2. This shall not prevent recipients from releasing the material in order to make it directly available to farmers or consumers for cultivation, provided that the other conditions laid down in this ATM are fulfilled. Outgoing ATMs regulate the transfer of materials from one Duke lab to another institution for research purposes outside of Duke University. In order for the ORC to establish an agreement to this effect, the Duke researcher must apply to ORC to request some form of outgoing MTA submission and submit it to the ORC for verification. Based on the information provided, ORC staff establish an appropriate MTA and forward it to the researcher receiving the material, as indicated on the submission form. Plant genetic resources are another area of growing concern about the free trade of these resources. Even plant genetic resource centers, which are most committed to the free exchange of germinal plasma, now use specific agreements to regulate seed transfer, if only to establish that the beneficiary cannot assert intellectual property (IP) rights in materials (the African Rice Center, WARDA); Box 1 [see end of chapter])3 or to ensure that the recipient understands that there is no warranty for the material transferred (Tomato Genetics Resource Centre); Box 2 [see end of chapter]). Some A.A. may only require the signature of the authorized official and/or the researcher of the recipient of the materials. Researchers may sign in recognition, reading and/or understanding of the MTA, but should not sign as legal parts of the MTA. Depending on the risk, this could be held personally responsible and brought to justice.

The plant genetic resources it contains (hereinafter referred to as «material») are made available by the Africa Rice Center (WARDA) under the following conditions: these considerations color the expectations of universities, especially when the supplier of a material wishes to obtain a free license on the resulting inventions. In this regard, university administration and researchers may diverge in their own interest, with researchers primarily having access to material to advance their research, and the university strives to preserve its fundamental principles and avoid costly litigation. Needless to say, these situations can become very complex, as the interests of the researcher, the company and the university are not necessarily in sync. In our experience, the common interest of all parties is to enable and accelerate the progress of research and, in most cases, to develop solutions that meet the essential needs of all parties. Unfortunately, developing these solutions can be time-consuming and, as mentioned above, negotiating AA for academic researchers for academic researchers is of low priority when it comes to the many IP-related transactions, which are more critical to their primary business interests. Most universities also try to obtain a financial return in exchange for the commercial exploitation of their research results. Public bodies, in particular, are concerned that public funds used to support the institution are not used to indirectly support private companies. There is also a technical question about how the Internal Revenue Service envisions the private use of buildings financed by tax-exempt bonds and, in many cases, licensing agreements allowing private companies free access to intellectual property have the potential to jeopardize the exempt status of the bonds. Given that many, if not most, university buildings are funded, at least in part, by tax-exempt bonds, this becomes a serious problem for universities and an obstacle to building strong university-industry relations. . .

.