But keeping the delay short was also important to the committee.

"Particularly if the delay isn't stated [in the contract],...one can have a piece of research that's dated and not really relevant," says Haber.

The slight delay also appears to be noncontroversial. In fact, a 1995 report prepared by the National Institutes of Health and cited in the science policy report, recommends a delay of between 30 and 60 days for this very purpose.

3) The committee recommends guaranteeing the rights of Harvard students to use technologies they have developed, even after they leave the University.

This recommendation would apply only to students who use the fruits of their research in a not-for-profit setting.

The committee would not guarantee similar rights to faculty members, though it recommends strongly that they be included in sponsored research contracts.

In an interview, Green says that the University's commitment is in some ways more permanent to its students than to its faculty.

"We have a responsibility to nurture and look after the educational development of our students," he says.

4) The committee recommends establishing internal peer review for large-scale, long-term sponsored grants.

The report says the committee was particularly concerned that "excessive reliance on continuing support from the same sponsor [would] have an undue effect on the research effort conducted under University auspices."

5) The report proposes allowing the University to accept shares of a firm's stock in lieu of licensing fees if the payment of such fees would be impractical.

This would normally be the case for a small start-up firm that did not have enough cash to make a payment.

The report notes that the University has a tradition of refusing equity in those cases. It quotes a 1981 report written by former president Derek C. Bok warning against the University "going into business with its faculty."

Critics have warned that holding stock in a firm would tie the University's financial prospects to the success of a faculty member's research. This could potentially result in favoritism toward that particular faculty member and damage the University's academic integrity.

But as long as the University takes certain precautions, the committee wrote that there is no reason why such stock ties should be forbidden.