Puzzlement is an appropriate reaction to news that a major university concealed grants of research money from a tobacco company and agreed to give the company control over publication and patent rights.
So much disgrace for so little gain! And at a time when universities value pristine images for winning public support and money. Why do they do it?
As disclosed May 22 in The New York Times (“At One University, Tobacco Money Is Not Taboo; It’s a Secret”) the culprit in this instance is Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), a state institution. The tobacco firm is a Richmond, Va., neighbor, Philip Morris, the nation’s largest tobacco company. The contract between the two was unearthed by the Times under the Virginia Freedom of Information law. The amount of money involved was not disclosed, but probably was a minor amount in the context of VCU’s $227-million per year in government and private grants. News of the tobacco transaction played on Page One of the Times — no place for a school when the news is embarrassing.
The research in question is reportedly focused on early warning signs of pulmonary disease and reducing water pollution from tobacco processing — worthy endeavors, except for secrecy and restraints on publication. University culture and tradition frown on secrecy, while VCU’s policy statement on intellectual property states:
“The University shall retain all rights, title, and interest in any and all intellectual property generated, created, or developed in facilities operated or controlled by the University….” The vice president for research is allowed “broad discretion” in promoting research, but nothing is said about concealing the university’s dealings and partners.
There’s no law requiring universities to publicly disclose their business partners and related deals. On several occasions when I’ve inquired about particular transactions, I’ve been told that it’s proprietary information, not for disclosure, none of my business. But when it comes to controlling rights of publication, scientists, universities, and their associations are highly possessive. Thus “guiding principles” published in 2006 by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology state, “Investigators shall not enter into agreements with companies that prevent publication of research results.”
Agreements with universities customarily allow partner companies 60 to 90 days to review publications for proprietary content, but the VCU-Philip Morris deal, according to the Times, allowed 120 days for review, with an option for an additional 60 days. Very generous of VCU.
For earnest proclamations about their purity, universities are unexcelled.
But inspirational rhetoric does not suffice. To win the public confidence that they seek, and to avoid the mess in which VCU is entangled, simple steps will nicely serve. Prior to taking effect, all research contracts with profit-seeking firms should be available on a publicly accessible database. The same should apply to consulting arrangements of faculty members. For building public support, openness is good, concealment is bad. A simple rule.
Also to be considered is that the pursuit of industrial research money is a questionable allocation of university fund-seeking resources. Industry provides about 5 percent of the money spent on research in academic institutions, according to the 2008 edition of “Science and Engineering Indicators,” published by the National Science Board. “Industrial support accounts for the smallest share of academic R&D funding,” the report notes, “and support of academia has never been a major component of industry-funded R&D.”
It comes down to little chance for gold and great opportunity for disgrace if the deal isn’t aboveboard and in conformity with high standards.
