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
For the dashboard’s initial launch, the Access Dashboard team selected 30 U.S. universities that receive the most public biomedical research funding. 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.
Going forward, we hope to expand data collection to include additional top research universities in the United States and other regions.
DATA COLLECTION
Two Categories of Data
Each university is assessed using two complementary data categories.
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.
SCORING
University-Reported Data
An online survey instrument is distributed to each university's Technology Transfer Office. Institutions that do not respond after two follow-up requests receive a score of 0 on all university-reported questions.
Calculating a University’s Score
Each university receives a total score out of 40 points, based on eight questions that assess different aspects of its licensing practices. Every question is scored on a 0–5 scale using a rubric specific to that question.
The higher the score, the more directly a university's practices support access to affordable, publicly-funded health technologies.
Each question and the associated score draws on one or both of the data sources described above. When a question uses both publicly-available and university-reported data, we count the higher score.
When a university does not respond to our data requests, the missing survey response counts as zero points. This was a deliberate decision to incentivize and reward transparency, a key goal of the dashboard.
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
University-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
University-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
University-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
University-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
University-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.
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.
GLOSSARY
Key Terms Explained
-
Core values developed in 2006 by research officers, licensing directors and a representative from the Association of American Medical Colleges. This group determined that these nine points can and should be maintained to the fullest extent possible in all technology transfer agreements.
-
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.