the missenden code of practice for ethics and accountability · 1. the new model university 11 2....

MISSENDEN CENTREfor the Development of Higher Educat ion

The

Missenden Abbey, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire HP16 0BDTelephone: 01494 866811 Fax: 01494 866508 e-mail: [email protected]

web site: www.missendencentre.co.uk

Professor and Head John Wakeford

The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics

and AccountabilityThe Commercialisation of Research in Universities:

an Ethical Intervention

Rory Daly

November 2002

Rory Daly was born in Ireland but has lived in England for the last 12 years, working in the hotel and catering industry before going on to

study for a degree in Philosophy and Politics at Lancaster University. He graduated in 2000 and after spending a year as an elected sabbatical

officer with Lancaster University Students’ Union, completed a Master’s Degree in Applied Research and Consultancy in the School of

Independent Studies at Lancaster. He currently works as a DevelopmentOfficer in the Education Development Unit at the University of Salford.

He lives in Lancaster with Shona, Gordy and Rory.

© The Missenden Centre for the Development of Higher EducationMissenden AbbeyGreat Missenden

Buckinghamshire HP16 0BD

Telephone: +44-(0)1494 866811Fax: +44-(0)1494 866508

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.missendencentre.co.uk

The Code and extracts from this document may be photocopied for educational purposes but please give full acknowledgement

1 Introduction 1

1. Setting the Scene 12. The Idea of a University 2

2 The Contemporary Triangle 5

1. Developments in Government Policy 52. University Finance 63. Blurring the Boundaries 84. The Global University 9

3 Changing Institutions 11

1. The New Model University 112. The University Transformed 123. The Society of Excellence and Auditing 134. Researching and Teaching 145. Templates 15

4 Developing an Ethical Response 19

1. Safeguarding Academic Freedom 192. Tasking an ‘Ethics Committee’ 213. Defending the Academic’s Right To Publish 224. Protecting Intellectual Property Rights 255. Meeting the Student Expectation 276. Preparing for Controversy 287. Managing the New Model University 308. Sourcing Alternative Funding 32

The Missenden Centre Code of Practice for Ethics and Accountability 35

References 37

Bibliography 39

Contents

“The demand that universities set themselves up to act in the market required them to act in a contra-academic manner, by seeking pecuniary gains rather than pursuing the truthdisinterestedly.” (Kogan and Hanney 2000:240)

“The first rule of research is that it would not beresearch if it was clear at the outset where itwould lead. It is neglect of that rule which leadspharmaceutical companies to react with hostilesurprise when research into which they have putfunds fails to endorse the superiority of theirproduct over others.” (Evans 1999:61)

“Members should ensure that sponsors and/orfunders appreciate the obligations that sociologistshave not only to them, but also to society at large,research participants and professional colleaguesand the sociological community.”(British Sociological Association 2002)

“With changes in age-old relationships in andoutside the university and deep financial pressures,internal governance and trust are so disordered inmany institutions that higher education is in dangerof becoming just another modern machine grindingat the human soul.” (Gaudiani 1996)

“There is necessarily a political role for universities.They are engaged in teaching citizens; they areengaged in research; they are preserving, expandingand disseminating knowledge. They are financed by citizens, by fees, by taxes. They cannot avoidbeing in politics since all these issues have politicalovertones. What citizens shall they teach? Whatshall they be taught? What research shall theyfoster? Is their funding more a private or a publicresponsibility? Determining such questions involves

political considerations. The question is notwhether there is a political role for universities, butwhat that role is” (Tarling in Craig (ed) 1998:68).

Universities have faced more changes in the last thirty years than they have in the previousthree hundred. Their aspirations and culturehave been transformed as they are draggedaway both from the concept of knowledge for knowledge’s sake towards research of anexplicitly commercial nature and also from the liberal concept of scholarship towards animplementation of the political imperative toprepare students for the world of work. Formany this involves a major shift in emphasis –greater interaction with business and betterintegration with the local community.

As they seek alternative partners in commerce, universities have to engage with acommercial culture. When applied to researchthis raises questions about traditions of academicautonomy, university employment practices,academic integrity, freedom of speech and therights of scholars.

In recognising ten years ago the “increasingconcerns expressed by universities about the termsof research collaboration being sought by certainbodies and about the absence of authoritative andagreed guidance for universities” the Committeeof Vice Chancellors and Principals outlined theiradvice for universities undertaking collaborationwith industry (CVCP 1992). While copies of theReport were forwarded to all UK UniversityRegistrars, no attempt seems to have beenmade to check whether the recommendationshad been implemented or even to gauge their

The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics and Accountability

1 Introduction

1. Setting The Scene

1

impact. With notable exceptions mostuniversities seem to have continued to arrangetheir industrial collaborations on an ad hoc andcase-by-case basis.

There seems to have been reluctance amongstmany academics and university managements to acknowledge the challenges they would face when collaborating with industry andcommerce. In many research institutes,academics have to cost complex long-termprojects, reach contractual agreements overintellectual property rights, deadlines andpenalty clauses and then carry out the research,all without training or access to relevantexperience or expertise. But gradually, as theyhave begun to realise that their own future is inextricably linked to collaboration with industry, many institutions have set up dedicated offices to deal with these industrialcollaborations. Even with the establishment ofInnovation Units, Science Parks and BusinessLiaison Divisions few seem to have given muchsystematic thought to some of the major ethicalimplications of this increased collaboration norto whether all sources of funds are equallyacceptable to all members of the institution and the community.

In what follows, I introduce the Code byoutlining some of the areas in which I believethe commercialisation of research will have its greatest impact. I sketch a little of thebackground and indicate some potential pitfalls,some sources of help and some points I believeshould be considered. I have offered someexamples that have reached the press toillustrate each point in question. The resultingCode is made up of a number of suggestionsthat I hope will provide a contribution toaddressing some of the most important issues.

In the first section I offer a short overview of thedevelopment of the concept of the university in the UK. In the second I focus briefly on theevolving education policies of UK governments. I address the changing concerns of those

responsible for managing universities and Idiscuss the impact that this increasedcommercialisation has had on universitystructures and on the activities carried out inuniversity departments. This section draws oninterviews and questionnaire responses fromover 35 university staff contacted in the course of preparing this report. (I haverespected their wish to remain anonymous.Whether they requested this because of loyalty to their institutions or a well-foundedfear of speaking out was not always clear.)

In the last section of Part 1 I recall someexamples of what sometimes arises from lack of foresight and frankly bad practice. Finally, as Part 2, I present the Missenden Code – 14 suggestions that I hope will stimulate thecreation of an agenda to help universitiesrespond to the development of commercialfunding of university research, and to its culture and goals.

2. The Idea of a University

“This I conceive to be the advantage of a seat of universal learning, considered as a place ofeducation. An assemblage of learned men, zealousfor their own sciences, and rivals of each other, arebrought, by familiar intercourse and for the sake of intellectual peace, to adjust together the claimsand relations of their respective subjects ofinvestigation. They learn to respect, to consult,to aid each other.” 1 (Newman)

Examination of the critical issues for theuniversity in light of increased commercialisationhas to be set against the changes that haveoccurred in its role in society and in the nationstate. Nisbet perceives the university to be thelast of “the great institutions formed during theMiddle Ages; the last that is, to suffer in full sweepthe kind of changes and buffets that earlier werethe lot of the monastery, fief, guild and parish”(Nisbet 1971:13). He argues that from thethirteenth to the twentieth century, the

2


university with its courts, senates and rectors,remained much the same in concept, structureand practice.

Emmanuel Kant, writing while Professor at theUniversity of Konigsberg in the late 1700’s,argued that the role of the university could bejustified by an appeal to reason. For Kant thepursuit of knowledge and truth differentiatedthe academic from the doctors, clergy andjudiciary who were taught in the university andwent on to be employed in directly furtheringthe aims of the state. Philosophy underpinnedthese subjects and it was the universities’ role to ensure that philosophy flourished so thattheology, law and medicine thrived and thenation prospered while the scholar enjoyedcomplete academic freedom.

For the German Idealists the university had arole to play as a country’s unifying force. Culturewas the sum total of all that was to be learnedplus the cultivation of an upstanding character.This cultivation was referred to as Bildung. Inthe university the accumulation of knowledgeand cultivation of character were ascribed toresearch and teaching respectively. Theuniversity, for the Idealists, was a unique placewhere these two purposes are inseparable.

Humboldt who was partly responsible for the founding of the University of Berlin saw the relationship between the state and theuniversity as one where the state must “protectthe spiritual resources of the university (in boththeir power and diversity) and its freedom ofaction, by means of the individuals which itappoints to the University” (Readings 1999:68).The university for John Henry Newman waswhere a person could gain a liberal, utility freeeducation. It was learning for its own sake, notwith some other goal, such as gaining power orwealth, in mind. True university education wasuse-less. It was an education that “refuses to beinformed by an end or constrained to necessity”(in Carson 1999). 2

When Woodrow Wilson, as President ofPrinceton University defined the role of hisuniversity as “Princeton in the nation’s service”(Nisbet 1971: 34), he merely articulated whatmany of his generation assumed was its properrelationship to the nation. Readings uses theanalogy of a national airline subsidised by thestate to illustrate this relationship. There aretwo reasons for government subsidies: one to highlight the technological (intellectual)development of a country and the second toensure that all parts of the country could bereached without the airlines having to makedecisions based purely on economic grounds(students from poorer backgrounds beingeducated). According to Readings, both the case of the airline and the university could beviewed as a massive subsidy for the middle andupper middle classes.

In return for government support, the universityoffered a service to the country. Nisbet argueshowever that this service was indirect, that itprepared students for “places in the social orderwhere unusual skill or learning is required” (Nisbet1974:128) while remaining as aloof as possiblefrom commerce and industry. While Althusserviewed the university as part of the IdeologicalState Apparatus, where “the student’spedagogical identity is predetermined to fulfil theinstrumental ends of economic and state survival”(Barnett 1994:92), Readings thinks this no longerapplies. Although it prepares its students forservice in the cause of industry and business, it is now itself “an autonomous bureaucraticcorporation” (Readings 1999:40).

3


4


“We recommend: to the Government that itconsiders establishing a modest fund to provideequity funding to institutions to support membersof staff or students in taking forward business ideasdeveloped in the institution, and to support thecreation of incubator units” (Dearing 1997)

The foundation of the economy of all developedcountries now rests on the triangle of industry,academia and government. The university isintegral to the economic and social well being ofboth country and region as it invests, teachesstudents and conducts research. Its currenciesare skills and knowledge. As Sir Richard Sykes,Rector of Imperial College, puts it: “Today’seconomy is about intellectual assets, it’s not abouttangible assets – who cares about buildings anymore or crates of stuff, it’s all about intellectualcapital.” 3

Like every commercial product, information“may or may not be costly to obtain, but itseconomic value lies in its scarcity, that is, in the monopoly of information” (Melody 1997:98). Thus the danger of commercialising research is that it will encourage the withholding ratherthan the dissemination of knowledge.

At the start of the 20th century one third ofBritain’s undergraduate population was atOxford or Cambridge. The years followingthe Second World War witnessed growth in the demand for post secondary education in the UK. 1963–1975 saw a substantial expansion of Higher Education with the formation of apublic sector of HE and the creation of 30polytechnics. The university system expandedfrom an elite structure with a 5 per cent (of18–24 year olds) participation rate in 1960 to

a medium-sized system (14 per centparticipation rate) by the late 1980s, and to a mass system with a participation rate of about 33% by 2000 (Guardian 9/10/2001). In the latter years, that expansion came with no parallel increase in university income per student so that in 1995, total spending on highereducation was still only 0.7 per cent of GDP,under half the OECD average. So alternativesources of finance needed to be explored.

The post Robbins expansion was not initiallymatched by increased integration with industry.Henkel offers a variety of reasons for thisranging from academic snobbery to a failure ofindustry to invest adequately in the sciences. But from the 1970’s onwards various policiessuch as the Teaching Company Scheme and The Collaborative Awards For Science andEngineering (CASE) were devised by govern-ment to harness academia to commercialagendas and to encourage strategic research –“research from which application might eventuallybe expected although it could not be predicted”(Henkel 2000:44). This type of research wouldencourage the exchange of finance, resources,and information and, in some cases, personnel.

Under the Conservative Government of theearly eighties there was “support for directinstrumentalism in research policies” (Henkel2000:44) with the result that market friendlyresearch was the only show in town. TheGovernment White Paper on the Sciences in 1992 reinforced this perspective. “The country could and should improve its economicperformance by making the science andengineering base more aware of and responsive to the needs of industry and other research users”

2 The Contemporary Triangle

1. Developments in Government Policy

5


6

(Henkel 2000:44). While these changes were feltmost clearly in the hard sciences, the blueprinthad been laid for other areas of academicresearch and scholarship.

The Dearing Report adopted the sameperspective. It recommended that highereducation institutions should establish “moretechnology incubator units within or close to theinstitution, within which start-up companies can be fostered for a limited period until they are ableto stand alone” (Dearing 1997), and that theyconsider “the scope for encouraging entrepre-neurship through innovative approaches toprogramme design and through specialistpostgraduate programmes” (ibid). Innovation and Enterprise centres were formed whereuniversities provided capital for academics toavail themselves of profit-making opportunitiesoutside the university in areas such as trainingand consultancy.

This has not been received without reservationsin some unexpected quarters. Last year thegovernment’s Chief Scientific Adviser, ProfessorDavid King, argued that long-term blue skiesresearch was being sacrificed to the needs ofindustry. “Working with industry is important, but the danger is that we have strayed over thatmark and have not got enough general research following scientists’ own interests. The biggestindustrial spin-offs are from blue skies research”(Guardian 29/11/01). He went on to say that thecommercialisation of research was in danger oflessening the quality and depth of the researchto the detriment of those investing in theresearch.

After the foot and mouth crisis the Departmentfor Food, Environment and Rural Affairs(DEFRA) launched the Horizon Scanningprogramme to do the type of forward thinkingpreviously under-funded by government. “Thismeans consulting a broader range of people andorganisations to determine the important topics forresearch [to] question assumptions underlyingcurrent policies ... including issues that fall outside

conventional research domains.” 4 Other means of encouraging closer cooperation betweenacademia and industry include the fifteenUniversity Challenge funds that were set up bythe government in 1999. During their first yearin operation they invested £8.3 million in 127projects (Sunday Times 11/11/01).

2. University Finance

“...the university faces, it is sometimes suggested,a crisis of legitimacy. It comes to see itself both asan engine for economic regeneration on the onehand, and as a repository of traditional academicvirtues of scrupulousness and scholarliness on theother hand” (Barnett 2000:30)

In recent years most universities have sought to explore other sources of funds. Aside fromefforts to get students to pay more for theireducation, universities have become moreproactive in attracting conference and holidayvisitors. Employing professional fundraisers andconsultants, major fundraising programmes,similar to those in the United States, have beenlaunched, including appeals to industry and toalumni. Universities have sold off property andrationalised their estates.

Meanwhile economies have been introduced.Contact hours between students and lecturershave been reduced. The traditional security ofemployment in universities has given way to theemployment of teaching and research staff onshort-term contracts, so that, by 2001 over halfthe academic staff of many universities are onone to three year contracts. However most ofthese ways of balancing budgets have been forthe day to day running of the university, to cover essential maintenance. Particularly in thesciences, universities have been encouraged tomeet burgeoning infrastructure research costs,up to now largely met by government throughthe Funding and Research Councils, fromcharities such as the Wellcome Foundation, and direct from industry.


One method of doing so is for an academicresearcher or a department to bid to become a consultant to a commercial organisation.Consultancy is viewed by Universities UK (UUK)as one way to fulfil the government’s and theuniversities’ desire to see an increase in ‘thirdmission’ activity as it is “one of the principalmechanisms by which universities and collegestransfer knowledge, which is applied and put towork for the public good... this contributes to thegrowth of the economy and to the needs of societymore generally” (UUK 2001:4). In a report issued last year UUK sought to issue goodpractice guidelines for the management of suchconsultancies and claimed that “1% of academicstaff time, in a typical university (1500 academicstaff) devoted to consultancy services sold at amarket rate (£500 per day) would be worth nearly£2m to the staff or the institution” (UUK 2001:5).

As commercial funding becomes an integral partof the institution’s income stream, vital to theeconomic well-being of the university, thediffering requirements of research, consultancyand teaching become clearer. “There is a limit as to how much change and adaptation they canundergo before they fall apart, disintegrating asteaching, research and consultancy separate outinto distinctly organized functions increasinglyunrelated to each other” (Gray 1999:50). Onerespondent told me “the short time framesallotted to commercial projects make it even moreimperative that the interests of the organisation donot undermine the rights of those being researchedas well as the researchers themselves” (fieldworknotes).

“The dual objective from the point of view of theuniversity is to allow university expertise to be putto use in other sectors of the economy, and at thesame time enable the university staff membersinvolved to obtain additional practical experiencewhich is likely to be beneficial in their teaching andresearch” (Ross in Craig 1998:147). But it ispossible that it is industry that benefits mostfrom this relationship. The disparity in salariesand related costs between industry and

academia enables a commercial enterprise to save resources by funding university staff tocarry out research in university labs andlibraries.

As the proportion of government fundingdeclines, it is also crucial that universities do notundersell their expertise. In their 1992 report on university-industry collaborations the CVCPrecommended that universities should seek aprice for commissioned research that “ensuresthat full cost recovery is achieved and which alsotakes account of opportunity costs where rights are assigned or constraints imposed” (CVCP1992). One of the criticisms voiced, during my research, by many academics was the reluctance of commercial organisations tocontribute full infrastructure costs andoverheads – on the assumption that these arecovered by government grants. Staff, researchinstitutes and departments may be anxious toagree to undertake research without suchcontributions to ensure that staff and researchunits can continue work.

Funds are also sought by inviting industrialpartners to sponsor courses, lectureships orchairs. Such commercial partners obtain theprestige of being associated with a universitywhile getting some top quality research carriedout at minimal expense. The university forinstance, covers the whole recruitment cost.According to their website, at Brunel a“sponsored Chair or Reader will cost the sponsoronly around £60,000 per year and will be fundedon a three-year rolling contract”5 (Brunel 2001).

At Bath Microsulis sponsor a chair in MedicalDevice Engineering which is according to theirwebsite “part of the Company’s commitment toresearch as the basis of ongoing productdevelopment and innovation” 6 (Microsulis).Lancaster University has attracted €1.2 millionof funding to “support the development of its IPv6 Mobile Systems Research Laboratory. Orange,Microsoft and Cisco are the key commercialpartners.” 7 At Salford there is a laser laboratory

7



sponsored by BNFL.8 At Bradford there hasbeen a sponsored lectureship from the AbuDhabi Oil Corporation (ADCO) 9 while atCardiff British Gas have invested £300,000towards creating a Professor in the Departmentof Earth Sciences.10 But for the university suchsources of welcome income may entail potential embarrassment.

Cambridge faced such embarrassment whenthey agreed to establish the GKN Professorshipof Manufacturing with GKN providing £750,000 over ten years. GKN is involved in the manufacture of helicopter and aircraftcomponents for military use and is a largeshareholder in Alvis who make armouredvehicles. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade GKN sold $1415 m of militaryequipment in 2000. The involvement of a seniormember of the company on the selection panelraised concerns among some members of theUniversity as to the independence of thisProfessorship. Other chairs at Cambridge are sponsored by BP in Organic Chemistryand Petroleum Science, by GlaxoWellcome

(Molecular Parasitology) and by Marks andSpencer (Farm Animal Health).11

3. Blurring the Boundaries

“The people who are harmed most by thesefunding constraints are, of course, the scientists.Science is in danger of being reduced to a searchfor new applications of existing knowledge, and itspractitioners to mere technicians. The mapping ofthe human genome was a remarkable feat, butmuch of it consisted of the repetitive use ofsophisticated machines. There’s nothing wrongwith that, as long as other researchers are fundedto think” 12 (Monbiot 2000)

It is unclear whether the attitudes of thecaptains of industry towards HE mimicgovernment policy or whether their influence on government policy on academic researchrenders the two indistinguishable. Certainly

industry plays a significant role in the work ofthe Research Councils. Since 1993 anindustrialist has chaired each of the ResearchCouncils, with an academic as chief executive.Monbiot cites the example of the Biotechnologyand Biological Sciences Research Council(BBSRC). At one stage among the members of its Board were the Executive Director ofbiotechnology company Zeneca, the ChiefExecutive of pharmaceutical companyChiroscience and a former Research andDevelopment director at Nestle, while theBBSRC’s strategy board contained executivesfrom SmithKline Beecham, MerckSharpe &Dohme and AgrEvo UK.

The Foresight Programme is another example of the part that industry plays in settinggovernment research policies. Kogan suggests itwas intended to “encourage networking betweenusers and researchers and to identify possiblepriorities for the development of research accordingto scientific opportunities and capacities to exploitthem on the basis of economic and social demand”(Kogan and Hanney 2000:114). The ForesightPanels, operating from the parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, aim toincrease communication and reciprocitybetween government, industry and academiaand have a strong influence in shaping policy asthey act as sources of scientific advice to thegovernment. These panels however tend to bedominated by business chiefs rather thanacademics or politicians.

The many such panels and their sub-committeesserve to attune academic priorities to currentgovernment and commercial interests. But whatis the effect on scientific integrity when, asMonbiot records, the meat subcommitteecomplains that certain scientific projects havehelped give credence to “criticisms of meatproduction from an animal welfare andenvironmental-impact perspective [and views of]high levels of red meat consumption as potentiallydamaging to human health”? (Guardian9/11/2000).

8


4. The Global University:

“What is the dogma that the university is built on?Knowledge is important. Just that. Not “relevant”knowledge; not “practical” knowledge; not the kindof knowledge that enables one to wield power,achieve success, or influence others. Knowledge”(Nisbet 1971: 24).

How is the university affected by the decline of the powers of the nation state and the rise of the global economy? According to Goddardthere are four different aspects of globalisationthat universities need to address – simultaneity,multiple choice, pluralism and resource mobility(in Gray 1999:42). As universities becomeincreasingly entwined with the commercialworld they must keep up with new advances in technology and teaching products. There arenow more choices for the consumer of theservices of higher education and, with advancesin information technology, each universitycompetes for business in a global marketplace.

Nisbett writes that there is “nothing like directand perceived economic interdependence tostimulate and feed the sense of social andpsychological interdependence” (Nisbet 1971:57).He argues that until the 1960’s the universitycould be characterised by its degree of autarky.While funding for the academic communitycame mostly from taxes one must rememberthat until relatively recently “members of theuniversity drew not merely their livelihoods buttheir research money, their travel assistance forattendance at professional meetings, their clericaland secretarial assistance and their other academicprerequisites solely from the academic communityitself” (ibid).

What is the role of the university when the“economics of globalisation mean that theuniversity is no longer called upon to train citizensubjects, while the politics of the end of the ColdWar mean that the university is no longer calledupon to uphold national prestige by producing and legitimating national culture?” (Readings

1999:140). The university had to become “aplayer directly in the wider world ...[because] inmany, if not most, fields there are no clearboundaries between the university and the widerworld” (Barnett 2000:19). The university mustbegin to lead both socially and creatively.According to Mayer if universities only “adjust or adapt to circumstances, rather than fill ananticipatory role, they will not be able to shape thefuture” (in Gray 1999:197).

Universities can no longer pretend to be self-reliant, ‘autonomous’. They must now engagewith commerce, but the implications of thisinteraction are not altogether clear. In the nextsection I outline some of the major changes that have occurred in universities following thecommercialisation of academia.

9


10


The need to find diverse sources of fundingalters the structure and nature of the university.The new university is a multi-faceted institutionbut one of its main distinguishing characteristicswill be its success in attracting finance throughindustrial ventures and through other links withcommercial organisations. Traditional academicvalues now have “to compete with a multitude ofvalues and objectives – economy, efficiency, utility,public accountability, enterprise and variousdefinitions of quality” (Henkel 2000:147). It isworth noting however that scholarly scepticismabout the opposition between academia andindustry often fades when it comes to funding.

Academia receives most of its funding from the same place as health, transport and defence– the state – and so, like the industrialentrepreneur, “academic capitalists are subsidizedprimarily from the same sources as industrialworkers and for many of the same reasons asindustrial capitalism” (Slaughter and Leslie 2001).There is however an elite when it comes toresearch funding. Over 25% of the governmentfunding goes to four universities which “lever thecash to grab the lion’s share of research councilgrants, industry contracts and charity researchgrants” (THES 23/11/01).

These institutions, also at the forefront of therush for commercial collaboration, increasinglyexhibit many of the characteristics necessary to transform a University into a successful“Entrepreneurial University” (Clark 1987:5).There is a “strengthened steering core” (Clark1987:6) – a strong centralised leadership – able to make decisions quickly while leavingdepartments/ faculties some leeway in managingtheir own short-term internal arrangements.

Reconciling new university management practicewith traditional academic structures is thesecond problem facing any university wishing to expand or commercialise its operations.When setting out to increase collaboration withindustry the university must be flexible in settingup these new centres of enterprise, innovationor development that Clark refers to as “non-traditional units” (ibid). While these are relativelyeasy to set up and disband they require thoseworking within them and others within theuniversity to accept that old systems ofmanagement and direction might not apply tothe new units and that they may have moreflexibility than other areas of the university.

Thirdly, these units will cross disciplines,departments and schools. Considerablemanagement skills are required to ensure thatresentment or antagonism does not develop due to the perceived extra freedom of theseunits. The success of the entrepreneurialuniversity depends on academics in positions ofpower and influence within the old structuresaccommodating changes in the power structure– “in the entrepreneurial university, the heartlandaccepts a modified belief system” (Clark 1997:7).Clark cites the Warwick University of 1995,when it had 27 major departments and schoolsand 30 research centres spread throughoutthem. Now Warwick has 30 departments and 49 research centres and institutes.13

The entrepreneurial university becomes veryproficient at attracting ‘third leg’ and ‘thirdmission’ funding. This type of funding enables the entrepreneurial university to make decisionsquicker as it does not have to wait “for systemwide enactments that come slowly, with

3 Changing Institutions

1. The New Model University

11


12

standardized rules attached”(Clark 1997:7). As Evans points out, this external funding also comes with its own baggage – “there can be no realistic expectation that commercial funders will often want to give serious money to universities out of a disinterested love of learning”(Evans 1999:47). This entrepreneurial spirit must become embedded in the culture of the university to ensure that the university develops “a work culture that embraces change”(Clark 1997:7).

Clark argues that this process is a two-wayevent where “management points of view,including the notion of entrepreneurship werecarried from the center to the academic heartland,while faculty values infiltrated the managerialspace” (ibid). This is symbolised by academicsthat are trusted and respected by their peersserving in positions of central responsibility.

Views differ on how widely this happens inBritish universities today. Moves to newmanagement styles are often accompanied bydisengagement by academic staff. Administratorsand academics may view things from varyingperspectives and priorities but according toJohnson, they “cannot ‘manage’ people intosuccessful teaching nor can [they] ensure by goodmanagement that people do high quality researchor write original books” (in Evans 1999:86).

2. The University Transformed

The commercialisation of academia – through the increased interaction with business, the increased reliance of universitieson self-financing and the increasing consumeri-sation of the student population – has beenpartly responsible for a more structured,bureaucratically ordered university. There hasbeen an increasing centralisation. The locus of power has moved away from departments,faculties, councils and senates to smallermanagement groups with many major decisionsbeing made by the same permanent, unelected,

self reproducing groups. This move to thecentre can, in Neave’s opinion, move the “balance of power towards universityadministration, seen less as the handmaiden of academia than the secular arm of financialaccountability for central or local administration”(in Jacques and Richardson 1985:33).

One possible consequence is, as Neave outlines,the fourfold division of academia. The main twosectors are those academic staff on long termresearch backed by government and those onmid to long-term contract research that iscommercially funded. Under these come thoseresearching on small personal grants with aninvolvement in teaching and those involved inteaching alone. Neave goes on to suggest “thepenalties of being in those fields which do noteasily lend themselves to activities falling into the first two categories are likely to be ratherunenviable” (in Jacques and Richardson 1985:35).Those penalties became clear to many academicstaff as institutions prepared themselves for the2001 Research Assessment Exercise.

As commercial sources of research fundingbecome more significant a consequence will be,as one respondent suggested, “priority beinggiven inside the institution to responses tocommercial opportunities at the expense of work less obviously amenable to commercialexploitation” (fieldwork notes). This can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement among those not receiving research funding and an erosion ofthe values and impulses that drive researchersand what they want to achieve. Anotheracademic told me that she believed thatcommercialisation, particularly of researchfunding, could also lead to the undermining ofstaff relationships, as it seems that “a morecommercial approach seems to lead to differentpatterns of reward and conditions of involvement”(fieldwork notes).

Another spoke of his feeling that, following theincreased commercialisation of research, there is“a loss of the sense that research is a public good,


13

done for the general welfare or common culture,rather than a private good done for self-interestedreasons” (fieldwork notes). It was clear to methat many academics carry out their research forwhat they see as the common good. During myfieldwork many of them expressed sentimentsechoed by a senior lecturer who told me that hebelieved “the traditional function of the Universityhas included an altruistic motive, but that thismight be threatened by greater commercialisation”(fieldwork notes).

This division of labour within the university,resulting in part from the commercialisation ofresearch offers some intriguing possibilities.Raman offers the futuristic story of Winslow andFred. Winslow, a “text sorter for the Centre ofKnowledge Creation” (Raman 2001), extractsmaterial from pre-prepared packages for socialresearch papers. He forwards the quotes,citations and text to a sub-contractor who putsthem together with interviews done by aprofessional fieldworker and then forwardsthem to Fred, a specialist “social researchassembler” (Raman 2001), who will put it alltogether and forward it back to Winston’suniversity where some Professor will publish it.The vision is of the researcher as piece-worker.

Such a system can impact on interdisciplinarywork as certain departments and facultiesbecome more commercial than others and can undermine what Barnett sees as the“spontaneous and fruitful cross-linkages across the discourses represented by the university”(Barnett 2000:104). Academic staff must view most of their colleagues as competitors for funding (albeit not an entirely newphenomenon). But in addition colleagues willhave different goals and often be forbidden to discuss their work due to the constraintsimposed in their contracts with competingcommercial partners.

3. The Society of Excellence and Auditing

The missions and strategy documentsuniversities have created in the last ten yearshave increasingly included the concept of‘Excellence’. Many institutions now claim toaspire to ‘excellence’ in teaching and research.As Readings argues, the term – derived fromaccounting practice – is vacuous without clearcriteria and removes any concept of value.When a certain area of academia cannot adaptto this way of thinking, or when “a particulardepartment’s kind of excellence fails to conform,then that department can be eliminated withoutapparent risk to the system. This has been, forexample, the fate of many classics departments”(Readings 1999:33). It is beginning to happenmore widely in the arts and humanities.

The terminology symbolises a belief that theuniversity no longer has a role in the service ofthe state but that the “University Of Excellenceserves nothing other than itself, anothercorporation in a world of transnationally exchangedcapital” (Readings 1999:43). This however is aninsubstantial basis for a university and thereforethe University “has no foundations: it has noepistemological or ontological anchoring. It justmake things up – on both fronts – as it goes along”(Barnett 2000:100). Today it is excellence andcollaboration with industry, tomorrow e-learning, and next year vocational training.

Modern universities have had to reflect on theiractivities and organisation, while at the sametime reviewing their provision of courses andfacilities for students. Henkel illustrates howmeaningless the concept of excellence hadbecome when he quotes one vice-chancellor’sadmission that it took his university “quite a longtime to get beyond saying that our objectives wereto be excellent at everything” (Henkel 2000:55).

The concept of excellence is an essentialelement of what Strathern refers to as the AuditCulture through which the role of the university


14

and how it conducts itself are confused(Strathern 2000). The new model universitycomes together and formulates a set of criteriafor how it will operate, establishes the criteriaby which performance will be measured andthen carries out the measuring. The audit andthe culture of excellence encouragestandardization.

Those universities that are ‘commercially aware’require consistency. It is not unforeseeable thatan institution, when asked to measure itsperformance, will, as with Teaching QualityAssessment, set itself low targets. While thegovernment and HEFCE set targets, they“withdraw to the position of simply checking the resultant indicators of performance”(Strathern 2000:4). When the university comesto measure performance it is in terms ofaccounting – “cost benefit analysis structures not only the university’s internal bookkeeping butalso its academic performance in terms of goalachievement” (Readings 1999:32). The QAAreviews of teaching and the RAE are exemplarsof this audit culture.

In addition, alongside their claims of ‘excellence’,university managements have moved to replacestructures of accountability with the paradigm of‘transparency’ – thus bypassing consideration ofethical issues. To make difficult decisions and beupfront about them is commendable but asReadings argues it is “imperative that theuniversity respond to the need for accountability,while at the same time refusing to conduct thedebate over the nature of its responsibility solely interms of the language of accounting” (Readings1999:18).

Inevitably, introducing the commercial paradigm invites a commercial response andfosters inequalities within the institution. Sinceeach discipline area is operating in differentmarkets, the price that colleagues from different disciplines can command varies. So,commercially attractive areas in business schoolsand some sciences receive more funding than

the ‘Cinderella’ departments in traditionalhumanities. The institution has then decidewhether to cross subsidise or appoint more staff to the prosperous department, introducepremium pay and provide better workingconditions thereby enabling it to become anexcellent department. One academic queriedwhether “one day Universities could make industrypay a sort of goodwill tax to the kinds of researchbeing done elsewhere in the university which hasnot had the same chance of external funding”(fieldwork notes) thereby alleviating some of themore direct consequences of the difference inincome derived from conducting ‘sexy’ or ‘notso sexy’ research.

4. Researching and Teaching

“Whether academic staff like it or not, the marketand the state intrude in a variety of ways into theirlives and work. For many there is a fundamentalconflict between quality audits and entrepreneurialpressures on the one hand and academic normsand values on the other” (Becher and Trowler2001:160). Dependence on commercialcontracts inevitably challenges academicpriorities. To advance in academia academicshave to publish. To publish requires newresearch. Research often has to be fitted around teaching loads often to the detriment ofboth. As one lecturer suggested, “the only way to gain promotion is to have an internationalreputation and a publication list as long as yourarm. The salary only starts looking reasonable (and not very reasonable even then) once one getsto Reader level, and that can only be done byhaving a good publication record. I am a lecturer...with no research budget and a lecture load thatreads like the pre-flight checklist for the Apollo moon-shots.” 14

The academic will now have to search forcommercial sponsors to provide that researchbudget. However Strathern argues that theculture of the audited and commercialiseduniversity prevents good research and teaching.


15

There are, according to Giri, some things which cannot be accounted for or audited: “In research, time must be set aside for allwasteful and dead end activities that precede the genuine findings...yet there is almost nolanguage in the audit culture in which to talk about productive non-productivity” (quoted inStrathern 2000:178).

Academics are under pressure. Their traditionalculture is challenged. It is no longer sufficient toteach and produce a couple of papers and theodd book chapter every few years. Now theacademic must “not only generate new courses;they must cost them, determine and stimulatemarkets for them, evolve new ways of deliveringthem and ensure that they can stand up to hardexternal scrutiny” (Becher and Trowler 2001:17).Many universities, following the RAE of 2001,will now only appoint staff whose record ofproduction includes four papers published inrefereed journals. This could be seen as aprocess of acclimatisation to the culture of thecommercial market. The academic, like themiddle manager in industry is to be multi taskedand multi talented. According to Nisbet, theacademic is “that modern incarnation of Caesar,the academic capitalist, the professionalentrepreneur, the new man of power” (sic) (Nisbet 1971:75).

One response to inter-institutional competitionfor substantial commercial sponsorship is thereplacement of the tradition of individualscholarship with large research institutes –better placed to tender for major contracts andto establish a reputation beyond that of theindividual scholars. But, as the commercialresearch is hived off into separate units, the staffinvolved become isolated from the rest of theacademic community. The formation ofinnovation units, commercial centres andresearch and consultancy departments furtherundermines any sense of the university as acommunity of scholars where the teaching ofstudents and values are shared. One social policyexpert told me that in her view, “the comments

and advice that might be provided by conventionalresearch teams or committees and ethicscommittees, for example, might not be as readilyavailable to discussions about commercialcontracts managed by a separate section of auniversity” (fieldwork notes).

However, advocates of the increase incommercialisation of universities have arguedthat it has helped undermine academic nepotismand dethrone the old boys’ network, resulting inincreased access to research funding for womenand minority groups. Universities are led andgoverned by men15 and until recently theResearch Councils restricted researchapplications to tenured staff, which preventedmany of those women who were employedfrom applying as they were on short-termcontracts.16

5. Templates

Recognising the difficulties inherent in theadoption of the ethical guidelines that follow Ihave modelled my alternative approach on theimplementation of equal opportunities legislationand on attempts at introducing good practicedeveloped over the last few years.

According to the University of York, “Theencouragement of equal opportunities is consistent with the broader aims of the University, in making a vital contribution to thecore activities of teaching, learning and research,and in supporting the University’s commitment to academic excellence. Universities have aresponsibility for the free and tolerant explorationof knowledge and learning.” 17

But, when first mooted, implementation of equal opportunities legislation was resisted inhigher education. The concept was deemedunworkable in academic institutions,unmanageable and incompatible with notions ofacademic freedom. However the process hasbeen a gradual one and different universities


16

have complied with the legislation in differentways and at different speeds. In this country thenumber of women academics and academicsfrom minority groups in senior positions hasrisen slowly but steadily. It is now almostobligatory that any interview panel will bemixed-sex.

Disability legislation ensures that buildings shouldbe accessible for all members of the population;removing various excuses previously used to, for instance, deny employment to wheelchairusers. The rise of Anti Harassment Networks,facilitated by staff volunteers, further enhancedthe whole concept of equal opportunities.

I am not suggesting a single formula for howindividual universities should develop any ethicalpolicy but I hope that what follows – more of atemplate than a formula – may offer some usefulsuggestions and guidelines, and stimulate debate.To adapt part of University of Bristol’s equalopportunities policy, I would hope thatuniversities would consider much of the Codethat follows because they believe it “to beethically right, academically essential and sociallyresponsible.” 18

Large-scale research of all kinds now involvescollaboration with academics and institutions in other parts of the world. It cannot beassumed that those collaborating institutes and organisations will uphold identical ethicaland environmental policies. Universities aretherefore faced with the choice of whether ornot to continue collaboration with colleagues atthese universities.

The Ethical Trading Initiative19 developed by trade unions, multinationals and NGOs (Marks and Spencer, TUC and Oxfam amongstmany others) offers a good model for a process by which collaboration may ensue with organisations that do not yet match thestandards set by the home institution. Auniversity might only wish to collaborate withthose universities and businesses that agree to

adopt a plan of action that will eventually bringtheir policies into line with the home university’spolicies. They would then not be too restrictedin their choice of collaborators but could alsohave a positive impact in the development ofethical principles – as with civil rights,employment law and health and safety legislation in countries where these policies are in their infancy.

There is, of course, a much wider question –too complex to address here – about the rightof one country or culture to impose its way ofoperating on another. However I believe thatthe code outlined below can be applicable to all higher education establishments, even if atthe moment the adoption of such a code wouldbe a luxury to which some universities can only aspire.

While many debates about the ethics of receivingfunds from specific sources can be largelyinternal, some ethical policies are being pursuedat national and international levels. A campaignrun by university staff in the UK to implement an ethical investment policy for their pensionfund, the Universities Superannuation Scheme,worth over £19 billion, has been singularlyeffective. Ethics For USS – a concerned group ofacademics and students – has been encouragingthe USS to adopt ethical principles wheninvesting their funds. As a result USS was one of the investors who voiced concerns to BalfourBeatty over its now withdrawn plan to build theIlisu Dam and worked with Oxfam to encourageGlaxo to reduce the price of their anti-AIDSmedicines in Africa. 20

Ethics for USS maintains a policy of constructiveengagement. They affect the policies ofcompanies through having influence on a major shareholder and investor – USS. “As aresult of pressure from students and staff, USShave adopted a ‘socially responsible investment’policy which commits them to a number ofinitiatives, including lobbying companies to improvetheir ethical policies. This will involve activities


17

such as voting at AGMs and working with otherinvestors, rather than actually selling shares in acompany. The first focus of the new policy will be inthe controversial oil and gas sectors.” 21

Whether initiated internally or externally, withsufficient momentum efforts to establish aninstitutional code for ethical practice andaccountability could be as effective.


18

In this section I indicate some of the difficulties that some universities have recentlyencountered through collaborating with industry.I have selected eight themes and for each I offer a short introduction, a case study, somerecommendations and a few outstanding issues.The case studies have for the most part beenwell publicised. Yet, it seems that little effort has been made to draw any general lessons from them. Each offers an illustration of why, in my view, a Code of Practice for Ethics andAccountability would be helpful. They areoffered in the recognition that raising suchquestions can be the start of a lengthy processof discussion and negotiation.

1. Safeguarding Academic Freedom

Q How might universities ensure thatone of the guiding principles of a

university – that of academic freedom – can be protected and developed in the face of increased commercial pressure onuniversities, departments and individualresearchers?

“The whistleblower is not always a hero. Sometimeshe is a damn nuisance. But he should never becomea victim as a result of conscientious raising ofsubstantive concerns. Universities should be asfearless in accepting challenges about the conductof their affairs as it is the duty of scholars to be inteaching and research” (Evans 1999: preface).

Freedom of speech – in particular the freedomof academics – to “question and test received

wisdom and to put forward new ideas andcontroversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs”(Education Reform Act 1988) is a central tenetof university life. Without having these values at the core of its existence, a university sacrifices its integrity and justification. Many staffinterviewed for this project were concernedthat increases in commercialisation of researchwould be accompanied by constraints onacademic freedom.

Academic staff felt that, while their universitycould experience benefits from industrialcollaboration, some rights, particularly the right to publish, needed protecting: “ThisUniversity is, like most academic institutions,eagerly embracing commercial funding prospects. Apart from the issue of intellectual property rights,the University has not, however, considered otherethical and knowledge issues involved”(fieldwork notes).

The need to protect such freedom is of coursefavoured by most universities. Many incorporatethe right to free speech within their charters,statutes and mission statements. OxfordUniversity for instance attests that “members,students, and employees of the University arebound at all times so to conduct themselves as toensure that freedom of speech within the law issecured for members, students, and employees ofthe University and for visiting speakers”(Universityof Oxford 2002). 22 Organisations such as theCouncil for Academic Freedom and AcademicStandards in this country and the Centre forScience in the Public Interest23 in the US seek toensure that this freedom of speech is extended

19


4 Developing an Ethical Response

.

to the right to publish research findings and tominimise the effects of the “possible vestedinterest of the funder in controlling the researchagenda and possibly manipulating or evensuppressing the findings” (fieldwork notes).

Researchers have traditionally been stronglyencouraged to conform to certain modes ofworking. One academic working in a universityalready engaged in extensive contracts withcommercial partners told me that “pressures are often felt inside departments as Heads ofDepartment attempt to ensure uniformity ofresponse to the University’s priorities” (fieldworknotes). It seems inevitable that these pressureswill become more pronounced as a higherproportion of university research is funded bycommercial organisations. Universities mayagree explicit conditions. But there are alsofrequently implicit understandings that researchoutcomes should be confined to those withcommercial value and be consistent withcompany policy. Why else should the researchbe funded?

Case StudyThe recent dispute resolved by the agreement of the London School of Economicsto an out-of-court settlement with ThanosMergoupis illustrates the dilemma facinginstitutions with research contracts withcommercial organisations. Mr Mergoupis wasappointed by the School to its academic staff to carry out research on tourism on a projectfunded by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC).The Council withdrew itsfunding mid project in protest at what it calledinadequate research.

Mr Mergoupis, however, claimed that thiswithdrawal was really caused by the fact that theWTTC (a travel industry lobby group) objectedto the research findings on the socio-economicimpact of tourism. Although LSE seemed toback Mr Mergoupis they did not protest to the WTTC at the withdrawal of funding. Thepossible cost (not solely financial) of enforcing

this funding contract through the courts seemsto have discouraged LSE from doing so.

Formal legal advice to the institution laterconfirmed that the LSE would have had goodgrounds to seek damages to compensate for thepremature loss of funding. However, the LSE’sfailure to dispute the WTTC’s decision at thetime, it was confirmed, meant that any potentialaction was almost inevitably doomed. With thefunding gone, LSE terminated the employmentof Mr Mergoupis and his research assistant.

Mr Mergoupis argued that the LSE had notprotected his academic freedom or his securityof employment. By settling out of court theSchool reinforced an impression that Mr Mergoupis was probably correct.

20


Missenden Recommends:

All universities should have anInstitutional Ethics and AccountabilityPanel or Committee.

Outstanding Issues:

� Can universities guarantee complete,unfettered academic freedom to theiremployees?

� Should the need to protect academicfreedom outweigh all otherconsiderations when seeking funding for research?

� How should disagreement amongacademic staff and students aboutacademic freedom be resolved?

� How can the management of auniversity and research funders bechallenged about ethical issues withoutfear of retribution?

� Is an Ethics Panel or Committee themost appropriate mechanism foraddressing these issues?

2. Tasking an ‘Ethics Committee’

Q How can an ethics committeeensure that the university’s core

value of academic freedom is protectedwhen faced with a large number ofproposals to accept funds fromorganisations with commercial objectives?

“The Western university has evolved through avalue background, which itself has expanded. Thatvalue background includes the idea that certainthings matter, such as a willingness to search fortruth, respect for others in a truth-orientatedconversation, tolerance of rival views, a willingnessto be self critical and a prizing of courage to proffernew views.” (Barnett 1994:83).

It is now becoming standard practice foruniversity research centres and institutes toestablish some form of ethical advisory panel or committee. An overall institutional policy isless common. But increasingly a university’sapproach to ethical issues can have a seriousimpact on how it is viewed by prospectivestudents and the local community as well as by potential funders of research. The responseto questions such as ‘is their research ethical?’and ‘do we wish to accept funds from thisorganisation?’ “textures the view of the university”(fieldwork notes).

So will universities be willing to confer on anethics committee the power to turn awayresearch funding from specific sources or orderthe curtailment of research with unacceptablerestrictions on publication? Or will it be more ofan advisory body that “considers all ethical issuesarising in relation to the conduct of research in theuniversity, and/or by members of the university withrecommendations or offers of guidance”? (LancasterUniversity Ethics Committee 2001). While manydepartments and faculties may have their ownethics committees, will universities wish to ensure that they are consistent with institutionalcommitments and procedures?

Academic researchers find the requirement tosubmit research proposals to ethics committeesirksome and time-consuming. In the UnitedStates the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)carry out a similar function, and, although theywere originally set up to monitor researchinvolving human subjects, they now coverresearch in most of the social sciences andhumanities. Many US researchers consider that they interfere with their research. Whilemembers of ethics committees may believe thattheir primary role is to facilitate good researchrather than to police researchers, they may havedifficulty in convincing some academics andresearch teams, that they are not, as Furedisuspects, acting as “bureaucratic gatekeepers who use ethics as a managerial ideology”(THES 16/11/01).

Academics may not be easily reconciled to thedemand to have their actions reviewed byoutsiders. The Nolan Report on Standards inPublic Life recommended in its second reportthat it was no longer “sufficient for public bodiesto take good decisions. They must be seen to doso, and be prepared to let an independent personor body review their activities if necessary” (inEvans 1999:3). This requires that decisions bemade in open meetings and correct and inclusiveminutes be taken and published. This will bedifficult where substantial funds are offeredoften on a confidential basis.

Case StudyThe massive underwriting of the new OxfordBusiness School by Wafic Said illustrates some of the potential problems faced by ethicscommittees.

The expansion of business education had been along-term aspiration of the University of Oxford.Mr Said’s offer of funds to establish a newschool in his name was opportune. But ethicalobjections existed on three levels. There washostility (mainly from students and in the media)to the acceptance of such funding from a man“who was a key broker of the Al-Yamamah arms

21


.

22


deals in which Britain sold weaponry to theoppressive Saudi government during the 1980s. The deal was the biggest known arms sale ever, and according to an award-winning BBC Dispatchesdocumentary, it included fighter planes, as well aselectro-shock batons which are used to torturepolitical dissidents”. 24 There was oppositionbecause it was thought inappropriate to allow Mr Said to influence the running of the School by being involved in the selection of trustees.There was some resistance to the furtherencroachment of commerce into the University.The ethics committee approved the proposal,which was worth £20 million. However for manystaff, students and the media the decision wasperceived by to be a foregone conclusion as itwas hinted that the government had intervenedto ensure that the proposal was supported. 25

What should have been a source of pride for theinstitution – an enhanced Business School andsignificant investment – actually resulted in muchnegative publicity.

3. Defending the Academic’s Right to Publish

Q Freedom to publish within a systemof peer review is the cornerstone

of academic life. What will be the effect ofgreater dependence on commercial sourcesof funds and what if anything shoulduniversities do to protect this freedom?

“The dissemination of research results throughpublication is a fundamental part of the function of a university. As part of their defence of academicfreedom, institutions should vigorously defend theright of all their researchers to publish the resultsof research which has been carried out in anexpert, responsible and professional way” 26

(University of Edinburgh)


The Committee should establish realisticprocedures for vetting all substantialdonations, sponsorship and funding thatthe University applies for or is offered.

Outstanding Issues:

� What is the remit of the committee?

� Will the committee wish to turn downall funding from certain organisations?

� Should it establish a definition of‘substantial’?

� Should its decisions be binding?

� How will the membership be decided?

� Should the financial implications for theUniversity be taken into account inconsidering specific cases?

Outstanding Issues (contd):

� Its findings, and justifications for same,need to be as publicly accessible aspossible without hindering the decisionmaking process of the committee

� Should there be two separate ethicscommittees – one for research andone for other university concerns suchas investments?

� Should ethical concerns be dealt withcase by case or should an attempt bemade to codify the university’s ethicalposition?

� How will the local wider communitybe involved?

� To whom should the committeereport?

� Should commercial partners be askedto meet any ethical standards?

� What would be workable proceduresfor putting committee decisions intoeffect in individual cases?

.

23


While many of my informants felt comfortableabout the increased commercialisation ofresearch they expressed concerns about anythreat to the right to publish the findings of theirresearch regardless. One respondent told me,“Editorial independence is very important [as itshapes] how your relationship is perceived”(fieldwork notes).

Academic careers and reputations arelegitimised through their publications: “The mostdiscouraging news is that, in these competitivetimes, it is unlikely that an MA or even a PhD will get you a university post..... if you have not yet made it into print. Faced with people withPhDs and several publications, you may not even make it on to the shortlist” (Silverman2000:226). Academic credibility is establishedthrough publications reviewed by fellow experts. “The essence of academic freedom is thatteachers should be chosen for their expertness inthe subject they are to teach and that the judgesof this expertness shall be other judges.” (Bertrand Russell)27

However, commercial organisations areconstrained to run on commercial principles –which inevitably demand some curtailment ofthe researcher’s publication rights. Most staff ofresearch institutes may be reconciled to this atthe outset but may be embarrassed whenexpected to suppress research findings thatcould be unacceptable to their sponsors.

Academic status can be measured by thefrequency published work is cited in otherpublications. Citation studies are increasinglyused to determine the most influential scholarsand the standing of research institutes. Souniversities will need to consider how to protectthe integrity of measures such as this by askingwhat happens when clauses in contracts withcommercial partners forbid publication forreasons of commercial sensitivity or security.Sponsors may effectively censor publicationswith long term effects on the credibility ofresearch from that researcher or institute.

All subsequent publications by an academicwhose PhD was sponsored could be discredited.

A traditional feature of university culture is thefreedom to discuss projects, research problemsand experimental results with colleagues atacademic seminars and conferences. But,sponsors may want this curtailed. And,according to one Professor of Politics, thedanger of suppression of publication whereresults do not match the expectations of thesponsor may extend to work on contract forgovernment departments (fieldwork notes).The integrity of academic researchers may bechallenged if it is revealed that their work wasfunded by organisations that stand to benefitfrom the results. So I am proposing that everyresearcher should know exactly who is fundingtheir research team, the source of that funding,and that the sponsor of the research isacknowledged prominently in all publications.

A report last year, sponsored by the HealthyFlooring Network (HEN) which suggested thatdust mites in carpets were a cause of childhoodsasthma, was later found to have been indirectlyfunded by Pergo the Swedish wood floormanufacturers. The cash paid for a report fromDr. Jill Warner, of Southampton University,whose report suggested that: “It’s time forfamilies to consider alternative forms of flooring”(The Mail On Sunday 2/09/01).

Dr Warner stated that she did not know thatPergo had given money to Health FlooringNetwork through a consultancy and that it didnot have any effect on the result – “I can affirmthat it would have made no difference to theoutcome of the report.” 28 Despite the fact thatHEN subsequently revealed that they did notknow the money that they had received throughthe consultancy firm had come from Pergo,academic colleagues dismissed the researchfindings. Writing about a similar case an editorialin The Guardian concluded, “Science is a wordthat derives from the Latin scire, to know. If peopleare aware who pays for this knowledge, and who will

benefit most from it, they will also know how tovalue it. Such frankness will help the scientist asmuch as the consumer. People with nothing to hidehave everything to gain” (The Guardian, 27/08/01).

Case StudyIn 1996, David G. Kern, an associate professorof medicine at Brown University and director ofa program on occupational health was hired by anylon-manufacturing company called Microfibresto determine the cause of lung problemsaffecting a few workers. When, during hisresearch, he identified a high incidence of illness,he proposed to publish a study reporting thefindings. But company officials claimed that anon-disclosure agreement he had signed in 1994prohibited him from publishing his results. TheUniversity and its affiliated Memorial Hospital(where Dr Kern worked) backed the company.Dr Kern argued that even if the agreement hadlegal standing, which he insisted it didn’t, “ethicsrequired something else of us.” 29

One week after presenting his findings at aninternational meeting, Dr. Kern was informed by the University and the Hospital that hiscontract, due to expire that year, would not berenewed.30 Dr Kern told the New EnglandJournal of Medicine that he and his team were“investigating an evolving occupational-diseaseoutbreak among a unionised industrial work force.Our primary focus was the health of these workersrather than academic research [while] our hospitaland medical school administrators have activelyparticipated in the special-interest group’s effortsto undermine both our credibility and thegeneration, dissemination, and application ofscientific findings.” 31 The University receivedmuch negative publicity as a result of this caseand it was suggested that other research comingfrom Brown University was ‘tainted’ by thestory (Donnay et al 1997).

24



The right of academic staff to publishresearch findings should be theprimary consideration of any contractbetween industry and academia.Where the Committee is minded, in an individual application, to accept acase for limitation on the freedom topublish, any reference to the workshould include an explanatory note to this effect.

Outstanding Issues:

� Should all commercial contracts haveprecise conditions about the rights ofthe academic researcher to publish theresults of their research?

� What grounds are acceptable forrestricting the publication of results?Would this be for a specific period?

� What are the benefits to individualacademics and to the institution ofcarrying out research that cannot bepublished?

� Who dictates the parameters ofconfidentiality?

� How do the calls for commercialconfidentiality affect the integrity ofPhD students on Research Councilcollaborative awards?

� How are academic staff to be madeaware of university policy on thepublication of sponsored research?

� Can a research institute be over relianton any one commercial funder?

4. Protecting Intellectual Property Rights

Q When much of the financial gain to be made from developments in

biotechnology, communication systems and medical research (etc) arises fromintellectual property rights, how areuniversities to ensure that they combinebeing commercially attractive to fundersand investors with retaining as muchbenefit as possible for the institution, itsstaff and its students?

“Intellectual property is the innovative and noveloutput of intellectual creativity, effort and thought.IP encompasses inventions, designs and images,software, written work, know-how and processes.IP can be protected by various means includingpatents, copyrights, trademarks and design rights.These rights can be bought, sold or licensed andthey enable owners of intellectual property tocontrol the commercialisation of their work for afixed period. Intellectual Property Rights are rightswhich enable owners of intellectual property toexert monopoly control over the exploitation ofthese rights, usually with commercial gain in mind.They give the right to stop others exploiting thisproperty, sometimes for a fixed period, sometimesindefinitely.” 32 (University College London)

When research is commercially funded, theinterests of the various parties involved –sponsor, researcher, employer and citizenssupplying information – are potentially inconflict. When is a member of staff of aninstitution acting in a private capacity?“Interpreting ‘in the course of employment’ and other key factors has become increasinglyimportant for employees in higher education, asstakeholders seek to capitalize on intellectualassets but not always collaboratively” (Hannabuss2001). Guidelines regarding use of universityproperty, research material, and facilities mustbe developed to prevent costly and oftencounterproductive disputes over who is entitledto what share of any benefits accrued.

If universities wish to control the IPR in theinventions of staff and students they must striveto ensure that staff and students are aware ofthe benefits (as they perceive them) of theuniversity having control of their intellectualproperty rights. Students registering at Lancaster University are offered the opportunity to assign their intellectual propertyrights to the University at matriculation. Thebenefits and disadvantages of doing so areexplained at the time: “As a student of theUniversity and usually as an individual withoutsubstantial private means, you are unlikely to have the negotiating power or credibility that theUniversity has when entering into discussions for the exploitation and commercialisation ofparticular intellectual property with businesses or other institutions ... the cost of preventing others from infringing your rights can also be verysignificant ... [I]n most, if not all, circumstances, to prevent infringement the owner of rights willhave to seek legal or other professional advice, and the cost of doing so can run into tens ofthousands of pounds or more”. 33 Followingchanges in Human Rights law it is possible thatsuch a procedure (students having to assign their rights) will become the standard way ofdealing with this issue.

The Human Genome Project and the patentingof seeds and strains of crops such as rice raiseconflict in an acute form. Universities failing toaddress it will risk lengthy disputes andexpensive legal action.

Case StudyThe University of Rochester (US) was granted apatent on the human gene Cox-2 in April 2000.University administrators immediately filed alawsuit against G.D. Searle, a subsidiary ofPharmacia. The foundation of the lawsuit wasthat Searle markets a very profitable painkillercalled ‘Celebrex’ which acts by blocking theenzyme encoded by the Cox-2 gene. TheUniversity of Rochester alleges that Searle’s druginfringes its patent, which describes not just theDNA letters of the gene, but also the general

25


.

idea of using a drug that blocks Cox-2 as a wayto alleviate pain.

In 1999, the first year on the market, Celebrexsales totalled US $1.5 billion.34 According to theUniversity “over the 17-year life of the patent,royalty payments could yield billions of dollars,making it the most lucrative pharmaceutical patent in history” 35. The university was thesubject of much publicity much of it along the lines of the plucky little university going up against a pharmaceutical giant. It should benoted however that much of the law in this area is embryonic and could prove expensive if the lawsuit was not won or an agreement not reached.

Furthermore there is a perception that much of the knowledge that is being patented mightnot be anybody’s property to patent – “I alsowant to mention the conflict between intellectualproperty rights and access to data and informationwhich is an essential basis for research. To patentgenes is to me unacceptable. They represent a discovery and not an invention and should therefore not be patented. But if genes are used to produce medicines it is different. Such a procedure should be the subject of patenting.Otherwise development of such new drugs will be hampered.” (Westerholm)36

26



Each university should review its policy on Intellectual Property Rightsand disseminate it among staff andstudents by case studies. It should beincluded in academic staff inductionand training programmes.

Outstanding Issues:

� Where would the intellectualproperty rights for any new inventionat your university reside?

� Who is responsible for dealing withintellectual property issues?

� What expertise is available to yourEthics Committee?

� Does each research institute have aformal procedure through which staffcan notify the university about newdiscoveries? Is it publicised andmonitored? 37

� Are your research students aware of their rights and obligations underintellectual property law anduniversity regulations?

� What legal advice is available oncopyright, design rights and patents?

� Are your institution’s regulations and procedures in line with recentdevelopments in human rightslegislation?

� What impact will thecommercialisation of research haveon the dissemination of informationand the cooperation betweencolleagues and departments at your institution?

� How are commercial partners made aware of your university’spolicy on intellectual property rights?

� Do employment contracts makeexplicit reference to this issue?

5. Meeting the Student Expectation

Q Increasing commercialisation inhigher education could have a

serious impact on the quality, standard andtype of education that students will receive.With the increasing cooperation betweenacademia and industry and the increasingcosts to students of receiving theireducation, how might universities ensurethat the expectations of students, andparticularly research students, are met?

“Particular attention must be afforded to higherdegree candidates who might be participating inexternally-sponsored research. The University willnot accept any condition of income or contractualarrangement which would involve a delay in thesubmission of a thesis, the exclusion of essential or significant material from a thesis, or prevent ordelay the examination of a thesis” (CentralQueensland University) 38

Higher education is increasingly valued for itspractical utility. As with sponsors of research,employers now demand that graduate recruitsdisplay certain skills – irrespective of the subjectof their degree. “Half of the vacancies on offer tograduates this year will not specify any particulardegree discipline. Employers offering these positionsare looking for a reasonable degree and evidence ofsome academic rigour” (Bink in Grey 1999:74).

Students have turned from attending university as“consumers in waiting” to “fully fledged consumerssince the introduction of tuition fees” (Becher andTrowler 2001:9). Students become consumers or customers, and the graduating studentbecomes the university’s end product. Employerswant standardisation between graduates, as“predictability and uniformity” amongst employeesfacilitates their recruitment and training practices.(Barnett 1994:43). Students are increasinglytaking part in work placements, as part of theircourse, often with companies that sponsorprojects or research in their school or faculty.

Would a student be able to refuse a workplacement on a project because she disagreedwith the funding company’s ethical stance? More pertinently, would she have the right torefuse without her career being affected? What avenues are open to a student unhappy that heruniversity receives funding from GMCropsRGR8?How could or would an ethics committee takeinto account the beliefs of one or more mastersstudents on a sponsored project?

Case StudyIn May 2000 Steven Nicholson, a postgraduatestudent, managed to wipe over £40 million from the market value of Antisoma, the Britishdrug development group. He published a paperin which he suggested that that the company’sflagship treatment for the treatment of ovarianand gastric cancer, Theragyn, was not aseffective as the company had suggested. TheImperial Cancer Research Fund had licensed the product to Antisoma but at the same timehad given Nicholson, a former employee theantibody to use in conducting his own study forhis PhD. Although Nicholson’s methodology wasquestioned, the company suffered a withdrawalof funding by one of its major backers – AbbotLaboratories of America – following otherconcerns raised about the product.

The company changed the name of thetreatment to Pemtumomab. They were indanger of having to cancel many ongoingresearch projects until backers including Cancer Research – the result of a merger of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and theCancer Research Campaign – agreed to invest a total of over £20 million in the company. The charity has a 5% stake in Antisoma and ashare of royalties if its drugs are successful. Thecharity’s joint Director General, Gordon McVie,told the Guardian early this year: “We’reprotecting our assets, which is the appropriate duty of the trustees. We’re making sure thatclinical trials which have started will finish. I have a strong ethical view against stopping trials whichare under way.” 39

27


.


Staff, students and the localcommunity should have representationon the Institutional Ethics andAccountability Panel or Committee.

Outstanding Issues:

� Are individual students bound by dealsagreed on behalf of their departmentor laboratory?

� Do students have access to a realisticmechanism through which they mightvoice their ethical concerns overresearch practices at their university?

� How is the funding of researchstudents affected by the researchinstitute’s and the university’scommercial contracts?

� Are students’ IPR protected?

� Should students be reliant on thegoodwill of any one company’s funding,access or resources necessary for thesuccess of their PhD?

� What procedures are required to copewith the financial position of researchand work placement students whosesponsor expresses dissatisfaction withtheir research? Or withdraws financialsupport or co-operation?

The product has been given ‘orphan’ status bythe EU, meaning that the company will have tenyears market exclusivity once the product isapproved. Glyn Edwards, Company ChiefExecutive suggested at the time that the marketvalue for this product was $850 million a year.The example of this single PhD studentdemonstrates how fraught and expensive thecommercialisation of research can become andthe important role that students may play insuch research.

6. Preparing for Controversy

Q A substantial section of theuniversity will not find some sources

of funds ethically acceptable. Particularly if universities are undiscriminating in theirchoice of partners in research projects, the outsourcing of core activities, and thesearch for sponsors and donations, there is potential for controversy and internaldissent, possibly disruption. How shoulduniversities address this potential?

“We’re not condemning the arms industry per se,”said Summers. “But within the vast range ofpurposes to which arms are put, there are activitiesthat a body such as a university doesn’t feelcomfortable with” (Brian Summers quoted in The Guardian 13/11/01).

In 2001, after protests from students andconsiderable debate, the University of EastAnglia decided to withdraw its investments from armament manufacturers. Brian Summers,Registrar at the University expressed therecognition by the University of the need toreconcile itself to the need to respond to theethical position of students and staff andhighlighted the linguistic and financial tanglesuniversities can face in doing so. As studentsincreasingly act as critical consumers, universities are forced to recognise thesignificance of their views. This is a factor which might not be at the forefront of anycommercial negotiations, but which can have a devastating impact.

The decision of Leeds University to pull theirendowment funds from cigarette companieshighlighted the power that students can have on influencing university decisions aboutinvestments. In the US, protests by studentsagainst Gap and Nike demonstrate thatinvolvement with industry will always raise newethical and political questions. Such questionswere not asked (although they could have been)when most research was funded through the

28


.

academic-dominated Research Councils andindependent charitable foundations.

Universities might be well advised to considerthe potential participation of representativebodies such as student unions in their discussionof the acceptability of the sources of substantialfunding. Neglect of the student constituency has resulted in the past in students protestingoutside sponsored lectures, recruitment fairs,freshers’ fairs and at graduation ceremonies –situations most institutions would want to avoid.

Case StudyThe impact of dissatisfaction expressed by staff and students can be gauged by thereactions at Nottingham during 2000 in thewake of the furore over the acceptance of £4 million from British American Tobacco tofund an International Centre for CorporateSocial Responsibility.

The story gained international attention and staffand students opposed to the agreementappeared in all national newspapers and ontelevision news programmes. One studentreturned his ‘student of the year’ prize to theuniversity’s Business School and on BBC newsasked for the prize money to be donated to theCancer Research Campaign. Jon Rouse said thathe still thought highly of the Business School –“It’s a great business school, but it’s just made a horrible error of judgement.” 40 Lecturers,students, the media, cancer charities and alumniassailed the University. Furthermore many foundit interesting that BAT was giving the money tofund a centre for corporate responsibility whileit was under investigation by the Department ofTrade and Industry over allegations of beinginvolved in aiding tobacco smugglers. 41

Earlier this year a survey organised by the AUTfound that over 90% of academic staff whoresponded agreed with the motion: “We believethe reputation of the University of Nottingham hasbeen damaged by the acceptance of funding fromBAT. We call upon the management of the business

school and the university to reconsider and in doing so to take the views of the staff and studentsof the university into account. We further call uponthe university to set up an ethics committee towhich any such controversial decisions could bereferred in the future.” (AUT)42

29



Procedures for considering potentialsources of income should involverepresentatives of both staff andstudents, and the brief of the person within the University withresponsibility for attracting ‘third leg’funding should include considerationof potential ethical implications.

Outstanding Issues:

� How widely and in what way does theuniversity consult on ethical issueswith academics, staff and students –and with the local community?

� Is there a person within the universityadministration who is responsible for this?

� How would the university deal withreservations about the sources ofresearch funds?

� What areas of university life wouldcontroversial funding agreementsaffect e.g. recruitment, promotion,public relations?

� How far should ethical questionsdetermine university investmentpolicy?

30


7. Managing the New Model University

Q What changes in management skills and structures will universities

need to introduce to address issues thatarise from increased commercial activity of university faculties, departments andindividual staff members?

“It may seem an odd thing to say but I preferadministration and perhaps my having to say ‘you may find this odd’ sums up the whole debate...that teaching is not regarded as important asresearch, and administration is the province of foolsand the inadequate.” (In Henkel 2000:240)

The management of universities, traditionallycarried out by administrators responsible tosenior academic staff and working to a brief setby committees of lecturers, is not yet aligned tothe needs and demands of the new commercialcontext. Rewards and status accrue to thosescholars with the most impressive researchreputations, with teaching, administration andengaging with outside organisations seen aschores rather than challenges. Most of thosecharged with the management of universities arepaid on separate scales and accorded inferiorstatus to academic staff and those academicselecting to take on management responsibilitiesfor any length of time paradoxically lose ratherthan gain status in the eyes of their colleagues.

Nisbet argues that in the past one could judgethe academic prowess of a university by the levelof trust that existed between faculty (academics)and administration – “There was kind of a tacit agreement under which the administrationadministered, the faculty taught, did research andgoverned! Governed, that is academically” (Nisbet1971:49). Now there is a lack of trust, which isworsened by the use of short term contracts fornew staff and a system of constant audits andappraisals. This system fosters a risk-averseculture and a conservative attitude towardspotential commercial initiatives and enterprise.

Barnett suggests that the large corporations(who he believes are the Universities’ rolemodels) have long ago learned that it can behelpful to encourage staff to “give us your ideas”(Barnett 2000:109) while universities are places“saturated with organisational and epistemicpower: many staff feel diffident about expressingthemselves. Indeed the ‘modern’ university regardssilence as a sign both of high morale and that the university is operating ‘efficiently’” (ibid). The increased commercialisation of research is unlikely to alter this and indeed manycommercial funders may also look upon silenceas a good attribute in ‘their’ researchers.

Those academics that show enthusiasm foradministration or who are good teachers and researchers soon find themselves asadministrators and become embroiled instructures which are often archaic, and whichwhile they are ostensibly effective at permittingthe academics make the decisions are oftencumbersome and unwieldy and very timeconsuming. The new academic in the newmodel university does not have time to attendmeetings about meetings therefore power hastended to be devolved unofficially or otherwiseto smaller management groups. When outsidecommercial organisations become involved suchstructures can be seen as inadequate.

Case StudyEarlier this year a report commissioned byCambridge University seriously criticized themanagement structure of the University. Thereport was the result of an independent inquiry,called by the University into the installation andimplementation of a new financial system. TheCapsa system, a new computerized accountingsystem, ended up costing £9.172 millioncompared to its original estimate of £4.7 million.

Anthony Finkelstein, Professor of SoftwareSystems Engineering at University CollegeLondon, and Michael Shattock, Visiting Professorat the Centre for Higher Education Studies atLondon University’s Institute of Education

.

31


conducted an investigation into the debacle.They declared “although the University is by manymeasures very successful, it faces a number oforganisational problems. Some of these result fromchronic under-resourcing and failure to develop theuniversity’s administration. Others spring from thecomplexity and formalism of its decision-making”(THES 8/02/02).

The report went on to say that theadministrators should have realised that theuniversity did not have the staff resources toensure the success of the new accounts systemand that by 1997 “it should have been clear that Cambridge did not have the administrativeinfrastructure either in the centre or indepartments to cope with the installation”(The Guardian 02/11/01). One reason for thiswas that, immediately prior to the commence-ment of Capsa, many technical and finance staff that would have been integral to the newsystem took advantage of an early retirementscheme. The authors reported – “There is anapparent inability to adapt quickly to changingdemands and circumstances, or to grapple withlong-term problems of strategic importance. There is a perceived lack of transparency andtherefore of accountability” (THES 08/02/02).

The report recommended that the ViceChancellor become the “principal academic andadministrative officer, responsible for the directionand management of the university and its finances”(THES 08/02/02) with the authority to delegatesuch responsibilities. Five pro-vice chancellorswith responsibility for education, finance,personnel, research and planning and resourceallocation would also be created.

While this only brought Cambridge into line with many universities around the country, what makes the report extremely relevant whentalking about the commercialisation of researchthe way in which it lambasted the non-businesslike attitudes held by some members of theacademic community at Cambridge. The reportdescribed a “preference for the amateur

approach” in the way the University was runwhich created a “climate in which the kinds ofproblems that Capsa threw up could flourish”. Dr Gill Evans a member of the UniversityCouncil, a persistent critic of the management of Cambridge and Public Policy Secretary for theCouncil for Academic Freedom and Standardssaid that such mismanagement “is the Achilles’heel of the academic-led university and if we want to preserve academic autonomy, and with itfreedom from a type of managerial control inimicalto academic freedom, we have to begin to takeseriously the need to develop some professionalismof our own” (THES 30/11/01). If universities wishto attract the external funding which is now aprerequisite, such standards of administrationbecome unacceptable.


Institutions should review structuresand procedures, and programmes ofmanagement development, to enable them to engage more effectively withcommercial partners, and to addressthe ethical issues raised.

Outstanding Issues:

� Are the management structures atyour University clear and easilyunderstandable to potentialcommercial partners and to allmembers of staff?

� Do academics who make the transitionto administration receive adequatetraining and preparation?

� Is there a clear promotion path withinthe administration?

� Do any members of the administrationhave experience of working in acommercial setting?

continued over...

32


8. Sourcing Alternative Funding

Q The search for additional sources of funding is a competitive one

that must be viewed as a long-termprocess. Accepting funding from certainorganisations may impinge on futurefunding bids. As universities launch morespin off companies how should they should identify what professional expertiseis required?

“Science and Innovation Minister Lord Sainsburytoday opens the University’s new £2.4m InnovationCentre on Clarendon Road, on the former LeedsGrammar School site. The Centre is forgingstrategic partnerships between the University andbusiness, by offering companies access to world-class research teams and facilities, and providingacademics with a home for their spin-offcompanies. A joint venture with ShepherdDevelopments, the Centre is providing high-tech,fully serviced office space for innovative start-upcompanies, offering them full support through their early critical stages. Lord Sainsbury said:“Turning the best ideas into jobs and prosperity isvital to our economic success.” (Leeds)43

The Tech Track 100, which ranks newtechnological companies, has six university spinouts in its top 100. These six companies have

managed to raise over £75 million in venturecapital. While collaborations with industry arebecoming prevalent here, they are lightweightcompared to some of the deals taking place inthe US. According to the latest figures fromHESA (1999– 00), 12.3% of HEIs income fromresearch grants and contracts comes from UKindustry, commerce and public corporations(HESA 2000:9).

Case StudyIn one case, a deal between UC Berkeley andNovartis saw the company contribute 30% of the research budget for the university’sdepartment of plant and microbial biology. Inreturn, as a government funded report put it,“Novartis gets a first look at virtually all discoveriesproduced by the departments scientists, includinginventions that Novartis didn’t fund”. 44 WilliamLacy, vice provost at the University of Californiaat Davis and a commentator on university-industry partnerships, said the key point toremember is “that negotiations between campusand corporate officials never occur in a vacuum. A company hot to collaborate with a top academicmight sign one type of deal. A campus hunting formoney might bend over backward to accommodatea company’s demands.” 45 The furore surroundingthis deal affected Berkeley’s ability to attractother funders and some academics becamereluctant to get involved with the university’sown spin outs.

The spinouts require a level of commercialexperience and knowledge that most academicstaff will not possess. However, sometimeswithout such expertise, universities have set up Innovation Centres, Incubators, EnterpriseProgrammes and Commercial Parks to facilitatetheir spinouts and to attract more commercialorganizations to work within the university andto fund research.

One major fund raising strategy in the US andincreasingly in this country is the appeal toalumni of the institute. This has proven to bevery successful because alumni have had an

Outstanding Issues (contd):

� Are those whose role it is to attract external funding aware of theconstraints, such as ethical researchguidelines, under which researcherswork?

� Do department heads have controlover recruitment of personnel andresearch carried out in theirdepartment?

.

33


allegiance and a fondness for their university oras Readings would see it, for their community.However if students are encouraged to seethemselves as consumers rather than asmembers of a community these donationsdecline. Readings uses the analogy of buying acar to illustrate this point. The student will feelno more need to donate to the university theyattended – “any more than a consumer, havingpurchased a car, feels the need to make furtherperiodic donations to General Motors in excess ofthe car loan repayments” (Readings 1999:11).


The Committee should take advicefrom those with a professionalexpertise in ethics and those obtainingsponsorship for research should not be given undue favour in promotiondecisions.

Outstanding Issues:

� What constraints are there, and shouldthere be, on the use of specificsources of funding for research?

� What could universities do to makethemselves more attractive asinvestment opportunities for alumni?

� Are specific sources of funding from the employers or the localcommunity being pursued? Arepossible ethical issues being explored?

� How would any decisions made fit inwith employment laws, human rightslegislation etc?

34


35


1. All universities should have aninstitutional Ethics and AccountabilityPanel or Committee

2. Staff, students and the localcommunity should have representationon the Committee

3. The Committee should take advicefrom those with a professionalexpertise in ethics

4. The Committee should vet allsubstantial donations, sponsorship and funding that the University appliesfor or is offered

5. The Committee should inter aliaensure that all sources of funding for any research carried out in theUniversity’s name are acknowledged in all publications

6. Where the Committee accepts a case for limitation on the freedom topublish it should attach an explanatorynote to this effect

7. The brief of the person within theUniversity with responsibility forattracting external ‘third mission’funding should have a strong ethicalelement

8. The University’s policy on Intellectual Property Rights should be disseminated as widely as possibleby case studies and be made anintegral part of job induction andtraining programmes

9. Sponsored research should bear a fullshare of the institution’s infrastructurecosts

10. The right of academic staff to publishresearch findings should be theprimary consideration of any contractbetween industry and academia.Commercial considerations shouldnever be allowed to prevent thepublication of findings that are in the public interest or which addsignificantly to the body of knowledgein a field

11. The University should retain the rightsof staff to publish without hindranceexcept where a specific writtenprovision has been made with theagreement of all parties – to include all research students, researchassistants and assistant staff involved.This should be explicitly mentioned inall staff contracts

12. Those obtaining sponsorship forresearch should not be given unduefavour in promotion decisions

13. Universities should declare details of all investments

14. Universities should consider thecreation of a register of interests for all members of the university

© The Missenden Centre for the Development of Higher Education 2002

The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics andAccountability

36


37


1. John Henry Newman, The Idea of A University http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/discour se5.html

2. Carson, A, The Idea of a University (After John Henry Newman), The Threepenny Review, Summer 1999 http://www.threepennyreview.com/samples/carson_su99.html

3. http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,12028,719818,00.html4. www.escience.defra.gov.uk/horizonscanning 5. http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/cs/business/index.shtml?26. http://www.microsulis.com/investor_research.htm 7. http://www.mobileipv6.net/article.php?sid=4 8. http://www.sciences.salford.ac.uk/physics/photonics/profile.html9. http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/management/execcorped/10. http://www.cf.ac.uk/news/cardiff_news/vol5no1/wright.html 11. http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter 12. http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=341 13. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/departments/index.html 14. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1861000/1861813.stm15. Only 8.5% of professors in the UK are women,

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/careers/story/0,9856,485479,00.html 16. http://www.aut.org.uk/who/who_fset.html?eo/eo-money.htm~main 17. http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/aso/eqopps/code.htm 18. http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Info-Office/policies/eqopps.htm19. http://www.ethicaltrade.org/pub/publications/purprinc/en/index.shtml20. http://www.ethicsforuss.org.uk21. Association Of University Teachers: EDV/1061 October 200122. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/ps/hbooks/nonac/nassect5.pdf 23. http://www.cspinet.org/integrity 24. http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/news/said_business_school.html 25. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4150286,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1215862.stm 26. http://www.research-innovation.ed.ac.uk/documents/surpc/chapters/chap10.htm 27. http://www.korrnet.org/reality/rc/1999_summer/academic_freedom.htm28. http://www.thisisworcestershire.co.uk/worcestershire/archive/2001/09/06/

kidder_news_latest21ZM.html 29. Chronicle of Higher Education – Tuesday, March 30, 1999

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Housing/8930/coi10.html

References

38


30. ibid31. http://mailman.mc.duke.edu/pipermail/occ-env-med-l/1997-October/005609.html 32. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-ventures/index.html 33. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/studreg/departmental-office/ipr.htm 34. http://www.scienceweek.com/2000/sw000915.txt

Antonio Regalado The Great Gene Grab athttp://www.technologyreview.com/articles/regalado0900.asp

35. http://www.rochester.edu/pr/Currents/V28/V28 N08/story01.html36. Barbro Westerholm Professor, Former Chairperson of the Swedish

parliamentary investigation into research ethics 1999.http://www.inesglobal.com/publication/ines_proceedings/Proceed_html/WESTERHOLM.HTM

37. For a good example see http://www.maninv.com/main_fp/academic/innovation_main_fp.htm#15

38. http://www.cqu.edu.au/research/research_services 39. Guardian Saturday 23/02/02 and

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charityfinance/story/0,8150,656694,00.html40. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1069000/1069261.stm 41. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1069000/1069261.stm42. http://education.guardian.co.uk/search/article/0,5606,4115251,00.html 43. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/current/innov.htm 44. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/in_news/archives/20020429.html 45. http://www.biotech-info.net/ACE_report.html

Barnett R (ed) Academic Community Discourse orDiscord, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London,1994

Barnett R, The Limits of Competence, SRHE andOpen University Press, Buckingham, 1994

Barnett, R, Realizing The University, in an age ofSupercomplexity, Oxford University Press,Buckingham, 2000

Becher, T and Trowler, R, Academic Tribes AndTerritories, The Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press,Buckingham, 2001

Clark, B.R, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities,Pergamon, London 1987

Craig, T (ed), What Can We Do For OurCountries? The Association of CommonwealthUniversities, London 1998

Evans, G. R. Calling Academia To Account, SRHEand Open University, Buckingham, 1999

Gray, H (ed), The Creation of Wealth, OxfordUniversity Press, Buckingham 1999

Henkel, H, Academic Identities And Policy ChangeIn Higher Education, Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London, 2000

Higher Education Statistics Agency, Resources ofHigher Education Institutions, 1999/2000, HESA,Cheltenham, 2001

Higher Education in the Learning Society, The National Committee of Inquiry into HigherEducation, © Crown Copyright 1997– DearingReport

Jacques, D and Richardson, J. (eds) The Futurefor Higher Education, SRHE and NFER-NELSON,Surrey, 1985

Kogan, M. and Hanney, S. Reforming HigherEducation, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London,2000

Monbiot, G. The Captive State: The CorporateTakeover of Britain, Macmillan, London, 2000

Nisbet, R., The Degradation of The AcademicDogma, Heinemann, London, 1971

Rand, R (ed), Logomachia, The Conflict of TheFaculties, The University of Nebraska Press,Lincoln 1992

Readings, B, The University in Ruins, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge Massachusetts,1999

Silverman, D, Doing Qualitative Research, SAGEPublications, London, 2000

Smith, A and Webster, F. (eds) The Post ModernUniversity, SRHE and Open University Press,Buckingham, 1997

Strathern, M (Ed), Audit Cultures, Routledge,London, 2000

UUK & AURIL, Optimising Consultancy, London2001

Journal Articles

Donnay A, Baker G. P, Fardon D. F, et al,Intimidation of Researchers by Special-InterestGroups, New England Journal of Medicine;337:1314–1319, 1997

Gaudiani, C, “The Soul in the Machine or theMachine in the Soul?” Profession New York: MLA,1996

Raman, S, Offshored Intellectual or NewIntellectuals, in Organization, SAGE, London,2001, Volume 8 page 441–447

Slaughter, S, and Leslie, L, Expanding andElaborating the Concept of AcademicCapitalism, in Organisation, Volume 8 Issue 2,SAGE, London, 2001

Bibliography

39


the missenden code of practice for ethics and accountability · 1. the new model university 11 2....

Documents