Notwithstanding that the draft collective agreement was rejected at last week's meeting for academic staff organised by the University academic staff association (Umasa), it is well worth revisiting certain proposals.

One clause which caused significant discussion proposed that normal lecturing hours were to be between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Several members of staff objeted because they felt it would mean staff would not continue to receive extra remuneration for lectures carried during the evening as they do at present.

Actually, a substantial amount of University work takes place in the evenings. This makes all the more apparent the injustice that has been committed in not accepting the staff unions' claim for a decent collective agreement which is five years overdue.

The draft agreement also included certain aspects which pointed out the special nature of the University, including a special section on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), which clearly justified the financial remuneration claimed by the staff. However, they were summarily dismissed by the government, possibly because it did not grasp the significance of their inclusion in the proposed collective agreement.

If academics and the University are to establish knowledge transfer as a strategic mission, both the University and Umasa acknowledge the urgent need to discuss and agree on an IPR policy based on the principles set in the agreement which governs the ownership rights emanating from research and scholarships.

The University seeks to develop and implement an IPR policy in collaboration with the unions and to provide support services to promote the creation of intellectual property and the commercial exploitation of the resulting it.

The central tenets of the IPR policy include: (a) incentives for academics to create intellectual property; (b) the setting up a University office to support academic members of staff with the protection, registration and commercial exploitation of intellectual property and to provide effective and efficient University support services to evaluate and protect intellectual property, while providing for appropriate arrangements for its exploitation; (c) arrangements for apportionment of any commercial returns from the exploitation of intellectual property which should provide a possible new source of income that Malta and the University could benefit from; (d) compliance with the EU Council Resolution on the management of IPR in knowledge transfer activities; and (e) the broad dissemination of knowledge created with public funds by taking steps to encourage open access to research results while enabling, where appropriate, the related IPR to be protected.

This is just one example of the new vision proposed for the University. However, the way things are going unfortunately it appears more likely that the University could be losing a bird in the hand for two in the bush.