponsored Activities(such as public service, patient service, conference grants, community outreach programs, and student aid).While viewing Table 4, it should be kept in mind that the bulk of ARRA funding occurred in FY10.School / DepartmentResearchResearch TrainingOther SponsoredActivitiesTOTALFY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11Administration & Other $13,157 ($151) $10 $263 $927 $937 $14,094 $1,050Arts & Sciences 43,797 28,753 2,020 3,180 1,176 1,549 46,993 33,482Business 330 171 0 0 19 35 349 206Design & Visual Arts 248 7 10 7 15 67 273 81Engineering 26,892 22,354 1,631 208 101 722 28,624 23,284Law 135 38 7 12 128 237 270 287Medicine 540,407 497,607 22,013 23,951 33,710 23,601 596,130 545,158Social Work 17,297 12,717 692 653 1,566 728 19,555 14,100TOTAL $642,264 $561496 $26,383 $28,273 $37,641 $27,876 $706,288 $617,646Table 4Award Dollars by School or Department and Project Type – FY10 and FY11(000s)Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs) and some Centers. In FY10 it included the $12M award to the International Center for Advanced RenewableEnergy Sustainability (I-CARES).21

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingTable 4A shows the effect that ARRA stimulus funding had on the different project-type categories for the Schools in FY11. Note that, asexpected, the total ARRA funding for FY11 ($47.4M) was substantially less than that received in FY10 ($105M), a decrease of 54.9%. Theinfluence of the change, however, was partially mitigated by the fact that non-ARRA funding decreased by only 5.2% from FY10 ($601M)to FY11 ($570M).School / DepartmentFY11ResearchFY11ARRAResearch TrainingFY11FY11ARRAOther SponsoredActivitiesFY11FY11ARRAFY11TotalsFY11ARRAARRA as% of TotalAdministration &Other($151) $51 $263 $0 $937 $0 $1,050 $51 4.9%Arts & Sciences 28,753 831 3,180 0 1,549 0 33,482 831 2.5%Business 171 168 0 0 35 0 206 168 81.6%Design & Visual Arts 7 0 7 0 67 0 81 0 0%Engineering 22,354 548 208 0 722 0 23,284 548 2.4%Law 38 38 12 0 237 0 287 38 13.3%Medicine 497,607 45,122 23,951 147 23,601 317 545,158 45,586 8.4%Social Work 12,717 162 653 0 728 0 14,100 162 1.1%TOTAL $561,496 $46,919 $28,273 $147 $27,876 $317 $617,646 $47,383 7.7%Table 4AARRA Award Dollars by School or Department and Project Type – FY11(000s)Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs) and some Centers. A negative figure indicates that amount was allocated to another School or Department.22

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFunding by SponsorThe graphs and tables in this section provide information about the sources of sponsored projects funding to the University, including:• All sources from which the University receives sponsored projects funding• The sectors from which the University receives the most funding: government, industry, and non-profit• The federal agencies that provide the most support to the individual schools within the University• The sponsors that have increased or decreased their investments in University research over the past fiscal year24,80525,469120,971483,45525,79119,274104,600418,13528,15835,04723,43014,800NIH NSF Other Fed Other Gov't Industry Non-ProfitFY10NIH NSF Other Fed Other Gov't Industry Non-ProfitFY11Figure 9Award Summary by Sponsor Type – FY10 and FY11(000s)23

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFigure 9A breaks out FY11 ARRA funding by sponsor type, dollars, and percentage. Note that in FY11, as with FY10, ARRA fundingwas received from various sponsor types, unlike in FY09 when all ARRA funding was received from only federal sponsors NIH andNSF. (WU received no direct ARRA funding from NSF in FY11.)Figure 9B shows the relationship of ARRA funding to the total amount of research funding WU received in FY11. Of the $617.7M intotal research funding awarded to WU in FY11, ARRA funding accounted for 7.7% ($47.4M).Tables 5 and 5A on the following page further break down funding among sponsor types by Direct and F&A costs.5301.1%1,0652.2%3050.6%2,8846.1%42,60089.9%47,3847.7%570,26392.3%NIH Other Fed Other (Non-Federal) Gov't Industry Non-ProfitARRANon-ARRAFigure 9AARRA Awards by Sponsor Type – FY11(000s)Figure 9BARRA and Non-ARRA Awards – FY11(000s)24

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingSponsorFY10FY11Type% of% of% of% ofDirectCostsTotalDirectF&ACostsTotalF&A Total%TotalDirectCostsTotalDirectF&ACostsTotalF&A Total%TotalFederal $397,717 73.1% $137,327 84.7% $535,043 75.8% $343,615 73.8% $124,366 81.7% $467,981 75.8%Other Gov’t. 17,683 3.2% 7,122 4.4% 24,805 3.5% 18,591 4.0% 7,200 4.7% 25,791 4.2%Total Gov’t. 415,400 76.3% 144,448 89.1% 559,848 79.3% 362,207 77.8% 131,566 86.4% 493,773 79.9%Industry 107,100 19.7% 13,871 8.6% 120,971 17.1% 12,535 2.7% 6,740 4.4% 19.274 3.1%Non-Profit 21,663 4.0% 3,805 2.3% 25,469 3.6% 90,663 19.5% 13,936 9.2% 104,600 16.9%Total Private 128,763 23.7% 17,676 10.9% 146,439 20.7% 103,198 22.2% 20,675 13.6% 123,873 20.1%TOTAL $544,163 100.0% $162,124 100.0% $706,288 100.0% $465,405 100.0% $152,241 100.0% $617,646 100.0%Table 5Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost CategoryFY10 and FY11(000s)Sponsor TypeDirectCostsFY11 ARRAF&ACostsTotalFederal $31,560 $11,570 $43,130Other Gov’t. 715 350 1,065Industry 219 85 305Non-Profit 1,968 916 2,884TOTAL $34,462 $12,921 $47,383Table 5AARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category – FY11(000s)Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.25

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFY10 FY11 Change in TotalSponsorDirect F&ADirect F&ATotalCosts CostsCosts CostsTotal Dollars %NIH $359,121 $124,334 $483,455 $307,174 $110,962 $418,135 ($65,320) -13.5%NSF 17,257 6,174 23,431 10,308 4,491 14,800 (8,631) -36.8%NASA 6,100 2,485 8,585 4,354 1,688 6,042 (2,543) -29.6%DOD 560 269 829 1,026 320 1,346 517 62.4%EPA 156 81 237 34 0 34 (203) -85.7%FederalDOEd 756 22 779 1,536 217 1,753 974 125.0%AgenciesDOE 7,371 2,084 9,455 6,489 1,657 8,146 (1,309) 13.8%DHHS HRSA 2,675 599 3,274 2,594 651 3,244 (30) -0.9%LABOR 1,849 797 2,645 7,024 3,495 10,519 7,874 297.7%USDA 24 7 31 141 11 152 121 390.3%Other 1,848 474 2,322 2,935 875 3,810 1,488 64.1%Total Federal 397,717 137,327 535,043 343,615 124,366 467,981 (67,062) -12.5%Missouri 2,113 392 2,506 1,205 311 1,516 (990) -39.5%OtherOther States 14,819 6,664 21,483 15,204 6,539 21,742 259 1.2%GovernmentOther Gov’t. 751 66 816 2,183 350 2,533 1,717 210.4%Total Other Government 17,683 7,122 24,805 18,591 7,200 25,791 986 4.0%Private SourcesIndustry 21,663 3,805 25,469 12,535 6,740 19,274 (6,195) -24.3%Non-Profit 107,100 13,871 120,971 90,633 13,936 104,600 (16,371) -13.5%Total Private 128,763 17,676 146,439 103,198 20,675 123,873 (22,566) -15.4%GRAND TOTAL $544,163 $162,124 $706,288 $465,405 $152,241 $617,646 ($88,642) -12.6%Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.Table 6Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost CategoryFY10 and FY11(000s)26

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingTable 6A extracts FY11 ARRA funding from the total funding in Table 6 and separates it into categories of Direct and F&A costs.Stimulus funding in FY11 was received from all the main sponsor types: Federal, Other Government, Industry, and Non-Profit. Themakeup of ARRA funding in FY11 is different from that in both FY09 and FY10. In FY09, stimulus funding came from only NIH andNSF, while in FY10 stimulus funding was received from not only NIH and NSF but from Other Government and Private sources. InFY11, no stimulus funding was received from NSF. As in the two prior years, NIH was the largest contributor of ARRA funding to theUniversity (89.9%) in FY11.Sponsor TypeDirectCostsF&A CostsFY11 ARRATotal% of ARRATotalNIH $31,180 $11,420 $42,600 89.9%Federal AgenciesNSF 0 0 0 0.0%DOE 54 0 54 0.1%Other 326 150 476 1.0%Total Federal 31,560 11,570 43,130 91.0%Other GovernmentMissouri 29 21 50 0.1%Other States 685 330 1,015 2.1%Total Other Gov’t. 715 350 1,065 2.2%Private SourcesIndustry 219 85 305 0.6%Non-Profit 1,968 916 2,884 6.1%Total Private 2,187 1,001 3,188 6.7%GRAND TOTAL $34,462 $12,921 $47,383 100.0%Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.Table 6AARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor Type and Cost Category – FY11(000s)27

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingArts & Sciences Engineering Medicine Social Work Other Schools Total FederalSponsorFY11ChangeFromFY10FY11ChangeFromFY10FY11ChangeFromFY10FY11ChangeFromFY10FY11ChangeFromFY10FY11ChangeFromFY10NIH $10,370 -17.4% 9,659 -19.4% 390,510 -12.8% $7,220 -32.5% $376 -33.3% $418,135 -13.5%NSF 6,833 -49.3% 6,231 -17.3% 1,645 -22.7% 0 100% 91 -55.6% 14,800 -36.8%NASA 5,791 -25.3% 167 -67.8% 85 -60.6% 0 n/a 0 n/a 6,042 -29.6%DOD 170 -17.1% 591 -0.2% 585 1672.7% 0 n/a 0 n/a 1,346 62.4%EPA 17 -92.8% 17 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 34 -85.7%DOEd 549 74.8% 0 n/a 750 n/a 0 n/a 454 -2.4% 1,753 125.0%DOE 3,466 -7.8% 250 -50.0% 1,352 -46.8% 0 n/a 3,078 16.0% 8,146 13.8%DHHS HRSA 0 n/a 0 n/a 3,244 -0.9% 0 n/a 0 n/a 3,244 0.9%LABOR 166 -51.5% 0 n/a 10,276 346.2% 76 n/a 0 n/a 10,519 297.7%USDA 46 n/a 20 n/a 86 177.4% 0 n/a 0 n/a 152 390.3%OTHER 554 -36.2% 60 140.0% 3,014 194.3% 124 n/a 57 -86.2% 3,810 64.1%TOTAL $27,961 -29.2% $16,994 -19.7% $411,548 -10.4% $7,422 -31.1% $4,057 -5.7% $467,981 -12.5%Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. No federal funding was received by Administration.Table 7Federal Award Dollars by Sponsor and School – FY11(000s)28

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingTables 7A and 7B show the Schools that received ARRA funding from federal sponsors in FY11. Of note is the lack of new NSFstimulus funding in FY11. (The numbers shown on the NSF line in Table 7A represent allocations to and from the Schools of Arts &Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. They are shown here to further detail the effect of federal ARRA funding on each School.)FY11 Federal ARRASponsorArts &SciencesEngineeringMedicineSocialWorkOtherSchoolsTotalUniversityNIH $849 $351 $41,019 $162 $219 $42,600NSF (72) 8 64 0 0 0DOE 54 0 0 0 0 54Other Federal 0 0 476 0 0 476TOTAL $831 $359 $42,600 $162 $219 $43,130Table 7AFederal ARRA Award Dollars by Sponsor and School – FY11(000s)FY11 Federal ARRATable 7BFederal ARRA Award Dollarsby Sponsor and School – FY11(000s)SchoolFederal TotalFederalARRAARRA as %of FederalTotalArts & Sciences $27,961 $831 3.0%Engineering 16,994 359 2.1%Medicine 411,548 41,560 10.1%Social Work 7,422 162 2.2%Other Schools 4,056 219 5.4%TOTAL $467,981 $43,130 9.2%Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. No federal funding was received by Administration.29

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingSchool/Dept.Administration &OtherGovernmentPrivateFederal Other Gov’t. Industry Non-profitFY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11$3,569 $3,739 $99 $62 $10,363 ($3,747) $62 $996 $14,094 $1,050Arts & Sciences 39,518 27,961 1,246 1,260 1,073 760 5,157 3,501 46,993 33,482Business 330 171 0 0 0 0 19 35 349 206Design & VisualArts224 33 0 23 0 0 49 25 273 81Engineering 21,160 16,994 1,679 1,458 3,220 2,998 2,565 1,835 28,624 23,284Law 168 114 0 0 0 10 102 163 270 287Medicine 459,299 411,548 20,249 22,258 10,748 19,248 105,833 92,104 596,130 545,158Social Work 10,775 7,422 1,531 730 64 6 7,185 5,941 19,555 14,100Total $535,043 $467,981 $24,805 $25,791 $25,469 $19,274 $120,971 $104,599 $706,288 $617,646TotalTable 8Award Dollars by School or Department and Sponsor TypeFY10 and FY11(000s)Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs) and some Centers. In FY10 it included the $12M award to the International Center for Advanced RenewableEnergy Sustainability (I-CARES).30

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingSchools/Dept.FederalGovernmentOtherGov’t.ARRAIndustryPrivateNon-profitFY11ARRAFY11TotalARRA as %of TotalAdministration & Other $51 $0 $0 $0 $51 $1,050 4.9%Arts & Sciences 831 0 0 0 831 33,482 2.5%Business 168 0 0 0 168 206 81.6%Design & Visual Arts 0 0 0 0 0 81 n/aEngineering 359 50 75 64 548 23,284 2.4%Law 0 0 0 38 38 287 13.3%Medicine 41,560 1,015 230 2,782 45,586 545,158 8.4%Social Work 162 0 0 0 162 14,100 1.1%Total $43,130 $1,065 $305 $2,884 $47,383 $617,646 7.7%Table 8AARRA Award Dollars (All Sources) by School or Department and Sponsor Type – FY11(000s)Notes:1. Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.2. "Administration & Other" includes central fiscal units (CFUs) and some Centers.31

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingFY11GovernmentPrivateTotalDepartment (1)FederalOtherNonprofitIndustryGov’t.FY10 FY11Anthropology 183 0 0 111 633 294Applied Statistics 68 0 0 0 3 68Art History & Archaeology (2) 0 0 0 0 -259 0Arts & Sciences 0 0 0 0 100 0Asian & Near Eastern Languages & Lit. 0 0 0 38 137 38Biology 4,917 420 180 1,621 11,405 7,138Center for New Institutional Social Sciences 0 19 0 0 0 19Chemistry 4,813 0 185 49 6,064 5,047Dean – College of Arts & Sciences 0 0 0 6 0 6Earth & Planetary Science 5,180 268 80 930 6,557 6,458East Asian Studies 0 0 0 2 n/a 2Economics 0 0 0 0 438 0Education (2) 0 0 0 28 -32 28English 0 0 0 0 45 0Film and Media Studies 0 2 0 0 0 2Graduate School 713 0 0 0 492 713History 96 0 0 46 28 142International Studies 0 100 0 159 150 259Mathematics 316 4 0 0 550 320Office of Undergraduate Research 238 0 0 0 246 238Performing Arts 0 0 0 0 14 0Philosophy 160 0 0 7 123 167Physics 5,755 111 65 266 10,855 6,198Political Sciences 312 241 0 65 0 617Psychology 4,620 87 250 73 8,473 5,030Romance Languages -4 0 0 7 47 2The Center For Humanities 225 9 0 0 234 234The Center for Joint Projects 0 0 0 0 185 0The Center for Materials Innovation 0 0 0 0 262 0The Center for Study of Human Values 0 0 0 0 55 0Weidenbaum Center 252 0 0 93 188 344Women Gender & Sexuality Studies 118 0 0 0 n/a 118Total $27,961 $1,260 $760 $3,501 $46,993 $33,482Table 9School of Arts & Sciences –Award Dollars byDepartment and SponsorType (000s) – FY11(1) Only departments receiving awards in FY10 and/or FY11 are listed. As a result, some departments listed in the FY10 Annual Report may not be listed in FY11.(2) Negative numbers are due to Department transferring funds to another Department or School.Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.32

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingTable 9A shows the distribution of ARRA money to Arts & Sciences departments, and ARRA funding as a percentage of eachdepartment’s total funding and as a percentage of total funding to the School of Arts & Sciences.DepartmentTotalDepartmentAwardsARRAAwardsFY11ARRAas % ofDepartmentTotalARRAas % ofSchoolTotalAnthropology $294 $22 7.5% 0.1%Biology 7,138 (93) (1.3%) (0.4%)Earth & Planetary Science 6,458 14 0.2% 0.1%Mathematics 320 50 15.6% 0.2%Physics 6,198 80 1.3% 0.3%Political Science 617 40 14.3% 2.8%Psychology 5,030 719 14.3% 2.8%Total(for departments receiving ARRA funds)$26,055 $831 N/A 3.2%Table 9ASchool of Arts & Sciences – ARRA Award Dollars by Department – FY11(000s)Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.33

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingDepartmentFY11Government Private TotalFederalOtherGov’tIndustry Non-profit FY10 FY11Biomedical Engineering $9,179 $418 $404 $255 $13,693 $10,256Computer Science & Engineering 4,633 54 215 604 6,472 5,506Electrical & Systems Engineering 1,865 83 42 55 2,156 2,045Environmental, Energy & Chemical Engineering 644 561 2,151 920 6,111 4,276Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science (1) 669 342 186 0 192 1,197Other 5 0 0 0 0 5TOTAL $16,994 $1,458 $2,998 $1,835 $28,624 $23,284Table 10School of Engineering – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor TypeFY10 and FY11(000s)(1) In FY10, listed as “Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering”Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.34

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingTable 10A shows the departments in the School of Engineering that received ARRA funding, and ARRA funding as a percentage of eachdepartment’s total funding and as a percentage of total funding to the School.DepartmentTotalDepartmentAwardsARRAAwardsFY11ARRA as % ofDepartmentTotalARRA as %of SchoolTotalBiomedical Engineering $10,256 $10 0.1% 0.0%Computer Science & Engineering 5,506 329 6.0% 1.4%Environmental, Energy & Chemical Engineering 2,045 189 4.4% 0.8%Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science 1,197 21 1.7% 0.1%Total School $23,284 $548 N/A 2.4%Table 10ASchool of Engineering – ARRA Award Dollars by Department – FY11(000s)35

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingDepartmentsFY11TotalGovernmentPrivateOtherNonprofitFederalIndustryFY10 FY11Gov'tAnatomy & Neurobiology $16,679 $17 $68 $714 $15,104 $17,478Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 3,941 95 106 452 6,921 4,593Cell Biology & Physiology 8,568 34 0 1,236 9,090 9,838Developmental Biology 7,047 25 423 1,161 8,803 8,656Genetics 16,455 1,123 708 815 88,614 19,101Molecular Microbiology 10,972 304 23 684 15,361 11,983Subtotal Preclinical 63,662 1,598 1,327 5,062 143,983 71,649Anesthesiology 7,425 14 219 837 9,731 8,495Internal Medicine 103,962 4,226 3,720 17,405 138,005 129,312Neurological Surgery 1,349 643 8 521 1,713 2,521Neurology 25,151 759 2,647 4,270 30,041 32,828Obstetrics & Gynecology 3,597 197 0 6,251 7,879 10,044Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 8,296 0 135 1,353 12,735 9,784Orthopaedic Surgery 5,625 13 382 2,377 7,403 8,398Otolaryngology 7,163 257 26 167 6,732 7,614Pathology & Immunology 28,442 989 5,258 9,826 47,957 44,515Pediatrics 18,798 3,420 934 10,210 37,010 33,363Psychiatry 32,813 5,016 755 2,830 48,053 41,404Radiation Oncology 5,546 521 357 421 9,378 6,845Radiology (1) 39,090 1,997 2,464 4,810 31,861 48,362Surgery 11,305 573 570 6,800 29,524 19,249Subtotal Clinical 298,563 18,627 17,465 68,078 418,023 402,733Administration (2) 164 0 356 78 11,328 597Biology/Biomedical Sciences 4,724 0 0 201 4,992 4,926Biostatistics 4,011 533 28 407 4,520 4,979Center for Clinical Studies 139 8 0 0 359 1Center For Health Behavior Research 1,039 189 0 17 2,069 1,245Center For Study Of Health Policy 0 0 0 25 0 25Div Of Comparative Medicine 0 0 0 0 10 0Emergency Medicine 439 110 73 11 361 633The Genome Institute 27,781 777 0 16,031 0 44,590Medical Library 5 0 0 3 177 8Microarray Facility 0 0 0 0 75 0Occupational Therapy 939 373 0 897 2,589 2,209Physical Therapy 1,940 44 0 539 2,443 2,523Siteman Cancer Center 4,909 0 0 694 4,963 5,603Subtotal Other Admin/Academic 49,322 2,033 457 18,963 34,214 70,776Grand Total $411,548 $22,258 $19,248 $92,104 $596,130 $545,158Table 11School of Medicine – Award Dollars by Department and Sponsor TypeFY10 and FY11(000s)(1) Radiology includes Research Imaging Facilities(2) Administration includes: Continuing Medical Education, Student Support, and Medical School Administration.(3) The Genome Institute was part of the Department of Genetics until FY11.Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.36

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Research FundingDepartmentsTotalAwardsFY11ARRAARRA as %of TotalAwardsAnatomy & Neurobiology $17,478 $1,221 7.0%Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 4,593 217 4.7%Cell Biology & Physiology 9,838 632 6.4%Developmental Biology 8,656 500 5.8%Genetics 19,101 1,064 5.6%Molecular Microbiology 11,983 827 6.9%Subtotal Preclinical 71,649 4,460 6.2%Anesthesiology 8,495 337 4.0%Internal Medicine 129,312 17,187 13.3%Neurological Surgery 2,521 74 2.9%Neurology 32,828 4,657 14.2%Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 9,784 207 2.1%Orthopaedic Surgery 8,398 572 6.8%Otolaryngology 7,614 447 5.9%Pathology & Immunology 44,515 3,651 8.2%Pediatrics 33,363 934 2.8%Psychiatry 41,404 5,164 12.5%Radiation Oncology 6,845 925 13.5%Radiology (1) 48,362 1,545 3.2%Surgery 19,249 1,698 8.8%Subtotal Clinical 402,733 37,398 9.3%Biostatistics 4,979 886 17.8%Biology/Biomedical Sciences 4,926 93 1.9%Center for Clinical Studies 147 8 5.2%Center for Healthy Behavior Research 1,245 4 0.3%Emergency Medicine 633 230 36.4%The Genome Institute 44,590 1,728 3.9%Medical Library 8 (4) (44.6%)Occupational Therapy 2,209 2 0.1%Physical Therapy 2,523 629 24.9%Siteman Cancer Center 5,603 152 2.7%Subtotal Other Admin/Academic 70,776 3,728 5.3%Grand Total $545,158 $45,586 8.4%Table 11ASchool of MedicineARRA Award Dollars by Department – FY11(000s)(1) Radiology includes Research Imaging Facilities.(2) The Genome Institute was part of the Department of Genetics until FY11.Note: Due to rounding, detail may not add up to total.37

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyTechnology Management and Intellectual PropertyThis section of the Annual Report is provided by the Office of Technology Management.For questions regarding information within this section, please contact Brad Castanho,Director, at bjcastanho@wustl.edu.38

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyTechnology Management and Intellectual PropertyExecutive SummaryThe mission of the Office of Technology Management (OTM) is to promote the publicutilization of University innovations created by faculty and employees through the formation andmanagement of commercial partnerships. OTM strives to be a “full service” technologymanagement office by providing the following activities and services: processing and review ofinvention disclosures; protection of intellectual property and management of the WUSTL patentportfolio; licensing of intellectual property and distribution of licensing revenue; material transfermanagement; negotiation of industry sponsored research agreements confidentiality agreementsand inter-institutional agreements.Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) saw disclosures, patent filings, and license agreements up from FY10(Table 1). Revenue for FY11 has remained about the same as in FY10.FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Invention Disclosures 136 104 125 98 101US/PCT Patents Filed 83 76 106 94 75License Agreements 48 41 44 42 45MTAs -Academic 700 718 817 674 749-Industry 95 61 62 51 55Revenue $6.3M $6.4M $7.9M $17.0M $12.0MIndustry Sponsored Research 51 41 53 72 60Table 1OTM Statistics – FY11 through FY07The OTM staff consists of 20 full-time employees. As in years past, this year OTM continued itstechnology transfer trainee program designed for advanced-degree WU students to acquire ahands-on experience in technology transfer. Six candidates have completed the program and oneis currently participating.OTM remains active in the community through its involvement through such organizations asthe St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association, BioGenerator, Donald Danforth PlantSciences Center Alliance, Center of Research, Technology & Entrepreneurial Exchange, Coalitionfor Plant and Life Sciences, Nidus Center for Scientific Enterprise, Center for EmergingTechnologies, MO Bio Laboratories, Inc., Missouri Venture Forum, Midwest ResearchUniversities Network and the Research Alliance of Missouri. Involvement with these variousorganizations extends the mission of WU to local, state and regional levels. In its relationshipswith these organizations, OTM works to build the economy and to develop channels forcommercializing WU technologies. In FY11 WU technology was licensed to two start-upcompanies which are currently located in the St. Louis area.39

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyOTM staff members work continuously with the Business School’s entrepreneurship program andthe larger Kaufmann Foundation (e.g., iBridge) entrepreneurship undertaking. OTM, working withthe Small Business Association in Missouri, sponsored another FastTrac training program for WUfaculty. Nine faculty attended the eight week program and in the last five years nearly fifty facultyhave been through this entrepreneurial training program developed by the Kaufmann Foundation.OTM also continued its administration of the Bear Cub Fund grant program that WU reinstated inFY08. The fund supports innovative translational research not normally backed by federal grants.Any WU faculty member, post-doctoral fellow, graduate student or employee can apply. Duringfiscal year 2011, WU awarded six Bear Cub Fund grants totaling $240,000 to support innovativeresearch projects that could be attractive for licensing by commercial entities or serve as thefoundation for a start-up company.The grants were awarded to: Scott Hultgren, PhD, the Helen L. Stoever Professor of MolecularMicrobiology, and Bradley Ford, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral research associate; David Haslam, MD,Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Microbiology; Enrique W. Izaguirre, PhD, AssistantProfessor of Radiation Oncology and of Biomedical Engineering; Kelle Moley, MD, the JamesCrane Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology; and Daniel Moran, PhD, Associate Professor ofBiomedical Engineering, and Matthew MacEwan, MD, PhD, a graduate research assistant inBiomedical Engineering, and Phillip Tarr, MD, Melvin E. Carnahan Professor Pediatrics.40

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyTechnology Highlights for Fiscal Year 2011Cardiac ImagingBy using new analysis and computation techniques, coupled with existing Magnetic ResonanceImaging (MRI) techniques, a clear picture of the expansion and contraction of the heart can bemade. The resulting precise image can be used clinically by cardiologists and surgeons todetermine the proper type of treatment. Primary Investigator: Michael Pasque, Surgery. Thistechnology has been exclusively licensed to a St. Louis startup company: CardioWise, Inc.BarIC ProbeCerebral shunt malfunction is a life threatening problem which can be often very difficult todiagnose and treat. Each year, approximately 40,000 shunt related operations are performed and40% of shunts fail during the first year after implantation. Symptoms of shunt malfunction areambiguous and often lead to costly evaluations and hospital admissions. The most direct way todetermine shunt malfunction and hydrocephalus is measuring intracranial pressure (ICP)through a surgical procedure. Delays in diagnosis/treatment may cause health and cognitiveproblems. A noninvasive ICP monitoring process is not currently available. BarICProbe is animplantable intracranial pressure monitor that can be easily and non-invasively interrogated byexternal ultrasound. The device is consistent with shunt implantation techniques and can beimplanted concurrently. The BarICProbe is small, MRI-compatible, and bio-compatible. Theease of use and chronic ability of BarICProbe will improve patient outcomes through its abilityto diagnose problems in an ambulatory setting, more appropriate timing of surgery, and theavoidance of unnecessary admissions and tests. Primary Investigator: Eric Leuthardt,Neurosurgery. The BarIC Probe has been exclusively licensed to a Boston-area startupcompany: Allied Minds Devices, LLC.High Throughput Liquid Film ElectrosprayExisting atomization and electrospray techniques permit only one or two grams of material anhour due to the design of the capillaries. For example, electrostatic atomization of foodadditives, such as coloring agents, stabilizers and alcohols, cannot be achieved in the volumesrequired with existing techniques. This invention is a new design of an atomization head thatpermits pounds of material per hour deposition and should be able to be scaled up considerably.Primary Investigator: Da-Ren ChenA Process for Making Copper Nanostructures Below 24nm SizeThe wires made with this process are ~ one-half the diameter of the thinnest Cu nanowire madein commercial processes today. Although gold and silver, inter alia, can be made in the 24nmrange, this is the first process to show the ability to make Cu (a much cheaper material) in suchsizes with the ability to scale up to commercial production rates. Cu nanowires are excellentconductors of electricity, and as the wires get smaller, many more transistors can be put on asingle microprocessor – speeding up and enhancing computer capability. Cu nanowires can alsobe used as catalysts, in displays, heat pipes and solar cells, and to make smaller LEDs and LCDs.Primary Investigator: Younan Xia41

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyDichromic Fluorescent CompoundsIt has been discovered that structural asymmetry of chromic compounds results in thegeneration of dichromic emissions that have distinct lifetimes. Because the fluorescent lifetimesof the two peaks are distinct, the information content may be multiplexed. The dichromicfluorescent compounds may advantageously be utilized for several applications includingimaging, diagnostics, to monitor biological events, and for detecting and monitoring molecularprocesses. Primary Investigator: Samuel Achilefu, Radiology.Fluorescent Polymethine Cyanine DyesThe present invention provides compounds that possess a robust C-C bond containing nearinfrared chromophore as optical antenna. The C-C bond allows the development of stable dyesfor imaging and monitoring biological events such as disease-associated enzymatic activity. Thisnovel molecular design offers superior chemical stability for biomedical and analyticalapplications. Because of the biological stability, changes in spectral properties can be attributedaccurately to target biological processes such as monitoring disease-associated enzymatic activity.The C-C coupled dyes also allows for extended pi-bond conjugation, thereby enabling the use ofnew designs to obtain diagnostically useful spectral information such as pH-sensitive response insolid tumors. Primary Investigator: Samuel Achilefu, Radiology.Compounds Having Rd Targeting MotifsThe present invention provides compounds that have motifs that target the compounds to cellsthat express integrins. In particular, the compound shave peptides with one or more RD motifsconjugated to an agent selected from an imaging agent and a targeting agent. These compoundsmay be used to detect, monitor, and treat a variety of integrin-mediated biological processes,including the progression of disease states such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, inflammationand cancer. Primary Investigator: Samuel Achilefu, RadiologyEffective Anti-integrin Antitumor Reagent for ChrondrosarcomaChondrosarcoma is a difficult musculoskeletal tumor to treat. Chemotherapy is only somewhateffective in mesenchymal chondrosarcoma and is of uncertain value in dedifferentiatedchondrosarcoma. Surgical excision is the only tumor treatment, but it leads to severe disabilitywith high rate of local recurrence, often at a higher grade, and can thus be life threatening.Radiation and adjuvant therapy are not effective in differentiated chondrosarcoma. Moreeffective antitumor reagents for chondrosarcoma are needed. The present invention utilizes ananti-integrin reagent which has chondrosarcoma tumor cell killing activity in vitro. Promisinganimal data indicates that this is also true in vivo. Primary Investigator: Linda Sandell,Orthopaedic SurgeryMethods of Prevention snd Treatment of Ischemic DamageThe present invention in various embodiments provides methods of treating stroke andconferring protection on a population of cells associated with ischemia in a subject following anischemic event, comprising: (a) providing an estrogen compound; and (b) administering theeffective amount of the compound over a course that includes at least one dose within a timethat is effectively proximate to the ischemic event, so as to confer protection on the population42

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual Propertyof cells. Novel methods are provided for the delivery of an estrogen compound. Examples ofischemic events treatable according to the invention are cerebrovascular disease or stroke,subarachnoid subhemorrhage, myocardial infarct, surgery and trauma. A method of treatingischemic damage utilizing hormones that are non-sex hormones is also provided. A method oftreating stroke with ent-17.beta.-estradiol, and a method of synthesis, and compounds producedfrom the synthesis are provided. Primary Investigator: Doug Covey, Developmental BiologyCombined Drug Therapy to Ameliorate Hearing LossNoise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is the second most common form of sensorineural hearingdeficit, after age-related hearing loss. There are approximately 30 million people in the US alonethat are exposed to hazardous levels of noise on a regular basis; however there is no effectivemedication to prevent NIHL. This is a novel combination drug therapy approach to amelioratehearing loss. Primary Investigators: Jianxin Bao, Otolaryngology and Richard Chole,OtolaryngologyNovel Steroid Anesthetic AgentsThe technology is directed to novel steroids. having utility as an anesthetic and/or in thetreatment of disorders relating to GABA function and activity. A short-acting, steroidalanesthetic could offer a significant clinical and practical advantage as a continuous infusionsedative for various non-surgical procedures. Primary Investigator: Doug Covey,Developmental BiologyNovel Therapies to Treat CancerResearchers at Washington University have identified several agents (antibodies and/orpeptides) targeted to radiation inducible antigens. This is a new paradigm in therapeutic antibodydevelopment. The principle of inducible antigens is that ionizing radiation induces thetranslocation of protein from the intracellular reservoirs to the cancer cell surface. The proteinsare over expressed in cancer cells but not in the normal tissue which allows antibodies toopsonize cancer cells after x-ray irradiation in a specific manner. Efforts are underway tooptimize and test these agents in a clinical setting for therapeutic and imaging purposes. PrimaryInvestigator: Dennis Hallahan, Radiation OncologyBiomarker for Alzheimer's Disease and Human Brain InjuryBiomarker such as VILIP-1 (Visinin-like protein-1) is an important prognostic and diagnostictool in providing an early indication of brain injury such as Alzheimer's disease, stroke and otherrelated disease indications. VILIP-1 is a neuronal calcium-sensor protein that had beenidentified as a potential marker of neuronal injury in large-scale gene-array analyses andconfirmed in brain injury models. VILIP-1 in combination with other markers is an excellenttool for prediction, progression, risk stratification, and monitoring of the disease in patients withsuspected or established brain injury, stroke and Alzheimer’s disease. Primary Investigator: JackLadenson, Pathology and Immunology.43

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyMethod of Treating PruritusItch, or pruritus, is an unpleasant sensation that causes the desire to scratch, associated withmany conditions such as liver disease or kidney dialysis, can find no relief for the problem.Pruritus is also a serious condition experienced by animals. The present invention providesmethods for treating pruritus by providing methods of substantially inhibiting the activation ofbombesin receptors or by killing GRPR specific neurons in the spinal cord. Mitigation of itchthrough either of these mechanisms does not affect motor or sensory functions. PrimaryInvestigator: Zhou-Feng Chen, Anesthesiology.Novel Genetic Risk Factor for Alzheimer’s Disease ProgressionResearchers at Washington University have identified a novel genetic variant that stronglycorrelates with Alzheimer’s disease progression. Dr. Alison Goate and collaborators used anestablished biomarker for the decline of AD patients (cerebrospinal fluid tau phosphorylated atthreonine 181, ptau 181 ) to find genetic variants that influence levels of ptau 181 in the cerebrospinalfluid. The study found a highly significant association between ptau 181 levels and the rs1868402SNP located within a regulatory subunit of PPP3R1 (calcineurin B), a gene previously linked toAD pathogenesis. Carriers of the rs1868402 risk allele showed a 6-fold faster rate of diseaseprogression than AD patients without the variant. Direct examination of brain samples fromAD cases and controls revealed that rs1868402is in fact associated with reduced PPP3R1 mRNAlevels and increased tangle formation, providing biological validation for the genome-wideassociation study and further implicating PPP3R1 in disease pathology. As the first geneticvariant associated with rate of AD progression to be reported, its use in clinical trial design andpatient care will translate into a significant benefit to patients. Primary Investigator: AlisonGoate, PsychiatryBlood A Production and Clearance Measurements as a Diagnostic Test forAmyloidosis and Alzheimer's DiseasePrevious work from the Bateman and Holtzman labs have demonstrated clinical utility inmeasuring the synthesis and clearance rates of the amyloid-beta (Aβ) protein as a biomarker forefficacy of candidate Alzheimer’s drugs that target the protein. In a completely distinctinvention, the labs have demonstrated the ability to detect changes in Aβ in blood plasma, anassay that has utility for assessing drug candidates as well as diagnostic applications. PrimaryInvestigator: Randy Bateman, Neurology, and Dave Holtzman, NeurologyNovel Antithrombin Nanoceutical for Preventing Blood ClotsThe current invention comprises a first-in-class nanoparticulate antithrombotic that features apotent dual antithrombin/antiplatelet compound linked to a nanoparticle to function as a singleunit or drug. Advantages of this novel agent include (1) prolonged activity of drug at thenanoparticle surface and only at the site of active clotting, (2) potential for image-baseddetection and tracking of the agent and the acute thrombotic process, (3) the elimination ofharmful side effects after systemic delivery through the use of smaller drug amounts featuringsite-specific thrombin targeting and action, (4) well defined pharmacokinetics that are driven bythe nanoparticle itself and are independent of a subject’s genetics, and (5) the ability to multiplex anyother anticoagulant that is already on the market or in development for combination44

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual Propertytherapeutics. Studies indicate the nanoceutical outperforms standard heparin treatment, byincreasing the time to total occlusion by more than 40%. Primary Investigator: SamuelWickline, Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Division.Non-Steroidal Intra-Uterine ContraceptionInhibitors of the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) have utility in contraception and pregnancyprevention and provide an alternative to current progesterone-based contraception. Ourresearch suggests that local administration, in the form of intrauterine devices (IUD), is the mosteffective method to deliver PPP inhibitors for contraceptive use. Mice treated with the steroidPPP inhibitor dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA, did not develop uterine deciduomas in responseto a mechanical decidual stimulus applied to the hormone-primed endometrium. Further,studies that implanted slow release pellets of DHEA or 6-aminonicotinamide (6-AN) in theuterine horn of mice showed efficacy in preventing pregnancy. Primary Investigator: KelleMoley, Obstetrics and Gynecology.Novel Catheter for Delivering Anesthetic Nerve BlocksPeripheral nerve blocks are given to patients as a regional or local anesthetic or for chronic painrelief. The current peripheral nerve block is a two-step process that is technically challengingand has other drawbacks, including anesthetic leakage and needle displacement. The currentinvention describes a novel catheter device for delivering anesthetic nerve blocks in a single stepprocess that will avoid anesthetic leakage and enable accurate placement of the catheter. Thedevice incorporates an echogenic feature within an echogenic catheter for accurate positioningand continued monitoring by ultrasound. The echogenic feature is removable without resultingin anesthetic leakage. Primary Investigators: Stephen Hsu, Anesthesiology and Chris Lee,Anesthesiology.Anti-HIV/Contraceptive NanoparticlesResearchers have designed new nanoparticle decoys that survey the vaginal compartment forHIV or sperm. Designed to distinctly fuse with HIV or sperm, these particles kill the targetvirus or cell by releasing melittin, a toxin found in bee venom, after the fusion event. The fusionevent ensures specific targeting of the melittin only to the virus or sperm, leaving other cells inthe vaginal compartment unharmed. In vitro studies demonstrate that melittin delivered fromanti-HIV nanoparticles ablates virus infectivity. Primary Investigator: Samuel Wickline, InternalMedicine, Cardiovascular Division.Inhibition of Morphine-Induced ItchIntractable itch can be a serious and incurable side effect of many opioid drugs prescribed tomitigate pain, including morphine. For the first time, researchers have teased apart the pain anditch pathway showing that morphine’s effects are mediated by different isoforms of the mureceptor. As demonstrated through siRNA knockdown experiments in mice, MOR1 governsthe analgesic response, whereas MOR1D specifically interacts with gastrin-releasing peptidereceptor (GRPR) to mediate morphine-induced itch. The technology further describes a peptidethat in vitro specifically disrupts the interaction between MOR1D and GRPR thereby preventing45

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual Propertymorphine induced itch. Importantly, the analgesic effects of morphine in mice treated with thepeptide therapy were unaffected. Primary Investigator: Zhou-Feng Chen, Anesthesiology.Breast Cancer Prognostic ScreenMethods for deriving a minimal "intrinsic" gene set for making biological classifications of breastcancer and using "intrinsic" genes in a real-time qRT-PCR assay for breast cancer classification,prognosis and/or treatment. A Start-up company, BioClassifier (formerly known as UniversityGeneomics), has been founded on this technology. A larger corporate partner has sublicensedthis technology and is developing it for prognostic applications. Primary Investigator: MatthewEllis, Oncology/Endocrinology Surgery.Neurturin, a Novel Molecule to Treat Parkinson’s Disease.This is an older technology that has been licensed for gene therapy treatment for Parkinson’sDisease. The licensee took this technology forward to clinical phase 2. The results showed littledifference at 12 months between blinded sham controls and treated patients. However, the 18month unblinded results showed a clear distinction between the two groups. A new successfulphase 1 trial was run using a two-site injection protocol. Currently a phase 2b trial is in progress.Primary investigators: Eugene Johnson, Neurology, and Jeffrey Milbrandt, Genetics.Novel Murine Norovirus (MNV)This technology has continued to gain traction in mouse diagnostics and is currently being usedas a surrogate virus for testing commercial disinfectants. To date, five patents have been issuedfor detection of MNV and a virus culture system. Several licenses have been issued. PrimaryInvestigator: Herbert Virgin, Immunobiology.Limiting CD47 or Blocking Thrombospondin-1 Reverses the Detrimental Effectson Tissue Healing and Blood FlowThis technology has demonstrated that certain monoclonal antibodies and possibly othercompounds allow for more effective wound healing and graft survival in animal models. A newcompany, Vasculox was founded around this technology by the inventor. Primary Investigator:William Frazier, Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics.Neimann Pick C Disease MarkerA novel marker to detect Neimann Pick C (NPC), a fatal neurodegenerative disease, has beendiscovered. This discovery demonstrates the first and only plasma biomarker that has beendiscovered for this orphan disease. Certain NPC organizations in Europe haveshown interest in this technology and a series of non-exclusive licenses are in process. Acommercial partner is coordinating the European institutions. Primary Investigator: DanielOry, Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Division.46

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyNatriuretic Peptide-Mediated Imaging and/or Treatment of AtheroscleroticPlaqueThis invention includes a functionalized peptide that preferentially binds to unstable plaque.Imaging of unstable plaque may identify areas of imminent plaque rupture so that correctiveaction can be taken before a catastrophic event occurs. A large corporate partner is exploring aresearch partnership using this technology. Primary Investigator: Pamela Woodard, Radiology.Novel Virus Discovery ProgramSeveral nucleic acid fragments of novel viruses have been discovered in disease samples ofunknown etiology. Over the next few years, the study of these novel fragments should result innearly complete genome and protein characterizations of several novel human viral pathogens.The novel sequences may be used in diagnostic tests or vaccines production. This technology isexpanding into other departments and is resulting in new molecular approaches to discoveries.Primary Investigator: Herbert Virgin, David Wang, Pathology.Dnmt3a, Novel Prognostic Markers for Acute Myeloid LeukemiaTwenty two percent of AML patients have a mutation in the Dnmt3a gene. These novelmutations predict which form of AML will require intensive therapy for best outcomes.Several companies are exploring this marker for licensing and implementation onto adiagnostic platform. Primary Investigator: Timothy Ley, Internal Medicine; John Dipersio,Internal Medicine; Richard Wilson, Genetics; Li Ding, Genetics; and Elaine Mardis,Genetics.The Novel Effects of NAD-Related Compounds (Nicotinamide, NicotinamideMononucleotide & NAD) on Blood Glucose LevelsNMN has been shown to be an effective molecule to regulate blood glucose levels in animalmodels. A US patent has been issued for this technology. Currently a large sponsored researchagreement is in place with a small molecule manufacturing company to test NMN on a widescalefor blood glucose regulation. Primary Investigator: Shin-ichiro Imai, Molecular Biology.Novel Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Renal Cell CarcinomaTwo novel biomarkers can be detected in urine indicating renal cell carcinoma via non-invasivetechniques. The technology has developed from west blotting techniques to quantitative ELISAassays making this technology more attractive to and compatible with diagnostic companies’clinical platforms. Although a few start-up companies have evaluated this technology, it shouldbe ready for licensing to large corporations early in 2012. Primary Investigators: Evan Kharasch,Anesthesiology, and Jeremiah Morrissey, Anesthesiology.Effective Anti-integrin Antitumor Reagent for ChrondrosarcomaChondrosarcoma is a difficult musculoskeletal tumor to treat. Chemotherapy is only somewhateffective in mesenchymal chondrosarcoma and is of uncertain value in dedifferentiatedchondrosarcoma. Surgical excision is the only tumor treatment, but it leads to severe disabilitywith high rate of local recurrence, often at a higher grade, and can thus be life threatening.47

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyRadiation and adjuvant therapy are not effective in differentiated chondrosarcoma. Moreeffective antitumor reagents for chondrosarcoma are needed. The present invention utilizes ananti-integrin reagent which has chondrosarcoma tumor cell killing activity in vitro. Promisinganimal data indicates that this is also true in vivo.Primary Investigator: Linda Sandell,Orthopaedic SurgeryAnticonvulsant and Anxiolytic Lactam and Thiolactam DerivativesThis invention relates to lactam and thiolactam derivatives having useful anticonvulsant andanxiolytic activity, pharmaceutical compositions containing these compounds and therapeuticapplications using such compositions. Convulsant seizures occur in various chronic centralnervous system (CNS) disorders, particularly epilepsies. These seizures are generally correlatedwith abnormal and excessive EEG (electroencephalogram) discharges. A variety of drugs havebeen used for treatment of these seizures. The compounds covered under this patentsignificantly enhance GABA neuronal inhibition and are more active anticonvulsant andanxiolytic agents than prior art lactones and thiolactones. Further, these lactams and thiolactamshave been found to have relatively low toxicity and low sedative activity. Primary Investigator:Doug Covey, Developmental BiologyMethods of Prevention and Treatment of Ischemic DamageThe present invention in various embodiments provides methods of treating stroke andconferring protection on a population of cells associated with ischemia in a subject following anischemic event, comprising: (a) providing an estrogen compound; and (b) administering theeffective amount of the compound over a course that includes at least one dose within a timethat is effectively proximate to the ischemic event, so as to confer protection on the populationof cells. Novel methods are provided for the delivery of an estrogen compound. Examples ofischemic events treatable according to the invention are cerebrovascular disease or stroke,subarachnoid subhemorrhage, myocardial infarct, surgery and trauma. A method of treatingischemic damage utilizing hormones that are non-sex hormones is also provided. A method oftreating stroke with ent-17.beta.-estradiol, and a method of synthesis, and compounds producedfrom the synthesis are provided. Primary Investigator: Doug Covey, Developmental BiologyNeuroactive 13, 24-Cyclo-18, 21-Dinorcholanes and Structurally RelatedPentacyclic SteroidsThe present invention is directed to novel pentacyclic steroids and novel pentacyclic D-homosteroids that have utility as anesthetics and in the treatment of disorders relating to GABAfunction and activity. In addition to anesthetic properties, neuroactive steroids may be used totreat disorders related to GABA function. For example, neuroactive steroids may be used assedative-hypnotics e.g. insomnia, mood disorders, convulsive disorders, anxiety, or symptoms ofethanol withdrawal. These agents act by enhancing GABA.sub.A receptor desensitization anddisplay different degrees of enantioselectivity. These compounds may be useful as memoryenhancers and in reversing the anesthetic effects of compounds that potentiate GABA atGABA.sub.A receptors. Primary Investigator: Doug Covey, Developmental Biology48

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyNovel Genetic Risk Factor for Alzheimer’s Disease ProgressionResearchers at Washington University have identified a novel genetic variant that stronglycorrelates with Alzheimer’s disease progression. Dr. Alison Goate and collaborators used anestablished biomarker for the decline of AD patients (cerebrospinal fluid tau phosphorylated atthreonine 181, ptau 181 ) to find genetic variants that influence levels of ptau 181 in the cerebrospinalfluid. The study found a highly significant association between ptau 181 levels and the rs1868402SNP located within a regulatory subunit of PPP3R1 (calcineurin B), a gene previously linked toAD pathogenesis. Carriers of the rs1868402 risk allele showed a 6-fold faster rate of diseaseprogression than AD patients without the variant. Direct examination of brain samples fromAD cases and controls revealed that rs1868402is in fact associated with reduced PPP3R1 mRNAlevels and increased tangle formation, providing biological validation for the genome-wideassociation study and further implicating PPP3R1 in disease pathology. As the first geneticvariant associated with rate of AD progression to be reported, its use in clinical trial design andpatient care will translate into a significant benefit to patients. Primary Investigator: AlisonGoate, PsychiatryBlood A production and Clearance Measurements as a Diagnostic Test forAmyloidosis and Alzheimer's DiseasePrevious work from the Bateman and Holtzman labs have demonstrated clinical utility inmeasuring the synthesis and clearance rates of the amyloid-beta (Aβ) protein as a biomarker forefficacy of candidate Alzheimer’s drugs that target the protein. In a completely distinctinvention, the labs have demonstrated the ability to detect changes in Aβ in blood plasma, anassay that has utility for assessing drug candidates as well as diagnostic applications. PrimaryInvestigator: Randy Bateman, Neurology, and Dave Holtzman, NeurologyNovel Antithrombin Nanoceutical for Preventing Blood ClotsThe current invention comprises a first-in-class nanoparticulate antithrombotic that features apotent dual antithrombin/antiplatelet compound linked to a nanoparticle to function as a singleunit or drug. Advantages of this novel agent include (1) prolonged activity of drug at thenanoparticle surface and only at the site of active clotting, (2) potential for image-baseddetection and tracking of the agent and the acute thrombotic process, (3) the elimination ofharmful side effects after systemic delivery through the use of smaller drug amounts featuringsite-specific thrombin targeting and action, (4) well defined pharmacokinetics that are driven bythe nanoparticle itself and are independent of a subject’s genetics, and (5) the ability to multiplex anyother anticoagulant that is already on the market or in development for combinationtherapeutics. Studies indicate the nanoceutical outperforms standard heparin treatment, byincreasing the time to total occlusion by more than 40%. Primary Investigator: SamuelWickline, Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Division.Novel Compounds to Treat Urinary Tract InfectionUrinary tract infections (UTI) affect a large proportion of the population and account forsignificant morbidity and high medical costs. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) isresponsible for up to 85% of infections and a large percentage of recurrent UTI are caused bythe same strain of bacteria as the initial UTI despite the antibiotic regimen; the current gold49

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual Propertystandard. The annual UTI incidence rate is 12.1% in women and 3% among men. Recurrencerates are high with women having a 25% to 44% chance of developing a second episode within 6months of the initial UTI. Treatment of UTI like other microbial infections is exacerbated byincreasing antimicrobial resistance and there is a huge unmet need for alternative therapies.Novel patented compounds such as Pilicides and Mannosides disrupt pili biogenesis and hostpathogeninteraction to effectively block disease progression. Primary Investigators: ScottHultgren, Molecular Microbiology and James Janetka, BiochemistryMacrocyclic Molecular BeaconsThe cyclization of fluorescent probes through bioactive molecules creates new compounds witha rigid structural framework. This agent retains the binding properties of the peptide while thephotophysical characteristics of the optical probe may be altered. The constrained conformationof the peptide conjugate modifies the selectivity of the receptor. Use of this agent can lendinsight into biological activities and facilitate the creation of disease-specific drugs. The currentinvention describes novel bioactive near infrared (NIR) macrocyclic optical compounds whosebiological and spectral properties can be enhanced through bioactive peptide-mediatedcyclization. Primary Investigator: Samuel Achilefu, RadiologyFluorescent Polymethine Cyanine DyesThe present invention provides compounds that possess a robust C-C bond containing nearinfrared chromophore as optical antenna. The C-C bond allows the development of stable dyesfor imaging and monitoring biological events such as disease-associated enzymatic activity. Thisnovel molecular design offers superior chemical stability for biomedical and analyticalapplications. Because of the biological stability, changes in spectral properties can be attributedaccurately to target biological processes such as monitoring disease-associated enzymatic activity.The C-C coupled dyes also allows for extended pi-bond conjugation, thereby enabling the use ofnew designs to obtain diagnostically useful spectral information such as pH-sensitive response insolid tumors. Primary Investigator : Samuel Achilefu, RadiologyCompounds Having Rd Targeting MotifsThe present invention provides compounds that have motifs that target the compounds to cellsthat express integrins. In particular, the compound shave peptides with one or more RD motifsconjugated to an agent selected from an imaging agent and a targeting agent. These compoundsmay be used to detect, monitor, and treat a variety of integrin-mediated biological processes,including the progression of disease states such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, inflammationand cancer. Primary Investigator : Samuel Achilefu, Radiology50

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyBear Cub FundDuring fiscal year 2011, WUSTL awarded six Bear Cub Fund grants totaling $240,000 tosupport innovative research projects that could be attractive for licensing by commercialentities or serve as the foundation for a start-up company.The grants were awarded to: Scott Hultgren, PhD, the Helen L. Stoever Professor ofMolecular Microbiology, and Bradley Ford, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral research associate; DavidHaslam, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and molecular microbiology; Enrique W.Izaguirre, PhD, assistant professor of radiation oncology and of biomedical engineering; KelleMoley, MD, the James Crane Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Daniel Moran, PhD,associate professor of biomedical engineering, and Matthew MacEwan, MD, PhD, a graduateresearch assistant in biomedical engineering; and Phillip Tarr, MD, Melvin E. CarnahanProfessor of Pediatrics.David Haslam is taking a novel approach to fighting Clostridium difficile infection, a severeintestinal illness that affects about 500,000 Americans annually. Rather than target the bacteria,he is focused on blocking the C. difficile toxins as a means to control the infection. Toxinsreleased by the bacterium are responsible for damage to intestinal cells and cause massiveinflammation. Haslam has identified small-molecule inhibitors of C. difficile toxins and willevaluate their effectiveness in animal models.Scott Hultgren and Bradley Ford are developing a new class of antibiotics that specifically targeturinary tract infections caused by the bacterium Escherchia coli. Recurrent and drug-resistantinfections caused by E. coli are a significant and increasing problem for women. Their researchhas suggested that new antibiotics called mannosides that target a bacterial component essentialto bladder adherence can prevent urinary tract infections caused by E. coli. They now plan toevaluate whether the drugs can cure an existing infection, circumvent antibiotic resistance andprevent recurrence in a mouse model of urinary tract infection.Enrique Izaguirre is developing a device to measure the actual dose of radiation delivered tocancer patients in “real time.” External-beam radiation therapy is used to treat about 50 percentof cancer patients in the United States. This imaging dosimeter would allow clinicians andmedical physicists to verify the radiation dose delivered to patients during the course oftreatment, enhancing the safety and accuracy of the therapy.Kelle Moley is investigating a new type of intrauterine device for contraception that does notrely on hormones to prevent pregnancy. IUDs currently on the market use forms of thehormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent pregnancy. But the hormones can causenumerous side effects, including breakthrough bleeding, heavy bleeding, headaches, nausea,weight gain and cardiovascular problems. Moley is investigating an IUD that releases aninhibitor of the pentose phosphate pathway. Activating this pathway is necessary for pregnancyto occur. Two non-hormonal inhibitors of the pathway will be evaluated as contraceptives inanimal models, and the researchers also plan to identify additional inhibitors of the pathway.51

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyDaniel Moran and Matthew MacEwan have developed a new type of resorbable, lightweightmesh for use during surgery to repair abdominal hernias. Surgeons routinely place a piece ofsynthetic mesh over the internal sutures to reinforce the abdominal wall. The mesh developed byMoran and MacEwan is constructed of nanofibers and is expected to promote tissueregeneration and wound healing without promoting excessive scar tissue, like other types ofmesh. They will evaluate the mesh in animal models and compare their outcomes to results usingcommercially available hernia repair meshes.Since 2008, Bear Cub has reviewed 79 projects and funded 21. Total funding over this periodhas been $937,000.More information about the Bear Cub grants can be found athttp://research.wustl.edu/Offices_Committees/OTM/faculty/Pages/TranslationalResearch.aspx#bear_cub52

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyInvention DisclosuresUnder the University’s Intellectual Property (IP) policy, creators are required to disclose to OTMinventions made using significant University resources and/or pursuant to a research projectfunded through corporate, federal, or other external sponsors. OTM evaluates each newdisclosure for its potential commercial value and for the best modes of intellectual propertyprotection and commercialization. For some disclosures copyright protection is mostappropriate, such as computer software or questionnaires, for others patent protection is soughtand still others may be commercialized without filing for a patent.For recording-keeping purposes, OTM tracks disclosures as either copyright or inventions.During Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11), OTM received 136 new disclosures from 24 differentdepartments. This was an increase of 30% from FY10. Of these disclosures, 73% originated inthe School of Medicine, 22% from the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and 5%from the School of Arts & Sciences. Table 2 below shows invention disclosures by school andTable 3 below shows invention disclosures by department.FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & Sciences 7 4 9 6 6Engineering 30 18 17 13 13Medicine 99 82 96 79 81Architecture 0 0 3 0 0Law School 0 0 0 0 1Total 136 104 125 98 101Table 2Invention Disclosures by School – FY11 through FY0753

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyDepartment FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & SciencesBiology 4 2 6 4 3Chemistry 3 1 2 0 0Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 1Mathematics 0 0 0 1 0Physics 0 1 1 0 2Psychology 0 0 0 1 0Arts & Sciences Total 7 4 9 6 6School of EngineeringBiomedical Engineering 13 11 10 9 2Computer Science & Engineering 5 2 1 0 3Electrical & Systems Engineering 3 2 0 0 1Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering 4 3 4 0 5Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering 5 0 2 4 2Engineering Total 30 18 17 13 13School of MedicineAnatomy & Neurobiology 1 3 0 0 0Anesthesiology 6 5 7 4 3Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 4 2 4 3Biostatistics 0 1 0 0 0Cell Biology & Physiology 0 0 0 0 1Developmental Biology 3 2 4 5 7Genetics 3 0 3 2 2Internal Medicine 18 18 17 24 22Molecular Microbiology 0 4 3 0 3Neurology 2 6 8 5 6Neurological Surgery 3 7 3 1 2Obstetrics & Gynecology 3 1 1 0 0Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 1 4 1 3 4Orthopedic Surgery 1 1 0 1 2Otolaryngology 4 1 4 1 1Pathology & Immunology 9 3 13 7 3Pediatrics 6 5 4 2 1Physical Therapy 0 1 0 0 2Psychiatry 2 1 0 3 2Radiation Oncology 22 4 7 2 0Radiology 12 6 13 10 5Siteman Cancer Center 1 0 0 0 0Surgery 1 5 6 5 12Medicine Total 99 82 96 79 81School of ArchitectureArchitecture 0 0 3 0 0Architecture Total 0 0 3 0 0School of LawLaw 0 0 0 0 1Law Total 0 0 0 0 1Total 136 104 125 98 101Table 3Invention Disclosures by Department – FY11 through FY0754

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyPatent PortfolioWhen OTM decides to pursue patent protection for an invention, a U.S. provisional patentapplication is usually filed. This filing is not actually examined by the Patent Office, but ratherserves to establish a filing date and “patent pending” status for a year. OTM filed provisionalpatent applications for 39 of the 136 invention disclosures received in FY11.After the one year provisional period, OTM will have the opportunity to file or convert theprovisional application into a non-provisional application that will be examined by the patentoffice before being granted. A non-provisional application can be filed in the U.S., with theWorld Intellectual Property Organization as a PCT international application and/or in individualforeign countries. The decision of when and where to file such applications are a part of OTM’smanagement of the University’s IP portfolio. During FY11, OTM filed 28 non-provisionalpatent applications.OTM’s management of the University’s patent portfolio also includes ongoing communicationwith external patent counsel and patent office staff while an application is being examined,maintenance of issued patents, and payment of required fees. To date the OTM manages aportfolio of 621 pending patent applications and 917 issued patents (442 US patents and 475foreign patents). In FY11 the University had 49 patents issued, 26 issued by the US patentoffice and 23 issued by foreign patent offices. In total, OTM invested close to $2M in themanagement of the University patent portfolio in FY11.FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & Sciences 10 7 4 3 3Engineering 15 15 20 7 13Medicine 58 54 82 84 59Total 83 76 106 94 75Table 4U.S. Patent Applications by School – FY11 through FY0755

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyDepartment FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & SciencesBiology 2 2 2 3 3Chemistry 4 2 0 0 0Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 0Mathematics 1 1 1 0 0Physics 3 2 0 0 0Psychology 0 0 1 0 0Arts & Sciences Total 10 7 4 3 3School of EngineeringBiomedical Engineering 9 13 15 5 3Computer Science & Engineering 0 0 0 2 4Electrical & Systems Engineering 1 1 0 0 1Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering 3 0 3 0 2Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering 2 1 2 0 3Engineering Total 15 15 20 7 13School of MedicineAnatomy & Neurobiology 0 0 1 2 0Anesthesiology 2 2 3 1 2Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 5 3 4 6 6Cell Biology & Physiology 0 0 0 2 0Developmental Biology 4 5 8 9 1Genetics 1 2 2 1 3Internal Medicine 9 13 21 18 18Molecular Microbiology 1 1 2 4 5Neurology 5 3 11 8 2Neurological Surgery 6 3 2 7 2Obstetrics & Gynecology 1 0 0 0 0Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 2 0 1 3 1Orthopedic Surgery 1 0 0 1 1Otolaryngology 0 0 0 0 1Pathology & Immunology 5 2 8 3 1Pediatrics 1 2 1 5 0Physical Therapy 0 1 1 0 1Psychiatry 1 1 3 2 2Radiation Oncology 2 1 1 0 0Radiology 9 11 9 9 10Siteman Cancer Center 0 0 0 0 0Surgery 3 4 4 3 3Medicine Total 58 54 82 84 59Total 83 76 106 94 75Table 5U.S. Patent Applications by Department – FY11 through FY0756

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyLicensesOTM seeks to put the University’s inventions and discoveries into the hands of the public.Sometimes this means sharing our inventions with other non-profit organizations for free andother times this means licensing them out to corporate entities in exchange for fees and/orroyalties. Patented and unpatented inventions are transferred to industry through a variety oflicensing arrangements. Some of the licensing or license-related arrangements OTM enters intoare as follows:Evaluation & Option Agreement:• Gives a company a time-limited (generally six months to a year) “preview” of theinvention for the purpose of deciding whether to take a license.Non-Exclusive License Agreement:• Fee- and royalty-bearing license: rights are granted to commercialize the technology,may be granted to multiple licensees.• Paid-up license: a non-exclusive license granted for a one-time, up-front license feewithout subsequent fees or royalties.• No-fee license: rights are granted to a third party (usually another non-profiteducational institution) to use a technology that is generally licensed to commercialentities for a fee.Exclusive License Agreement:• A fee- and royalty-bearing exclusive license; grants a licensee the sole right tocommercialize a technology (may include sublicensing rights).License agreements may be limited to a particular field of use or geographic area. They also oftenvary in terms of amount of fees and royalties due, milestones to be achieved by the company, andlength of the agreement. While the majority of licenses granted by the University are to existingcommercial companies, the University is also actively supporting and encouraging the creation ofnew business ventures in St. Louis by licensing technology to start-up companies.In FY11 the University entered into 12 Evaluation and Option Agreements. This year theUniversity also granted a total of 48 revenue-generating licenses, 15 exclusive and 33 nonexclusive.The table below shows the number of revenue-generating licenses by School. Thisresult is remarkable considering the downturn in the global economy and continuation ofcompany mergers and downsizing.FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & Sciences 0 0 0 0 0Engineering 3 3 2 3 0Medicine 45 38 41 38 45Law 0 0 0 1 0Social Work 0 0 1 0 0Total 48 41 44 42 45Table 6Licenses by School – FY11 through FY0757

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyDepartment FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & SciencesBiology 0 0 0 0 0Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 0Mathematics 0 0 0 0 0Physics 0 0 0 0 0Psychology 0 0 0 0 0Arts & Sciences Total 0 0 0 0 0School of EngineeringBiomedical Engineering 1 2 2 0 0Computer Science & Engineering 0 0 0 2 0Electrical & Systems Engineering 0 0 0 0 0Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering 2 1 0 0 0Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering 0 0 0 1 0Engineering Total 3 3 2 3 0School of MedicineAnatomy & Neurobiology 0 2 1 2 1Anesthesiology 1 0 0 0 0Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 1 0 0 1Biostatistics 0 2 0 0 0Cell Biology & Physiology 2 2 0 0 1Developmental Biology 4 0 2 0 4Genetics 1 6 0 0 1Internal Medicine 11 4 4 6 8Molecular Microbiology 2 1 1 0 0Neurology 3 8 4 5 3Neurological Surgery 0 0 1 0 0Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 0 0 0Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 3 1 1 0 0Orthopedic Surgery 0 0 0 1 0Otolaryngology 1 2 5 6 2Pathology & Immunology 6 2 14 15 17Pediatrics 2 1 1 0 2Psychiatry 0 1 1 1 2Radiation Oncology 4 3 2 0 0Radiology 1 1 2 1 0Siteman Cancer Center 1 0 0 0 0Surgery 2 1 2 1 3Medicine Total 45 38 41 38 45School of LawLaw 0 0 0 1 0Law Total 0 0 0 1 0School of Social WorkSocial Work 0 0 1 0 0Social Work Total 0 0 1 0 0Total Licenses48 41 44 42 45Table 7Licenses by Department – FY11 through FY0758

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyLicense RevenueThe OTM staff manages a total of 1873 active license agreements. This includes monitoring thelicensee’s business development and compliance of performance milestones, coordinating patentprosecution, processing license income and distributing revenue according to the University’s IPpolicy. Under most revenue-generating licenses, OTM receives gross licensing income in theform of license fees, maintenance fees, milestone payments, and earned royalties on sales ofproducts or services. In addition, the University collects patent expense reimbursement fromsome licensees, particularly when the license is exclusive.The University received $6.3M in total licensing revenue in FY11. Revenues generated by eachschool were as follows:School of Medicine: $4.9MSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences: $1.04MSchool of Arts and Sciences: $0.3MFY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & Sciences $307,503 $326,470 $437,028 $1,762,509 $312,773Engineering 1,043,137 1,134,545 1,064,222 1,291,326 1,054,607Law 0 0 0 8,568 0Medicine 4,922,705 4,891,770 6,419,449 13,952,595 10,642,473Social Work 0 0 0 0 0TOTALS $6,273,345 $6,352,784 $7,920,699 $17,014,998 $12,009,853Table 8License Revenue by School – FY11 through FY0759

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyFiscal Year 11Arts &SciencesEngineering Medicine TotalIncomeLicensing Income $260,670 $833,399 $4,277,149 $5,371,218Expense Reimbursements OTM Current FY (External) 57,994 210,309 663,630 931,933Expense Reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External) (11,162) (571) (18,074) (29,806)Subtotal Income 307,503 1,043,137 4,922,705 6,273,345ExpensesLegal 78,745 341,020 1,513,791 1,933,556Other 0 45 171 216Subtotal Expenses 78,745 341,065 1,513,963 1,933,772DistributionsDistribution to Inventors 83,357 396,408 1,893,957 2,373,722Distribution to Schools (Lic. Income) 99,955 320,445 1,741,809 2,162,209Distribution to Third Parties 42,500 0 154,238 196,738Subtotal Distributions 225,813 716,854 3,790,003 4,732,670Contributions to OTM Operations $2,945 ($14,781) ($381,261) ($393,097)Table 9Technology Transfer Activity by School – FY11FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07IncomeLicensing Income $5,371,218 $5,028,595 $6,301,462 $15,715,818 $10,388,459Expense reimbursements OTM Current FY (External) 931,933 1,266,112 1,336,650 937,625 1,401,739Expense reimbursements OTM Prior FY (External) (29,806) 58,078 282,586 361,554 219,655Subtotal Income 6,273,345 6,352,784 7,920,699 17,014,998 12,009,853ExpensesLegal 1,933,556 2,063,735 2,206,994 2,271,787 2,113,917Other 216 250 520 758 331Subtotal Expenses 1,933,772 2,063,984 2,207,513 2,272,545 2,114,248DistributionsDistribution to inventors 2,373,722 2,361,526 2,630,409 7,177,024 4,658,904Distribution to schools (Lic. Income) 2,162,209 2,043,152 2,527,568 6,787,846 4,172,039Distribution to third parties 196,738 158,682 299,638 759,070 664,687Subtotal Distributions 4,732,670 4,563,360 5,457,615 14,723,940 9,495,631Contribution to OTM operations ($393,097) ($274,560) $255,571 $18,513 $399,974Table 10Technology Transfer Activity – FY11 through FY0760

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyIndustry-Sponsored Research Agreements by SchoolIndustry sponsored research plays a key role in the technology transfer process. OTMnegotiates, executes, and manages all industry sponsored research agreements (SRAs) where thesponsor is a for-profit entity and the research does not involve human subjects (i.e., notfederally funded or a clinical trial). In FY11, the University entered into 51 industry sponsoredresearch agreements.FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & Sciences 4 0 3 5 5Engineering 5 6 10 15 4Medicine 42 35 40 52 51Social Work 0 0 0 0 0Total 51 41 53 72 60Table 11Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements by School – FY11 through FY0761

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyDepartment/School FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Arts & SciencesBiology 2 0 0 2 2Chemistry 2 0 2 3 3Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 0Physics 0 0 1 0 0Psychology 0 0 0 0 0Arts & Sciences Total 4 0 3 5 5Engineering & Applied ScienceBiomedical Engineering 1 3 2 0 0Computer Science & Engineering 1 2 0 0 2Electrical & Systems Engineering 1 0 1 1 1Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering 2 0 5 10 1Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering 0 1 2 4 0Engineering & Applied Science Total 5 6 10 15 4MedicineAnatomy & Neurobiology 0 0 0 0 0Anesthesiology 4 0 2 2 2Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 0 0 0 0 0Cell Biology & Physiology 1 0 0 0 0Developmental Biology 4 0 0 0 4Genetics 0 1 3 2 1Internal Medicine 8 14 12 14 6Molecular Microbiology 0 1 0 1 1Neurology 5 5 2 6 3Neurological Surgery 0 1 2 0 0Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 0 0 0Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 0 0 0 0 0Orthopedic Surgery 0 1 0 4 2Otolaryngology 0 0 0 3 2Pathology & Immunology 5 1 3 1 7Pediatrics 4 4 4 2 6Physical Therapy 0 0 0 0 0Psychiatry 1 0 0 1 2Radiation Oncology 0 1 0 1 2Radiology 5 2 7 8 9Siteman Cancer Center 0 0 0 0 0Surgery 5 4 5 7 4Medicine Total 42 35 40 52 51Total Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements 51 41 53 72 60Table 12Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements by Department –FY11 through FY0762

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyOther Agreements by DepartmentOTM also handles other agreements in its promotion of technology transfer includingconfidential disclosure agreements (CDAs), inter-institutional agreements (IIAs), and serviceagreements. CDAs allow for the University faculty to exchange confidential information withoutside third parties under obligations to protect and preserve the confidentiality of theinformation. Generally CDAs are entered into for the purpose of exploring a potential researchcollaboration or license agreement. In FY11, OTM negotiated and executed a total of 161CDAs.The University will enter into an IIA when an invention has been created by employees of theUniversity and employees of another institution. Each institution becomes a co-owner of theinvention and the IIA determines which institution will take the lead in patenting and licensingactivities. In FY11 the University entered into 3 IIAs.Service agreements were re-instated within WU in FY11 after an initial pilot program in FY10.Procedures on the use and processes for Service Agreements were further defined and astandard agreement template was finalized. In FY11, OTM executed 25 service agreements.63

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyConfidentialityInter-institutionalServiceDepartmentFY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07 FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07 FY11

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertyMaterial Transfer Agreements by DepartmentOTM handles the execution of material transfer agreements (MTAs), required by the Universitywhen transferring proprietary materials in and out of WU for research use. Incoming MTAs areno-fee agreements used when the material is received from another non-profit institution orfrom a commercial third party for the research at WU. Outgoing MTAs are used to distributeWU materials (patented and unpatented) without charge to other non-profit institutions or forprofitcompanies for their own internal research activities.FY11FY10FY09FY08FY07DepartmentAcademic Industry Academic Industry Academic Industry Academic Industry Academic IndustryArts & SciencesBiology 10 1 15 1 31 0 27 2 47 0Chemistry 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0Earth & Planetary Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mathematics 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Physics 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Psyc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Arts & Sciences Total 10 1 15 1 32 2 28 3 49 0Engineering & Applied ScienceBiomedical Engineering 0 0 4 3 3 0 1 0 2 0Computer Science & Engineering 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Electrical & Systems Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Mechanical, Aerospace & Structural Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Engineering & Applied Science Total 3 0 4 3 4 0 1 0 2 0MedicineAnatomy & Neurobiology 16 1 19 1 13 2 10 1 25 0Anesthesiology 12 4 11 3 10 2 15 2 11 0Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 8 2 6 0 10 1 11 0 4 0Cell Biology & Physiology 20 0 25 1 25 3 34 0 25 3Developmental Biology 37 5 48 4 88 4 79 6 107 0Genet 16 3 17 1 8 0 8 1 9 0Internal Medicine 192 32 207 23 225 25 164 23 165 16Molecular Microbiology 43 4 42 0 41 2 52 1 45 5Neurology 56 5 47 10 34 2 28 6 34 8Neurological Surgery 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0Obstetrics & Gynecology 6 0 5 1 3 0 3 0 3 0Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 19 5 15 0 26 2 14 0 25 3Orthopedic Surgery 4 1 3 0 5 0 6 0 3 3Otolaryngology 5 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 8 0Pathology & Immunology 145 15 129 1 181 6 110 2 123 2Pediatrics 22 4 25 2 34 3 35 0 41 4Physical Therapy 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Psyc 3 1 3 2 2 2 4 1 6 1Radiation Oncology 5 3 5 1 2 1 8 0 7 1Radiology 47 3 56 1 47 3 31 3 33 4Siteman Cancer Center 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Surgery 27 6 35 6 24 2 25 2 22 5Medicine Total 686 94 699 57 781 60 645 48 698 55Social Work 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Social Work Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 700 95 718 61 817 62 674 51 749 55Table 14Material Transfer Agreements by Department – FY11 through FY0765

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Technology Management & Intellectual PropertySocial and Financial ImpactOTM extends the University’s research via its involvement with the Biogenerator, localincubators, the Regional Chamber and Growth Association, the Danforth Plant SciencesCenter Alliance, the Missouri Venture Forum, the Midwest Research Universities Network, andmany other organizations. Together they develop channels for making WU technologies widelyavailable and simultaneously build the economy. In FY11, WU technology was licensed to twostart-up companies.FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07Start-up Companies Formed 2 2 2 4 5Invention Disclosures 136 104 125 98 101US/PCT Patents Filed 83 76 106 94 75License Agreements 48 41 44 42 45Industry Sponsored Research 51 41 53 72 60Table 15Summary of Economic Impact – FY11 through FY0766

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Clinical Trials – Industry SponsoredClinical Trials – Industry SponsoredThis section of the Annual Report is provided by the Center for Clinical Studies. Forquestions regarding information within this section, please contact Yi Zhang, Director, atyzhang25@wustl.edu.67

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Clinical Trials – Industry SponsoredClinical Trials – Industry SponsoredExecutive SummaryThe industry-funded clinical studies described in this report are performed by numerous facultythroughout the School of Medicine. There are also a number of centers dedicated to supportingclinical studies across the School of Medicine; some of these centers are highlighted below.Center for Clinical StudiesThe mission of the Center for Clinical Studies (CCS) is to facilitate clinical research of thehighest quality – supporting the effective evaluation of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, andtreatment outcomes – by providing the Washington University research community withadministrative and clinical research services that move trials efficiently from initial proposalthrough study close-out. We assist with clinical research studies supported by federal andfoundation grants and industry contracts, including strong support for investigator-initiatedstudies. Our services include study placement, IRB and other regulatory support and guidance,comprehensive budget development and contract negotiation, recruitment support services(including a centralized research participant database), expert study coordination, dedicatedresearch space and quality improvement initiatives. CCS services facilitate regulatory complianceand operational best practices to optimally support the clinical research endeavor.Center for Applied Research SciencesThe Center for Applied Research Sciences (CARS), established in September 2007 as a corewithin the WU Institute of Clinical & Translational Sciences, represents three units (the ClinicalTrials Unit, the Clinical Research Unit and the Pediatric Clinical Research Unit) at the School ofMedicine which support and conduct clinical studies. The establishment of CARS improvesaccess to specialized clinical research units that contain state-of-the-art resources and wherestudies can be performed safely, ethically and efficiently across a spectrum of study populations,research designs and physical sites.The Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) is located on the 11 th floor of the Center for Advanced Medicine.The unit is an outpatient research unit that offers dedicated research space, equipment, andnursing support for a wide range of clinical studies, particularly multi-center clinical trials. TheCTU generally supports studies that require less sophisticated or intensive measurements andprocedures than those conducted in the Clinical Research Unit.The Clinical Research Unit (CRU) is located on the 4 th and 5 th floors of Barnard Hospital. TheCRU operates as an in-patient and out-patient clinical research unit for studies that require more“intense” nursing services than the studies performed in the Clinical Trials Unit or that requirean inpatient stay. In addition, this unit provides specialized nutritional and lifestyle interventionresearch services, coordinating with the principal investigator to facilitate a comprehensiveexperience for their research subjects. Bionutritional or lifestyle intervention research servicesmay be obtained separately or as part of the visits.68

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Clinical Trials – Industry SponsoredThe Pediatric Clinical Research Unit (PCRU) provides space, nursing and bionutritional supportfor clinical research projects conducted with children at Washington University. The unit is onthe 11 th floor of St. Louis Children’s Hospital and has exam and interview room space, aprocedure area and a phlebotomy and sample processing area.Siteman Cancer CenterThe Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington UniversitySchool of Medicine in St. Louis is an international leader in cancer treatment, research,prevention, education and community outreach. It is the only cancer center in Missouri andwithin a 240-mile radius of St. Louis to hold the prestigious Comprehensive Cancer Centerdesignation from the National Cancer Institute. The Siteman Cancer Center offers manydifferent types of clinical trials. At any given time, Siteman has more than 250 clinical studies,including many collaborative efforts with other leading cancer centers throughout the country.There are different types of clinical trials performed at Siteman. Therapeutic trials involve sometype of treatment, such as a new drug, combination of new and/or existing drugs or a newcombination of therapies (for example, changing the schedule of the chemotherapy andradiation therapy). They are aimed at patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.Other trials are designed to prevent cancer in healthy people or control cancer in people whohave had curative treatment.Recruitment Enhancement Core (REC)In order to improve patient accrual in clinical studies, the Regulatory Support Center (RSC)within the Institute of Clinical & Translational Sciences supports a program called RecruitmentEnhancement Core (REC). The goal of the REC is to assist investigators in recruiting potentialparticipants while ensuring compliance with all relevant regulations, including informed consent,confidentiality, privacy of health information, and the recruitment of women andunderrepresented minorities. The REC provides investigators with pre-qualified, pre-screenedand potential research participants. The service increases public awareness and knowledgeconcerning medical research needs and opportunities, and the increasing need for minorityparticipation. This education of the community is done in a variety of ways, including radio andprint advertising as well as targeted health fair promotion. This paradigm shift has beenachieved by utilizing a pre-existing WU medical center resource called Volunteer for Health(VFH). The Washington University VFH recruitment program was established in September1998 and has assisted investigators in recruitment of study participants since that time. Thisprogram includes a database, called the Research Participant Registry, with profiles of potentialsubjects in a variety of therapeutic areas, as well as assistance with on-campus and/or mediaadvertising. Currently, the database contains more than 15,000 interested, consented volunteersand the REC is dedicated to developing and implementing strategic, recruitment plans thatimpact recruitment, university wide.69

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Clinical Trials – Industry SponsoredAIDS Clinical Trials Unit (ACTU)The Washington University AIDS Clinical Trials Unit (ACTU) was established in 1987 toconduct clinical research and participate in clinical trials for persons with HIV-associateddisease. Since 1987, the Washington University ACTU has been a highly productive participantin the AIDS Clinical Trials Group funded by the National Institute of Allergy and InfectiousDiseases. It conducts NIH, CDC and industry sponsored and Washington Universityinvestigator initiated clinical research trials of potential treatments for HIV and its co-infectionsand complications. Well established and active in the community, the ACTU provides access toresearch trials, community outreach and education, continuing education, and consultation forhealth care professionals. Currently, clinical trials at the ACTU are studying the aging andmetabolic effects of long term HIV infection, treatments that may stop HIV’s destruction of theimmune system; treatments that might help reduce HIV associated inflammatory, metabolic andneurological complications. Since 1988, more than 6000 individuals have participated in studiesoffered at our site.Oriented Research Unit (Pediatrics)The Patient Oriented Research Unit (PORU) has dedicated space on the 10th floor of theNorthwest Tower and serves as an academic base for the interaction and collaboration of clinicalinvestigators within the Department of Pediatrics. Administrative members of the PORU assistmembers of the Department with submission of human studies protocols to the Internal ReviewBoard (IRB) and with preparation of clinical research grants and contracts. PORU investigatorsare studying a variety of clinical topics, including diabetes, asthma, sickle cell disease,hypertension, cancer predisposition, organ transplantation, smoking cessation and many others.Beyond physicians, participants in these studies include psychologists, epidemiologists, andbiostatisticians.Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials – FY09-FY11The number of Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials performed at Washington University hasremained stable over the last three fiscal years while the revenue received from the trials has seena slight decrease. Over the three year period, the number of clinical trials performed at theinstitution has decreased from 1,348 trials in fiscal year 2009 to 1,341 trials in fiscal year 2011(-1%). During that same time, the cash receipts from those trials have decreased by 2% from$27.3 million in 2009 to $26.7 million in 2011. For a break-down of clinical trials by departmentof the School of Medicine please refer to Table 1.Of the total trials performed at the School of Medicine in 2011, 711 out of 1,341 or 53% wereperformed in the Department of Internal Medicine. In dollar terms, this represents 50% of thetotal clinical trial dollars for fiscal year 2011. For a break-down of clinical trials by Division ofthe School of Medicine’s Department of Internal Medicine, please refer to Table 2. Also, duringthe period fiscal years 2009 to 2011 the number of new industry-funded, clinical research-relatedagreements and amendments has increased by 15%, while the number of new industry-fundedClinical Trial Agreements has decreased by 9% as is shown in Table 3.70

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Center for Clinical StudiesFY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009% Inc / (Dec)FY 09 - FY 11Department Number Dollars Number Dollars Number Dollars Number DollarsInternal Medicine 711 $13,454,716 794 $14,942,065 724 $13,420,533 -2% 0%Neurology 151 2,020,335 144 1,917,933 124 1,989,327 22% 2%Surgery 130 2,278,585 117 1,673,053 136 1,749,474 -4% 30%Pediatrics 99 1,426,494 93 1,329,103 86 1,031,996 15% 38%Radiology 58 756,670 63 1,364,864 62 2,182,770 -6% -65%Obstetrics & Gynecology 32 1,530,071 29 713,199 28 479,948 14% 219%Pathology & Immunology 28 182,676 33 763,462 44 1,158,274 -36% -84%Orthopedic Surgery 24 690,760 19 426,628 24 1,116,948 0% -38%Psychiatry 22 1,767,354 22 1,598,850 28 2,066,684 -21% -14%Siteman Cancer Center 20 647,230 17 562,889 13 503,802 54% 28%Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences 16 518,272 15 294,342 13 382,366 23% 36%Emergency Medicine 13 458,401 14 257,622 17 162,430 -24% 182%Radiation Oncology 10 683,023 12 747,059 7 847,618 43% -19%Neurological Surgery 8 111,495 6 60,574 16 60,110 -50% 85%Otolaryngology 7 55,108 9 7,570 10 53,158 -30% 4%Anesthesiology 5 62,955 3 39,680 7 33,148 -29% 90%Developmental Biology 2 - 1 1,500 3 28,500 -33% -100%Physical Therapy 1 35,241 1 14,684 0 - 100% 100%Occupational Therapy 1 - 2 16,316 2 10,000 -50% -100%Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics 1 - 2 - 2 - -50% 0%Molecular Microbiology 1 - 1 - 1 - 0% 0%Health Behavior Research 1 - 0 - 0 - 100% 0%Health Administration 0 - 2 - 0 - 0% 0%Biostatistics 0 - 1 - 1 - -100% 0%Molecular Biology & Pharmacology 0 - 0 - 0 - 0% 0%Div of Comparative Medicine 0 - 0 - 0 - 0% 0%Total 1,341 $26,679,386 1,400 $26,731,393 1,348 $27,277,086 -1% -2%Table 1Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials - School of Medicine – FY09-FY1171

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Center for Clinical StudiesDivisions of Internal MedicineFY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009% Inc / (Dec)FY 09 - FY 11Number Dollars Number Dollars Number Dollars Number DollarsMedical Oncology 212 $4,597,255 218 $4,884,925 198 $3,543,442 7% 30%Cardiology 97 828,534 93 1,013,017 87 1,089,613 11% -24%Bone Marrow Transplant 72 2,513,903 62 2,488,557 42 2,272,333 71% 11%Pulmonary 72 1,462,834 65 1,103,919 64 1,292,873 13% 13%Endocrine / Metabolism 44 622,977 99 983,757 89 712,489 -51% -13%Gastroenterology 43 649,017 49 1,286,933 41 924,649 5% -30%Chrom Kidney Center 31 324,792 31 300,439 24 675,271 29% -52%Center for Human Nutrition 26 722,612 22 894,117 23 1,182,340 13% -39%Lipid Research 21 548,392 20 362,933 22 219,175 -5% 150%Infectious Diseases 20 329,703 18 415,671 18 208,003 11% 59%Renal 20 220,280 37 423,992 27 242,110 -26% -9%AIDS Clinical Trial Unit 16 79,347 24 116,519 18 302,855 -11% -74%Dermatology 11 151,991 13 197,425 20 228,409 -45% -33%Rheumatology 10 105,154 13 166,036 14 160,885 -29% -35%Immunology 5 96,374 4 17,445 5 48,264 0% 100%Geriatrics / Gerontology 4 143,374 3 64,985 6 65,265 -33% 120%Bone & Mineral Diseases 3 54,202 8 112,907 11 74,162 -73% -27%Hematology 3 3,976 14 108,487 14 178,395 -79% -98%General Medical Sciences 1 - 1 - 1 - 0% 0%Total 711 $13,454,717 794 $14,942,065 724 $13,420,533 -2% 0%Table 2Industry Sponsored Clinical Trials by Division – Department of Internal Medicine – FY09-FY1172

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Center for Clinical StudiesFiscal YearFY11 FY10 FY09% ChangeFY09-FY11Clinical Studies 261 247 288 -9%Confidentiality Agreements 221 185 144 53%Amendments (all types) 311 257 254 22%Other 40 77 36 11%TOTAL 833 766 722 15%Table 3New Contracts Completed FY09 through FY1173

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseSponsored Project ExpenseThis section of the Annual Report is provided by Sponsored Projects Accounting. For questionsregarding information within this section, please contact Joe Gindhart, Director, atjgindhart@wustl.edu.74

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseSponsored Project ExpenseExecutive SummaryThis section presents an overview of expenditure activity for sponsored research projects atWashington University during the fiscal year of 2011 (FY11). The expense dollars reported arefor all transactions that occur on or between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011.Data SourcesThe data presented in this report was obtained from the Washington University’s FinancialInformation System (FIS) and it reflects the expenditure activity incurred during theperformance of sponsored projects. Expenses associated with projects supported by sales andservice agreements and clinical trials are excluded from this report.Expenditure ActivityThe University’s total research expenditures for FY11 amounted to $628 million, a 4% increaseover FY10. The University expended $61.6 million dollars under grants funded via theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The Total ARRA expendituresincreased 38%, or approximately $17 million from the prior year. The University also saw amodest increase in funding from private granting agencies. The NIH continues to provide thesingle largest funding stream, thus the costs for those projects represented 75% of totalexpenditures during the fiscal year. In addition to the NIH, the University also saw a modestincrease in expenses from projects funded by private sources.The University continues to maintain a strong position in sponsored research during FY11.Detailed schedules regarding this activity have been compiled this data in several formats, seeTables 1 – 12. Noted below are definitions and descriptions of the key expenditure categories.Sponsor / Sponsor TypeFederal Direct Agreements Expenditures incurred under sponsored agreements awarded by aFederal agency directly to the University.• DHHS - Department of Health and Human Services(Agencies other than HRSA and NIH)• DOD - Department of Defense (Includes Air Force, Army,Navy, DARPA, and ARPA)• DOE - Department of Energy• EPA - Environmental Protection Agency• HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration (Adivision of DHHS)75

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project Expense• NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration• NIH - National Institutes of Health (A division of DHHS)• NSF - National Science Foundation• USDA - United States Department of Agriculture• USDE - United States Department of EducationFederal SubagreementsTotal FederalOther GovernmentPrivate SourcesExpenditures incurred under a subagreement from another entity(usually another university) that has received an award directlyfrom a Federal agency. The University is considered asubrecipient of federal funds.Expenditures incurred under direct agreements with Federalagencies and subagreements with other entities (that havereceived a direct award from a Federal agency). The figure(s) isthe total of the Federal and Federal Subagreements categoriesnoted above.Expenditures incurred under sponsored agreements with othercity, county, state and international government agencies.Expenditures incurred under sponsored agreements fromindustry, foundations and trusts, voluntary health agencies andother entities.• Industry – Typically commercial (for-profit) entities thatfund hardware, software, fabrication and clinical deviceprojects. Entities would include companies such asMonsanto, Lockheed Martin and Hoffman La Rouche.• Foundations & Trusts – Sponsored agreements from nonprofitentities such as; the James S. McDonnell Foundation,Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Juvenile DiabetesFoundation.• Voluntary Health - Sponsored agreements from non-profithealth/disease specific agencies such as; American HeartAssociation, American Cancer Society and the NationalMultiple Sclerosis Society.• Other – Sponsored agreements and subagreements(excluding federal pass-thru funding) from other non-profitagencies such as: Schriners Hospital for Children, HowardHughes Medical Institute and the St. Louis Zoo.76

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseProject TypeResearchResearch TrainingOther SponsoredActivitiesProjects and activities that discover new scientific areas, procedures anddevices.Support provided to pre/postdoctoral students and fellows involved inresearch training programs.Other activities such as public service, patient service, conference grants,community outreach programs and student aid.SchoolsSchool of MedicineSchool of Arts & SciencesSchool of EngineeringGeorge Warren Brown School of Social WorkOtherSam Fox School of Design and Visual ArtsJohn M. Olin School of BusinessSchool of LawCost CategoryDirect CostsF&A CostsExpenditures incurred that can be specifically identified to a particularsponsored agreement/project. Costs of this nature would include thosesuch as; faculty & staff salaries (and applicable fringe benefits),consultants, consumable supplies, travel, subagreements and equipment.Direct costs are booked to the general ledger on a daily basis.Abbreviated term for Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs (alsoknown as indirect/overhead costs). F&A costs are defined asexpenditures incurred for common or joint objectives which cannot bespecifically identified with a particular agreement/project. Costs of thisnature would include: utilities and building services, building andequipment depreciation, university/school/ department administration,research administration and the library. The University has negotiatedF&A rates with our cognizant federal agency (the Department of Health77

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project Expenseand Human Services). The F&A costs are posted to the general ledgermonthly, based upon the project’s direct or modified direct (excludescapital equipment, subcontract expenses > $25,000, patient care costs,tuition, and off-campus rent) costs and the applicable F&A rate.Cost SharingDefined as costs incurred under a specific cost objective which are notsupported by the sponsoring agency. Cost sharing can be described asthe dollar amount the University provides to support a sponsoredproject. The University will commit resources to support a project underthe following conditions:The University monitors and maintains cost sharing expenditures byestablishing separate accounts/funds in the general ledger. For eachsponsored project, a specific cost sharing account will be establishedbased upon the terms and conditions of the award. See Table 12 for asummary of the University’s cost sharing contributions.Facilities and Administrative (F&A) RatesSponsored projects awarded to the University provide funding for direct and F&A costs (seeabove). A percentage rate is applied to the direct costs in order to determine the F&Afunding/expenses for the project. The Federal F&A rate for on-campus research can change atthe start of a fiscal year, based upon our current rate agreement. Federal F&A rates are appliedbased on the competitive start date of the project. Non-federal sponsors will also providefunding for F&A costs, but the rates can vary based upon the internal policies of the sponsor.Noted below is a brief description of the major F&A rates.• 53% Federal on-campus research rate for projects awarded during the period7/1/02 – 6/30/06. Applied to modified total direct costs.• 52% Federal on-campus research rate for projects awarded during the period7/1/07 – 6/30/11. Applied to modified total direct costs.• 26% Federal off-campus research rate.• 25.8% Federal on-campus research rate for genome sequencing center projectsawarded during the period 7/1/06 – 6/30/11. Applied to modified totaldirect costs.• 8% Federal rate for research training and fellowship projects.• Other Includes various rates from federal, private and other governmentsponsors.78

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseSponsored Projects AccountingThe mission of Sponsored Projects Accounting (SPA) is to provide consistent and high qualityfinancial stewardship, policy interpretation and compliance assurance to the University's researchcommunity and the sponsoring agencies. Members of the department strive to perform accurateand timely transaction approvals, financial analysis and reporting of costs incurred for sponsoredprojects. We monitor and maintain the accounting structure involved with revenue, expense andreceivable transactions for sponsored projects so that these amounts are properly stated in theUniversity's financial statements. In conjunction with the Office of Sponsored Research Services(OSRS), SPA develops a coordinated and consistent approach on institutional issues involvingsponsored projects.The Office of Sponsored Projects Accounting reports to Barbara Feiner, Vice Chancellor forFinance and Chief Financial Officer. This report and other data is available on the SPA website,see http://www.spa.wustl.edu/.79

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseSponsorsDirectCosts%TotalDirectFY11F&ACosts%TotalF&ATotal%TotalDirectCosts%TotalDirectF&ACostsFY10%TotalF&ATotal%TotalFederal* $395,068 83% $139,986 92% $535,054 85% $391,549 86% $134,686 94% $526,235 87%Private Sources 79,778 17% 11,982 8% 91,760 15% 67,048 15% 8,972 6% 76,020 13%Other Government 1,207 0% 186 0% 1,393 0% 1,630 0% 190 0% 1,820 0%TOTAL $476,053 100% $152,154 100% $628,207 100% $460,227 100% $143,848 100% $604,075 100%Table 1Direct and F&A Expenditures by Sponsor Type – FY11 and FY10(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1080

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseSCHOOLSDIRECTCOSTSFY11 FY10 CHANGEF&ACOSTS TOTALDIRECTCOSTSF&ACOSTS TOTAL $$ %MEDICINE $405,963 $130,504 $536,467 $388,452 $121,956 $510,408 $26,059 5%ARTS & SCIENCES 32,484 10,701 43,185 33,273 10,903 44,176 (991) -2%ENGINEERING 17,241 6,607 23,848 17,993 6,979 24,972 (1,124) -5%SOCIAL WORK 11,442 3,236 14,678 12,543 3,373 15,916 (1,238) -8%OTHER 8,923 1,106 10,029 7,966 637 8,603 1,426 17%TOTAL $476,053 $152,154 $628,207 $460,227 $143,848 $604,075 $24,132 4%Table 2Direct and F&A Expenditures by School and Cost Category – FY11 and FY10(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1081

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseSCHOOLSResearchResearch TrainingOther SponsoredActivitiesTotalFY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10MEDICINE $471,300 $448,798 $43,345 $41,539 $21,822 $20,071 $536,467 $510,408ARTS & SCIENCES 37,708 38,789 2,502 2,251 2,975 3,136 43,185 44,176ENGINEERING 21,702 23,077 1,389 1,683 757 212 23,848 24,972SOCIAL WORK 12,506 13,709 1,121 1,390 1,051 817 14,678 15,916OTHER 4,437 3,518 120 23 5,472 5,062 10,029 8,603TOTAL $547,653 $527,891 $48,477 $46,886 $32,077 $29,298 $628,207 $604,075Table 3Direct and F&A Expenditures by School and Project Type – FY11 and FY10(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1082

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseFY11 FY10 CHANGEDIRECTAGREEMENTSSUBAGREEMENTSTOTALDIRECTAGREEMENTSSUBAGREEMENTS TOTAL $$ %FEDERAL AGENCIES*NIH $431,967 $35,010 $466,977 $430,134 $32,139 $462,273 $4,704 1%NSF 16,805 1,584 18,389 18,410 1,829 20,239 (1,850) -9%USDE 6,775 449 7,224 6,957 469 7,426 (202) -3%NASA 7,541 1,155 8,696 6,947 1,288 8,235 461 6%DOD 5,389 1,750 7,139 4,939 2,286 7,225 (86) -1%EPA 156 105 261 91 139 230 31 13%DHHS OTHER 6,032 3,335 9,367 5,116 2,391 7,507 1,860 25%DOE 8,701 1,469 10,170 5,991 895 6,886 3,284 48%DHHS HRSA 3,157 1,657 4,814 3,245 1,746 4,991 (177) -4%USDA 181 99 280 105 37 142 138 97%OTHER 1,270 467 1,737 770 311 1,081 656 61%TOTAL FEDERAL 487,974 47,080 535,054 482,705 43,530 526,235 8,819 2%OTHER GOVERNMENT 1,393 - 1,393 1,820 - 1,820 (427) -23%PRIVATE SOURCESINDUSTRY 14,991 - 14,991 11,442 - 11,442 3,549 31%FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS 44,025 - 44,025 40,472 - 40,472 3,553 9%VOL HEALTH 9,215 - 9,215 10,265 - 10,265 (1,050) -10%OTHER 23,529 - 23,529 13,841 - 13,841 9,688 70%TOTAL PRIVATE 91,760 - 91,760 76,020 - 76,020 15,740 21%TOTAL $581,127 $47,080 $628,207 $560,545 $43,530 $604,075 $24,132 4%Table 4Expenditures by Sponsor and Agreement Type – FY09 and FY08(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1083

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project Expense600,000FEDERAL FUNDING3,500OTHER GOV'T FUNDINGDollars (in thousands)500,000400,000300,000200,000100,000FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Federal 476,153 461,295 467,869 526,235 535,054Dollars (in thousands)2,8002,1001,400700-FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Other Gov't 644 881 3,139 1,820 1,393PRIVATE FUNDINGDollars (in thousands)100,00090,00080,00070,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,000-FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Private 52,400 63,518 72,253 76,020 91,760Figure 4AExpenditures by Sponsor Type – FY07 – FY11 (000s)84

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseResearch Research Training Other Sponsored Activities TotalFY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10FEDERAL AGENCIES*NIH $425,823 $422,293 $36,049 $35,061 $5,105 $4,919 $466,977 $462,273NSF 15,646 17,230 2,589 2,821 154 188 18,389 20,239USDE 426 468 - - 6,798 6,958 7,224 7,426NASA 8,566 8,129 130 106 - - 8,696 8,235DOD 6,982 6,832 157 143 - 250 7,139 7,225EPA 233 230 28 - - - 261 230DHHS OTHER 7,087 5,972 728 861 1,552 674 9,367 7,507DOE 9,695 6,768 475 118 - - 10,170 6,886DHHS HRSA 758 1,259 - 16 4,056 3,716 4,814 4,991USDA 255 142 - - 25 - 280 142OTHER 932 781 5 - 800 300 1,737 1,081TOTAL FEDERAL 476,403 470,104 40,161 39,126 18,490 17,005 535,054 526,235OTHER GOVERNMENT 733 1,290 - - 660 530 1,393 1,820PRIVATE SOURCESINDUSTRY 14,373 10,897 546 452 72 93 14,991 11,442FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS 28,678 26,748 3,933 3,459 11,414 10,265 44,025 40,472VOL HEALTH 5,949 6,774 3,075 3,306 191 185 9,215 10,265OTHER 21,517 12,078 762 543 1,250 1,220 23,529 13,841TOTAL PRIVATE 70,517 56,497 8,316 7,760 12,927 11,763 91,760 76,020TOTAL $547,653 $527,891 $48,477 $46,886 $32,077 $29,298 $628,207 $604,075Table 5Expenditures by Sponsor and Project Type – FY11 and FY10(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1085

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseDollars (in thousands)SPONSORED RESEARCH600,000525,000450,000375,000300,000225,000150,00075,000-FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Research 462,823 452,318 469,247 527,891 547,653Dollars (in thousands)RESEARCH TRAINING50,00040,000FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Research Training 43,824 46,880 44,905 46,886 48,477OTHER SPONSORED ACTIVITIES35,000Dollars (in thousands)28,00021,00014,0007,000Other SponsoredActivities-FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY1122,550 26,496 29,109 29,298 32,077Table 5AExpenditures by Project Type – FY07 – FY11(000s)86

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseSchool of MedicineArts & SciencesSchool ofEngineeringGWB School ofSocial WorkOther SchoolsTotal UniversityFY11$ ChangefromFY10FY11$ ChangefromFY10FY11$ ChangefromFY10FY11$ ChangefromFY10FY11$ ChangefromFY10FY11$ ChangefromFY10TOTAL FEDERAL* $455,117 $8,373 $38,404 ($434) $21,345 ($530) $10,895 ($505) $9,293 $1,915 $535,054 $8,819OTHER GOVERNMENT 1,039 418 139 (273) 76 (37) 34 27 105 (562) 1,393 (427)PRIVATE SOURCESIndustry 13,562 4,157 741 (560) 682 (51) 6 6 - (3) 14,991 3,549Foundations & Trusts 38,400 4,016 1,877 131 182 57 3,249 (743) 317 92 44,025 3,553Vol Health 8,926 (1,142) 70 3 198 69 21 20 - - 9,215 (1,050)Other 19,423 10,237 1,954 142 1,365 (632) 473 (43) 314 (16) 23,529 9,688TOTAL PRIVATE 80,311 17,268 4,642 (284) 2,427 (557) 3,749 (760) 631 73 91,760 15,740TOTAL ALL SOURCES $536,467 $26,059 $43,185 ($991) $23,848 ($1,124) $14,678 ($1,238) $10,029 $1,426 $628,207 $24,132Table 6Expenditures by Sponsor Type and School – FY11(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1087

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseFEDERAL* OTHER GOVERNMENT PRIVATE SOURCES TOTALDETAILED COST CATEGORY FY11 FY10% OfChangefrom FY10FY11FY10% OfChangefrom FY10FY11FY10% OfChangefrom FY10FY11FY10% OfChangefrom FY10Academic Salaries $73,189 $71,797 2% $182 $113 61% $11,794 $11,274 5% $85,165 $83,184 2%Staff Salaries 80,714 80,297 1% 298 343 -13% 14,616 14,294 2% 95,628 94,934 1%Grad Assistant 25,594 24,469 5% 86 141 -39% 4,384 4,509 -3% 30,064 29,119 3%Undergraduate Student Wages 1,545 378 309% 1 - 100% 91 13 600% 1,637 391 319%Subtotal Salaries 181,042 176,941 2% 567 597 -5% 30,885 30,090 3% 212,494 207,628 2%Fringe Benefits 40,740 38,342 6% 128 141 -9% 7,575 6,902 10% 48,443 45,385 7%Stipends/Health Allowance 14,220 13,910 2% - - 0% 3,617 3,473 4% 17,837 17,383 3%Consultants 1,421 1,464 -3% 54 44 23% 1,023 782 31% 2,498 2,290 9%Consumable Supplies 52,172 43,340 20% 63 65 -3% 19,721 11,383 73% 71,956 54,788 31%Other 42,799 43,170 -1% 137 119 15% 11,108 9,446 18% 54,044 52,735 2%Travel 5,596 5,260 6% 30 13 131% 1,380 1,355 2% 7,006 6,628 6%Subcontracts 40,800 41,142 -1% 205 624 -67% 3,680 2,656 39% 44,685 44,422 1%Equipment 13,229 27,880 -53% 23 27 -15% 789 961 -18% 14,041 28,868 -51%Building 3,049 100 2949% - - 0% - - 0% 3,049 100 2949%TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 395,068 391,549 1% 1,207 1,630 -26% 79,778 67,048 19% 476,053 460,227 3%F&A Costs 139,986 134,686 4% 186 190 -2% 11,982 8,972 34% 152,154 143,848 6%TOTAL $535,054 $526,235 2% $1,393 $1,820 -23% $91,760 $76,020 21% $628,207 $604,075 4%Table 7Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and Sponsor Type – FY11 and FY10(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1088

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseDETAILED COST CATEGORYSchool of Medicine Arts & Sciences School of Engineering$ Change$ Change$ ChangeFY11 from FY10 FY11 from FY10 FY11 from FY10GWB School of SocialWork$ ChangeFY11 from FY10Other Schools$ ChangeFY11 from FY10Total University$ ChangeFY11 from FY10Academic Salaries $71,747 $2,426 $6,882 $104 $3,834 ($307) $2,374 ($288) $328 $46 $85,165 $1,981Staff Salaries 86,993 1,634 3,426 (399) 1,019 (122) 3,667 90 523 (509) 95,628 694Grad Assistant 18,095 1,370 5,567 (460) 4,907 28 758 18 737 (11) 30,064 945Undergraduate Student Wages 358 250 436 309 147 142 10 9 686 536 1,637 1,246Subtotal Salaries 177,193 5,680 16,311 (446) 9,907 (259) 6,809 (171) 2,274 62 212,494 4,866Fringe Benefits 42,356 2,793 3,172 130 1,347 (9) 1,372 142 196 2 48,443 3,058Stipends/Health Allowance 14,890 186 1,698 195 721 (54) 438 51 90 76 17,837 454Consultants 1,417 300 599 42 157 59 262 (169) 63 (24) 2,498 208Consumable Supplies 68,680 17,364 1,862 (243) 1,127 (33) 246 69 41 11 71,956 17,168Other 46,898 2,059 2,508 (169) 730 (135) 634 (292) 3,274 (154) 54,044 1,309Travel 3,984 93 1,633 51 533 4 729 229 127 1 7,006 378Subcontracts 38,384 1,562 2,600 (284) 1,139 (354) 857 (1,028) 1,705 367 44,685 263Equipment 9,295 (15,585) 2,200 (287) 1,072 (379) - - 1,474 1,424 14,041 (14,827)Building 3,049 2,949 - - - - - - - - 3,049 2,949TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 406,146 17,401 32,583 (1,011) 16,733 (1,160) 11,347 (1,169) 9,244 1,765 476,053 15,826F&A Costs 130,504 8,548 10,701 (202) 6,607 (372) 3,236 (137) 1,106 469 152,154 8,306TOTAL $536,650 $25,949 $43,284 ($1,213) $23,340 ($1,532) $14,583 ($1,306) $10,350 $2,234 628,207 $24,132Table 8Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and School – FY11(000s)89

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseDollars (in thousands)Dollars (in thousands)45,00036,00027,00018,0009,000-DANFORTH SCHOOLSFY07 FY08 FY10 FY10 FY11A&S 42,195 41,371 43,256 44,497 43,284Engineering 19,709 22,068 21,501 24,872 23,340Other 4,845 4,909 6,028 8,116 14,583Social Work 7,207 8,846 11,531 15,889 10,350SCHOOL OF MEDICINE550,000500,000450,000400,000FY07 FY08 FY10 FY10 FY11Series1 463,302 448,500 460,945 510,701 536,650Table 8A – FY11 – FY07(000s)90

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseF&A RATE PERCENTAGES53% /52% 26%25.8%8% OTHER Total F&A CostsFY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10 FY11 FY10FEDERAL AGENCIES*NIH $108,883 $105,989 $1,186 $1,506 $10,501 $9,302 $2,151 $2,119 $1,784 $1,496 $124,505 $120,412NSF 4,326 4,384 153 191 75 152 34 41 81 67 4,669 4,835USDE 101 214 50 57 - - 23 22 537 4 711 297NASA 2,599 2,556 - 6 - - - - 2 - 2,601 2,562DOD 1,998 1,729 138 186 - - 27 12 3 87 2,166 2,014EPA 73 79 4 - - - - - - - 77 79DHHS OTHER 1,720 1,508 289 279 - - 72 74 114 123 2,195 1,984DOE 1,824 1,391 111 103 - - 28 9 - - 1,963 1,503DHHS HRSA 252 293 293 303 - - 47 100 161 107 753 803USDA - - - - 23 - - - 8 12 31 12OTHER 63 113 116 57 - - - - 136 15 315 185TOTAL FEDERAL 121,839 118,256 2,340 2,688 10,599 9,454 2,382 2,377 2,826 1,911 139,986 134,686OTHER GOVERNMENT - - 23 22 - - 5 5 158 163 186 190PRIVATE SOURCESINDUSTRY 214 261 34 5 - - 26 25 4,163 3,064 4,437 3,355FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS 194 197 - - - - 67 49 3,182 2,872 3,443 3,118VOL HEALTH - - 2 - - - 54 47 486 595 542 642OTHER 43 79 - 26 - - 34 23 3,483 1,729 3,560 1,857TOTAL PRIVATE 451 537 36 31 - - 181 144 11,314 8,260 11,982 8,972TOTAL $122,290 $118,793 $2,399 $2,741 $10,599 $9,454 $2,568 $2,526 $14,298 $10,334 $152,154 $143,848Table 9F&A Expenditures (Recovery) by Sponsor Type and F&A Rate – FY11 and FY10(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1091

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseDIRECTAGREEMENTSFY11 FY10 CHANGESUBAGREEMENTS TOTALDIRECTAGREEMENTSSUBAGREEMENTS TOTAL $$ %FEDERAL AGENCIES*NIH $113,871 $10,634 $124,505 $110,454 $9,958 $120,412 $4,093 3%NSF 4,172 497 4,669 4,410 425 4,835 (166) -3%USDE 645 66 711 239 58 297 414 139%NASA 2,245 356 2,601 2,178 384 2,562 39 2%DOD 1,611 555 2,166 1,382 632 2,014 152 8%EPA 45 32 77 31 48 79 (2) -3%DHHS OTHER 1,511 684 2,195 1,167 817 1,984 211 11%DOE 1,563 400 1,963 1,313 190 1,503 460 31%DHHS HRSA 610 143 753 585 218 803 (50) -6%USDA 11 20 31 5 7 12 19 158%OTHER 216 99 315 85 100 185 130 70%TOTAL FEDERAL 126,500 13,486 139,986 121,849 12,837 134,686 5,300 4%OTHER GOVERNMENT 186 - 186 190 - 190 (4) -2%PRIVATE SOURCESINDUSTRY 4,437 - 4,437 3,355 - 3,355 1,082 32%FOUNDATIONS & TRUSTS 3,443 - 3,443 3,118 - 3,118 325 10%VOL HEALTH 542 - 542 642 - 642 (100) -16%OTHER 3,560 - 3,560 1,857 - 1,857 1,703 92%TOTAL PRIVATE 11,982 - 11,982 8,972 - 8,972 3,010 34%TOTAL $138,668 $13,486 $152,154 $131,011 $12,837 $143,848 $8,306 6%Table 10F&A Expenditures (Recovery) by Sponsor Type and Agreement Type – FY11 and FY10(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1092

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseFEDERAL AGENCIES*School of Medicine Arts & Sciences School of Engineering$ Change$ Change$ ChangeFY11 from FY10 FY11 from FY10 FY11 from FY10GWB School of SocialWork$ ChangeFY11 from FY10Other Schools Total University$ Change$ ChangeFY11 from FY10 FY11 from FY10NIH $434,217 $6,789 $13,228 ($798) $12,437 ($46) $6,721 ($1,234) $374 ($7) $466,977 $4,704NSF 2,285 (293) 10,111 (203) 5,579 (1,122) 125 (34) 289 (198) 18,389 (1,850)USDE 622 (41) 1,424 (494) 27 (31) 83 (32) 5,068 396 7,224 (202)NASA 185 84 8,042 309 469 68 - - - - 8,696 461DOD 5,027 (101) 350 (190) 1,744 187 18 18 - - 7,139 (86)EPA - - 143 52 118 (21) - - - - 261 31DHHS OTHER 5,536 1,102 1 (1) 10 (21) 3,817 797 3 (17) 9,367 1,860DOE 1,778 573 4,125 531 928 464 - - 3,339 1,716 10,170 3,284DHHS HRSA 4,720 (167) - - - - 94 (10) - - 4,814 (177)USDA 126 92 126 51 28 (5) - - - - 280 138OTHER 621 335 854 309 5 (3) 37 (10) 220 25 1,737 656TOTAL FEDERAL $455,117 $8,373 $38,404 ($434) $21,345 ($530) $10,895 ($505) $9,293 $1,915 $535,054 $8,819Table 11Federal Expenditures by Agency and School – FY11(000s)*Includes $61.6M of ARRA expenses in FY11 and $44.7M of ARRA expenses in FY1093

OVCR Annual ReportFiscal Year 2011Sponsored Project ExpenseDETAILED COST CATEGORYSchool of Medicine Arts & Sciences School of Engineering$ Change$ Change$ ChangeFY11 from FY10 FY11 from FY10 FY11 from FY10GWB School of SocialWork$ ChangeFY11 from FY10Other Schools$ ChangeFY11 from FY10Total University$ ChangeFY11 from FY10Academic Salaries $17,166 $1,008 $2,027 $41 $118 ($37) $180 $50 $43 ($72) $19,534 $990Staff Salaries 4,770 2,011 64 2 - - - - 68 (20) 4,902 1,993Grad Assistant 229 18 61 28 14 (11) 1 1 - - 305 36Undergraduate Student Wages - - 9 8 - - - - - - 9 8Subtotal Salaries 22,165 3,037 2,161 79 132 (48) 181 51 111 (92) 24,750 3,027Fringe Benefits 4,214 796 435 30 22 (7) 29 14 27 (15) 4,727 818Stipends/Health Allowance 121 43 38 12 - - - - - - 159 55Consultants 14 5 7 - - (5) 2 2 - - 23 2Consumable Supplies 12,155 9,276 30 - 3 - - - - - 12,188 9,276Other 1,643 870 195 (15) 39 (13) - - (20) (41) 1,857 801Travel 31 (2) 6 (8) - (4) - - (5) (12) 32 (26)Subcontracts 277 259 - - - - - - - - 277 259Equipment 9,156 8,718 23 (144) 19 1 - - 160 - 9,358 8,575Building 2,058 2,057 - - - - - - - - 2,058 2,057TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 51,834 25,059 2,895 (46) 215 (76) 212 67 273 (160) 55,429 24,844F&A Costs 13,608 5,085 1,183 27 73 (58) 92 30 27 (18) 14,983 5,066TOTAL $65,442 $30,144 $4,078 ($19) $288 ($134) $304 $97 $300 ($178) $70,412 $29,910Table 12Cost-Sharing Expenditures by Detailed Cost Category and School – FY11(000s)94