|
Collaboration concerns Concerning the "News in Review" Corporate Concerns blurb in your summer '99 issue reporting that some two dozen students demonstrated in March to express concern about university-corporation research collaboration (UC Davis and Monsanto): It mentioned that the concern was aroused after news of the UC BerkeleyNovartis collaboration. The California Monthly, UCB's alumni magazine, had "Forum" letters pro and con about that collaboration, and it was clear from the con letters from professors and a grad student in the College of Natural Resources that, although "Novartis' $25 million comes without strings attached and will be allocated to research projects through a faculty peer-review process" (California Monthly, April '99), there are grave issues involved. It was clear from the professors' letters that the process for voting on the Novartis alliance was manipulated big-time: Questioners were stifled, voting results were delayed, and the advice and judgment of a majority of the CNR were ignored. I hope the next time such a collaboration issue is raised at UC Davis that more than two dozen students respond. Overarching issues, according to the "Forum" letters are: Novartis employees apparently will be on university committees and act as adjunct faculty, the ability to attract private investment may be seen in the future as more important than academic qualifications when it comes to filling positions, research may be profit-driven rather than social needs-driven, and research may be done in the private interest instead of the public interest. I think that UCB's CNR has lost sight of what a university is. Granted, getting financial support is a huge problem, but surely universities have a responsibility to be leaders also in finding more acceptable and less tainted ways of obtaining it.
Judith S. Kirk
|
