Disagreement on the issue has divided leading academics, setting dons against each other. Both sides have been accused of spreading misinformation.

The Campaign for Cambridge Freedoms, a group opposed to the university’s plans, has claimed that the proposals “will discriminate against students, harm academic freedom and have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship”.

The university wants to tighten its grip on intellectual property created by academics — managing patent applications and taking a stake in spin-out companies.

Under the current mish-mash of regulations the university has no effective control over intellectual property created by the majority of its staff.

The university is concerned that the current system penalises junior staff who contribute to research but sometimes miss out while distinguished heads of departments can make millions of pounds.

It is also feared that inexperienced academics lack the skills to negotiate with venture capitalists.

But opponents claim that the new rules will discourage entrepreneurs and damage growth in the region — which has been dubbed Silicon Fen — and is home to more than 900 high-tech firms.

Jack Lang, entrepreneur in residence at the university’s Judge Business School and an angel investor, described the proposals as a disaster. “It will discourage start-ups,” he said.

The government has encouraged universities to work with venture capitalists and financiers to commercialise their intellectual property.

In one of the largest deals, IP2IPO, an AIM-listed investment vehicle, gave £20m to Oxford University in 2001 in return for a stake in any companies that were spun out of its chemistry department over the following 15 years.

Cambridge fellows fear the reforms are the first step to the university striking a similar deal.

However, professor Sir Richard Friend, a supporter of the proposals, insisted that there were no such plans.

More than 3,000 academics and senior staff are eligible to vote on the reforms over the next two weeks. Previous attempts by the university authorities to reform the rules governing the ownership of intellectual property have faltered.

David Norwood, chief executive of IP2IPO, described the reforms as essential. “These academics are happy to take the money and use the university’s infrastructure,” he said. “The idea that the intellectual property belongs to them is ridiculous. UK taxpayers are paying for this. We expect returns for the investment in them.”