University Access Dashboard - Methodology
How Universities Are Assessed
The UAEM Access Dashboard evaluates research universities on the degree to which their licensing practices promote access to publicly-funded health technologies for resource-limited populations globally.
UNIVERSITY SELECTION
How Universities Are Selected
Institutions are ranked by total biomedical research funding received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The top 30 universities by combined public research funding are included in each annual iteration of the dashboard.
This selection criteria focuses the assessment on institutions receiving the largest share of public investment and therefore bearing the greatest responsibility to ensure resulting technologies are broadly accessible.
DATA COLLECTION
Two Categories of Data
Each university is assessed using two complementary data categories. If self-reported survey data is unavailable, publicly available information is used to generate a partial score.
UAEM-Collected Data
Multiple investigators independently review TTO websites, press releases, and signatory lists using standardized search terms. Findings are cross-checked before scores are finalized.
University-Reported Data
An online survey instrument is distributed to each university's Technology Transfer Office. Non-responding institutions receive at least two follow-up requests and receive a score of 0 on all survey-only questions.
Each of the 8 questions below contributes 0–5 points to a university's total score (40 points maximum). Click any question to view the full scoring rubric, method, and rationale.
Method
Researchers reviewed major global-access signatory lists, then searched each university's official websites, licensing policies, and TTO materials.
Why it matters
University licensing decisions affect whether medicines and health technologies are affordable and widely available. Higher scores reflect stronger and more specific commitments to improving access for underserved populations in both the United States and low- and middle-income countries.
Method
Researchers searched each university's official website and TTO materials.
Why it matters
Publicly available model licensing agreements improve transparency by allowing researchers, companies, and the public to understand the standard terms a university may use when commercializing its inventions.
Method
Researchers reviewed each university's official website, TTO materials, press releases, and recent social media content.
Why it matters
Publicly explaining access-promoting licensing practices allows researchers, policymakers, and the public to evaluate whether a university's commitments are being put into practice.
Method
Self-reported via TTO survey. Non-responding institutions receive 0 on all survey-only questions after at least two follow-up requests.
Why it matters
Non-exclusive licenses allow multiple manufacturers to produce a technology simultaneously, enabling price competition and broader access compared to exclusive arrangements.
Method
Self-reported via TTO survey. Health technologies are defined as pharmaceutical, diagnostic, medical device, or health-related biotechnology inventions.
Why it matters
The licensing rate specifically for health technologies is a more targeted indicator of a university's commitment to access, as health products most directly affect public health outcomes.
Method
Self-reported via TTO survey.
Why it matters
Even exclusive licenses can include access provisions requiring affordable pricing or compulsory licensing rights for low- and middle-income countries, enabling access without forgoing commercialization.
Method
Self-reported. U.S. health disparity populations are defined as per National Institutes of Health classification.
Why it matters
Access disparities exist within the United States as well as globally. Provisions addressing domestic equity reflect a broader commitment to the social responsibility of publicly-funded research.
Method
Self-reported via TTO survey. Responses are verified where possible via publicly available records.
Why it matters
Sharing best practices accelerates adoption of access-oriented approaches across institutions and creates sector-wide norms for responsible licensing of publicly-funded health research.
GLOSSARY
Key Terms Explained
-
Description text goes here
-
Contractual clauses embedded in licensing agreements that require the licensee to ensure affordable pricing or enable generic production in low- and middle-income countries. Unlike aspirational frameworks such as the Stanford Nine Points, AAPs are legally binding and enforceable. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is among the most prominent adopters of this approach.
-
An internal licensing framework adopted by the University of California system that explicitly addresses generic production of medicines in low- and middle-income countries. The guidelines are considered among the more detailed and operationally specific institutional commitments currently in use and serve as a reference model in this assessment's scoring rubric.
-
An administrative office within a university responsible for managing the commercialization of university-developed technologies. Functions typically include patent filing, license negotiation, and startup support.
-
A non-exclusive license permits multiple companies to use the same patented technology simultaneously, allowing for market competition. An exclusive license grants a single company sole rights to a technology, enabling the licensee to set prices without competition. This assessment rewards non-exclusive licensing practices, particularly for health technologies, as they are more likely to support broad access and competitive pricing.
-
Countries classified by the World Bank Group based on gross national income per capita. Many health technologies developed at U.S. universities are unavailable or unaffordable in LMICs due to patent protections that restrict generic production. Licensing agreements that include explicit LMIC provisions can carve out these markets for affordable generic manufacturers.
-
Defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as medicines, medical devices, and vaccines. For the purposes of this assessment, unpatented research tools such as procedures and systems are excluded to prevent the artificial inflation of institutional scores.