More than academic
freedom at risk
University collaborations & academic integrity
James L. Turk
Harry Crowe Foundation Conference
Toronto, Ontario
February 3, 2013
University Collaborations
Preliminary observations:
o Relationships with external parties for ongoing
university centres, programs, institutes or research
partnerships
o Nothing inherently wrong with collaborations –
depending what the university gives in return its
partner’s cash and connections
o Discussions typically framed as if the central issue
were academic freedom – often diverts attention
from the more serious threat
(1998-2003)
o The deal: Novartis gave $25-million to CNR’s Department
of PMB for research, and gave access to trade secrets
principally in genetics. In return, Novartis a voice in what
research academics did and first dibs on potentially
lucrative discoveries
o Research Committee (3 from UCB, 2 from Novartis)
o Review and approve research proposals
o Lawrence Busch et al, External Review of the Collaboration
Research Agreement between Novartis Agricultural
Discovery Institute, Inc. and the Regents of the University
of California, 2004
http://evcp.chance.berkeley.edu/documents/Reports/documents/NovartisBerkeleyFinalReport071204.pdf
Ignacio Chapela
o Chair of the Executive Committee
of the College of Natural Resources.
o Leading critic of Novartis deal
o Rising star, untenured, impressive scholarly record.
Published controversial article in Nature, reporting
that traces of DNA from GM corn had contaminated
genome of native Mexican maize. In midst of effort
by biotech firms to end the Mexican, Brazilian and
European ban on GM crops.
Chapela
– tenure troubles
o Spring 2002 - Department votes 31-1 (3 abstentions) in
favour of tenure (12 external evaluators recommended
tenure)
o Summer 2002 - Chair supports recommendation &
forwards to Dean
o Summer 2002 - Dean supports recommendation and
forwards to Campus Ad Hoc Tenure Committee
o October 2002 - Campus Ad Hoc Tenure Committee
unanimously recommends tenure
o Vice-Provost asks Committee Chair to re-evaluate with
additional external evaluators
Chapela – tenure troubles
o Three additional letters sought –
o 2 recommend tenure, 1 does not
o Departmental Chair reaffirms his recommendation
o Referred to Senate Budget Committee (SBC)
o Dean objected to the one biologist on SBC claiming he had a
conflict of interest
o Chancellor says there is no conflict of interest
o Dean reaffirms his recommendation of tenure
o 2 more external letters requested – 1 declines, 1 recommends
o June 2003 - SBC preliminary decision: denial of tenure
o 2 more external letters requested. Both recommend tenure
o Chair and Dean reaffirm their recommendations
o Nov. 2003 SBC final decision: tenure denied
o Nov. 2003 - Chancellor denies tenure
Chapela – tenure scorecard
o Department 31-1-3 in favour of tenure
o Campus Ad Hoc Tenure Committee – Unanimous in
favour
o External reviewers
o 17 recommend in favour
o 1 opposes
o University denies tenure
o January 2005 – new Chancellor Robert Birgeneau
agreed to appoint a review committee
o May 2005 Chapela granted tenure
University collaborative partnerships
While Chapela case dramatizes academic
freedom issues that may arise from
university collaborations, threats to
academic freedom are not the main concern
Academic Integrity
o Ensuring that academic decisions are made by academic staff
o Hiring
o Strategic direction/research priorities
o Approval of research proposals [using proper peer review]
o Supervision and evaluation of students
o No interference with dissemination of knowledge related to
collaboration
o Ensure that educational curriculum and the work of students
and other faculty are not distorted
o Clear and powerful conflict of interest provisions
o Transparency regarding the terms of the collaborative
agreement
o Explicit protection of academic freedom
Guidelines on Academic Integrity
 Guiding Principles for University Collaborations –
CAUT Council 2012
http://www.caut.ca/uploads/GuidingPrinc_UCollaborationv2.pdf
 AAUP Recommended Principles & Practices to Guide
Academy-Industry Relationships
http://www.aaup.org/file/industryall.pdf
University Collaborations in the U.S.
Big Oil Goes to College: An Analysis of Contracts
between Energy Corporations & U.S. Universities
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_oil.html
A detailed examination of 10 university-industry
collaborative agreements totalling more than $835
million in confirmed corporate funding (over 10
years) for energy research funding on campus.
The Collaborations
► Arizona State University & BP [$5.2-million]
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
UC Berkeley & BP [$500-million]
UC Davis & Chevron [$25-million]
Colorado School of Mines & Chevron [$2.5-million]
Univ of Colorado, Colorado State, Colorado School of Mines &
27 energy firms [$6-million]
Georgia Tech & Chevron [$12-million]
Iowa State & ConocoPhillips [$22.5-million]
Stanford & ExxonMobil, GE, Toyota, Schlumberger
[$225-million]
Texas A&M & Chevron [$5.2-million]
U of Texas, Austin; Rice Univ. & Baker Hughes, BP, Conoco
Phillips, Haliburton, Marathon Oil, Occidental Oil & Gas,
Petroleo Brasileiro, Schlumberger, Shell, Total [$30-million]
The Findings
► In 9 of the 10 agreements, the university partners failed to
retain majority academic control over the central governing
body charged with directing the university-industry alliance.
4 of the 10 alliances actually give the industry sponsors full
governance control.
► 8 of the 10 agreements permit the corporate sponsor or
sponsors to fully control both the evaluation and selection
of faculty research proposals in each new grant cycle.
► None of the 10 agreements requires faculty research
proposals to be evaluated and awarded funding based on
independent expert peer review.
► 8 of the 10 agreements fail to specify transparently, in
advance, how faculty may apply for alliance funding, and
what the specific evaluation and selection criteria will be.
Findings
(continued)
► 9 of the 10 agreements call for no specific management of
financial conflicts of interest related to the alliance and its
research functions. None of these agreements, for example,
specifies that committee members charged with evaluating and
selecting faculty research proposals must be impartial, and may
not award corporate funding to themselves.
► In 7 of the 10 contracts, industry sponsors are granted broad,
upfront, exclusive commercial rights to alliance research—even,
in some cases, when certain “background knowledge” was
developed prior to the creation of the alliance and not funded by
the sponsor.
► None of the 10 agreements abide by the NIH recommended
maximum 60-day academic research publication delay; most far
exceed it.
Similar Study in Canada
 CAUT Examining Canadian University Collaborations
 Release: February/March 2013
Corporate collaborations in Canada
 Consortium for Research & Innovation in Aerospace in Quebec
(CRIAQ): Concordia, École de technologie supérieure, École
Polytechnique, Laval, McGill, & Sherbrooke; Bell, Bombardier,
CAE, CMC, EMS, and Pratt & Whitney
 Quebec Consortium for Drug Discovery: McGill, Montreal, Laval,
Sherbrooke, Toronto, McMaster, École Polytechnique +
AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline,
Merck, Pfizer and Novartis
 Graduate Program in Political Management
Carleton & Riddell Family Charitable Foundation
 UOIT – Durham College – Ontario Power Generation Partnership
 Mining Law Program: Western University, Cassels Brock LLP
 Alberta Ingenuity Centre for In-Situ Energy: Calgary, Shell ,
ConocoPhillips , Nexen Inc Repsol YPF, Total E&P Canada
 Centre for Oil Sands Innovation: Alberta & Imperial Oil
Corporate collaborations in Canada
 Consortium for Heavy Oil Research by University Researchers
(CHORUS) Calgary, Alberta and Colorado School of Mines,
Nexen , Husky ConocoPhillips, Shell, Schlumberger +
 Shell Geoscience Educational Partnership
Calgary & Shell
 Enbridge Center for Corporate Sustainability
Calgary & Enbridge
 Mineral Deposit Research Unit (MDRU)
UBC and Barrick Gold, ALS Minerals, Eldorado Gold, Silver
Quest, Goldcorp, Teck Resources, Kinross
 Vancouver Prostate Centre
UBC & Pfizer, BC Cancer Agency
University of Toronto
 ROLE CLARIFICATION: The role and function of the
partner under the terms of this agreement is that of donor
and not as a participant in the administration or operation of
the University, for all of which responsibility shall be and
remain with the University.
University of British Columbia
Research Committee (equal representation from each partner)
o Approve research plans
o Review and evaluate progress under each Research Plan;
o Prepare additional Research Plans;
o Coordinate and monitor publication of research results
o Deal with any dispute amongst the Parties relating to technical
issues that may arise during the course of the Research Program.
Chair. The Research Committee chair will be appointed by the
corporate partner.
Decisions. Each of the Parties will have one vote on the Research
Committee. All decisions of the Research Committee will be made
by unanimous vote of the Parties. In the event that the Research
committee is unable to reach a unanimous decision on any issue,
the dispute shall be dealt with through reference to provincial
courts.
Carleton University – Graduate
Program in Political Management
Preston Manning
o Founder & leader of the Reform
Party of Canada
o Founder of the Manning Centre
for Building Democracy
whose mission is “To identify, develop, and
support political entrepreneurs who can
advance our common vision of a free and
democratic Canada guided by conservative
principles.”
Carleton University – Graduate
Program in Political Management
Role of Program Steering Committee
o Provide timely and strategic advice on program-related
matters, including program direction, curriculum
development, academic and administrative staffing,
organization and promotion, and securing additional funding
o Approve the annual budget disbursing the funds provided by
the Donor to the program, ensuring that it is aligned with the
original proposal and/or mutually agreed-upon changes.
o Recommend to the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research
Office the awarding of the Scholarship and Bursary Fund
o Receive regular briefings from the Dean of the Faculty of
Graduate and Post-Doctoral Affairs on the disbursements
from the Scholarship and Bursary Fund.
Carleton University
Membership on Program Steering Committee (2
named by University; 2 by donor & the chair chosen
by the four)
o 2 university representatives
o Cliff Fryers - Chair of the Board of the Manning
Centre for Building Democracy.
o Chris Froggatt – Former chief of staff to
Conservative cabinet minister John Baird
o Preston Manning
Conclusions
Threats of improper university collaborative
partnerships go well beyond issues of academic
freedom (often smokescreen for the real damage)
Villain is the university administration which accepts
inappropriate corporate or donor requests that
compromise the university’s academic integrity
Only counterforce are the associations of academic
staff that must become more aggressive defenders
of the academic integrity on which our ability to do
our work properly, and in the public interest,
depends.
NATIONAL POST
April 3, 2012
York University rejects RIM co-founder Jim
Balsillie’s $60-million deal
“Amid a faculty revolt and mounting public criticism,
Toronto’s York University has officially rejected RIM cofounder Jim Balsillie’s contentious bid to broker a $60million collaboration between the school and his private
Waterloo-based think tank.
“There just wasn’t the level of support that we need,” said
York University provost Patrick Monahan, speaking soon
after the faculty council of York’s Osgoode Hall Law School
voted decisively to reject Mr. Balsillie’s offer...
“Monday’s developments come less than three weeks after
the National Post first reported that as a result of the CIGI
deal, York University was facing a rare censure from the
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).”
Academic Integrity
o Ensuring that academic decisions are made by academic staff
o Hiring
o Strategic direction/research priorities
o Approval of research proposals [using proper peer review]
o Supervision and evaluation of students
o No interference with dissemination of knowledge related to
collaboration
o Ensure that educational curriculum and the work of students
and other faculty are not distorted
o Clear and powerful conflict of interest provisions
o Transparency regarding the terms of the collaborative
agreement
o Explicit protection of academic freedom