The power of the purse is a persuasive thing. 

Last week, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Pitt is requiring all faculty and non-clerical staff to “irrevocably assign and transfer to the university … rights, title and interest to all intellectual property” developed while employed.

According to Ken Service, Pitt’s vice chancellor of communication, existing policy already makes clear the University’s “ownership and control of the worldwide patent and intellectual property rights [that] result from activities of its faculty, staff and students.” Furthermore, the policy states that the inventor “will normally receive 30 percent and the university 70 percent of the net financial returns from the licensing or other transfer of patent rights or other intellectual property rights.”

But others see it differently. In the Post-Gazette article, Cary Nelson, immediate president of the American Association of University Professors, said, “Your academic freedom doesn’t end when you create something valuable. It extends to how that [research] enters the world.”

Clearly, this issue is not a simple one, but both sides have legitimate points. Pitt deserves profits for research that occurs under its name with university-provided resources. . If the University did not provide research opportunities at a respected institution, researchers would have a weak foundation upon which to build their studies.

Alternatively, the University should not strip faculty of fair financial compensation when it is due. A professional athlete, despite only being able to play because of his or her franchise, should still be paid appropriately for the service he or she provides. Academics at universities should be no different.

Instead of a blanket agreement of 70:30, or anything more or less disparate, the University should address financial gain policy in a more thorough fashion. Different departments should handle faculty research differently. After all, searching for therapeutic strategies for heart disease and writing a travel journal are two completely different endeavors. Why should they fall under the same policy umbrella?

Hiring financial experts to objectively advise and consult on the matter of compensation would also provide a more objective and fair distribution of profit. A professor who spends more time on a project than another professor — while using fewer University resources to do so — should profit more.

Pitt should look beyond a general ratio and search for new methods of financial gain distribution to ensure a fair University policy on intellectual property.