Do corporate-academic "public-private partnerships" benefit everyone, as university administrators say, or do they compromise teaching and ethics In the pursuit of profits and prestige? Here's a pretty good summary of the debate to get things started.

"Applied" Research

• Pro: We need to study real-world practical applications with commercial value. The University must drop its elitist "ivory tower" image. The university can learn from industry, and the university can benefit industry with new inventions. This helps the economy.
• Con: Educational value of applied research is often questionable. Large corporations have funds to direct research agenda for their profit instead of public 'interest (pesticide-resistant crops vs. organic methods, job- replacing tech. vs. job-enhancing tech.). Applied research facilities and industrially-qualified scientists are expensive, driving up taxpayer and tuition costs.

• Pro: The U. gets research money and patent revenues from any inventions. Research grants pay indirect costs ("overhead" -- building maintenance, heat..) which subsidize the rest of the university.
• Con: Only the largest universities make a profit from patent revenues after paying for paperwork and researcher's cut. Universities spend more on research facilities, research administration and extra teachers (to replace professors devoted to research) than they take in for research grants. Private funders often don't pay indirect costs. At the Univ-Rhode Island, a 1996 study found that tuition subsidized research at $390/year (Chicago Trib, 1/28/96).

• Pro: Corporate/university research produces Inventions which make corporations more competitive in the global economy. This benefits everyone with new businesses. jobs, and even stock revenues for the University trust fund.
• Con: Publicly-funded basic research already benefits industry -- 70% of scientific citations in patent applications cite publicly-funded basic research. The univ. benefits the economy by providing well-rounded critical thinkers ("Public Science a Pillar of Industry" New York Times 8/97). Public subsidizes corporate-funded research four ways: (1) federal research funds pay part or all of research; (2) tuition/tax dollars buy labs, scientists & admin.; (3) corporations get tax breaks to fund research, and (4) corporations often get exclusive rights to commercialize inventions. The univ. should not be yet another institution of "corporate welfare."

• Pro: Universities should work with corporations on social and environmental issues. Like having the military ROTC on campus, exposing corporations to free & open inquiry, and prevents them from being insulated from citizen concerns.
• Con: Researchers can and should study industry's impact on social and environmental issues, but they need intellectual freedom to do it. Corporations will not fund (or continue to fund) research which challenges their profit margin. Univ. researchers are not infallible -- they can be corrupted by corporate influence.

• Pro: Corporate funding creates research opportunities where none existed, or replaces public funds.
• Con: Corporate funding leverages limited public resources to private gain. Willingness to rely on corporate funds tells legislatures that less public money is needed.

• Pro: Original insights of research faculty enliven the classroom, where discoveries can be shared between faculty and students directly, rather than through textbooks. Students participate in research, which provides training and financial support. Corporate research gives students real-world experience.
• Con: Corp. $ diverts resources away from teaching to research, resulting in smaller teaching loads, larger classes, and increased tuition. Research requires highly specialized, high-cost faculty, while instruction requires broad knowledge & diverse skills. Researchers mostly teach the narrow, esoteric subjects which they are researching -- not general, interdisciplinary courses which benefit most students.

• Pro: Researchers choose their projects independently -- corporations simply provide funding and industry experience to support this research.
• Con: Researchers are pressured into corporate-friendly research by the administration and fellow researchers to gain prestige and draw in funds. Corporations "buy the truth" by setting the research agenda with funding incentives, and supporting industry-friendly researchers. Researchers censor themselves by erring in favor of the corporation, not focusing on certain results, or changing their research interests altogether -- they know corporations will not continue to fund corporate-critical or unprofitable work. The administration stifles whistle-blowers and ignores conflicts of interest to protect funding.

• Pro: Secrecy ensures exclusive production rights for corporations which fund inventions. Otherwise, corporations have no incentive to risk funding university research.
• Con: Corporate research contracts often require researchers to keep their work secret, because the corp. expects to gain profitable inventions from the research. This prevents peer review of research, which is a fundamental requirement in the search for truth. Taxpayers and tuition payers subsidize corporate-funded research but corporations privatize the results, making monopoly profits off of exclusive licenses.

"Why College Tuition Costs are So High" Atlantic Monthly. March 1993.

Government Accounting Office. 1996. GAO Higher Education: Tuition Increasing Faster Than Household Income and Public College's Costs. GAO/HEHS-96-154 (write to GAO, Washington DC 20548)

Soley, Lawrence. 1997. "Phi Beta Capitalism: Universities in Service to Business." Covert Action Quarterly. Spring 1997 (1500 Massachusetts Ave. NW #732 Washington DC 20005 -- [email protected])

Soley, Lawrence. 1995. Leasing the Ivory Tower The Corporate Takeover of Academia. South End Press, 116 St. Botolph St., Boston, MA 02115

WRDC. 1993. Private Interests, Public Responsibilities and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. The Biotechnology Project, Wisconsin Rural Development Center. Jan 1993. (WRDC, 1406 Bus. Hwy 18-151 East, Mount Horeb, WI 53572 -- tel (608)437-597 1)

Zalewski, Daniel. 1997. "Ties That Bind: Do Corporate Dollars Strangle Scientific Research?" Lingua Franca June/July 1997.

Compiled by the Alliance for Democracy, UW-Madison 731 State St. Madison, Wl 53703 (608)262-9036