 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Q&A With Dr. Grant Swinger: Welcome the China Menace | Comment [1]
Scientific Misconduct Is Not a Hanging Offense---But | Comment [13]
Reading the News: Getting More in Less Time | Comment [4]
Stamp Out Election Polls and Surveys: You Can Help | Comment [10]
Bending the Rules for Drug Approval | Comment [3]
Featured Articles By the Author
Transparency? Academe Has Its Secrets
How transparent is your university?
In making journalistic rounds, I’m struck by odd streaks of secretiveness in the operations of some institutions of higher education. But why should they unveil their operations and dealings to the campus community and, even worse, to outsiders?
Answer: Because, wisely or not, we put a great deal of faith in universities. We trust them with our children and huge sums of personal and public money. Even private universities are public in the sense that they depend heavily on public support — financial, political, and spiritual. In addition, we rely on specialists from universities to advise the government and the public on health, national security, economics, and other crucial issues. So it’s important for universities to make clear their loyalties, obligations, debts, connections, values, and interests. That’s transparency.
Nonetheless, they’re often unyielding about matters that should be public. Several years ago, when I was conducting research for my book Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism, I encountered quite a few cagey administrators. At the University of Pennsylvania, for example, I heard of a research deal between Penn’s School of Veterinary Medicine and Pfizer, the pharmaceutical firm. What were the terms? I asked. Might as well have asked the Pentagon where it stores the nukes. That’s proprietary info, not for release, I was told by a Penn apparatchik. Curiously, a call to Pfizer produced useful information about the deal. Stanford would not provide details about a deal with IBM. IBM did not provide them either.
A few days ago, for an article I’m working on, I called Harvard’s Office of Sponsored Research to inquire why Harvard, virtually alone among major universities, listed 0 spending of “institutional” funds — i.e., its own, money — for research in NSF’s statistical tabulations. An assistant said a higher-up would respond. I’m still waiting.
On my list of matters that should be wide open to public scrutiny and ineligible for non-disclosure, concealment, or murkiness are the following, which should be posted in a public database and maybe even on the front page of the campus newspaper:
Details of all contracts between the university and outside organizations, particularly contracts involving research. Full light should be cast on total cost, contributions of the partners, names of people involved, rights to the results, and limits, if any, on prompt publication.
Consultancies and outside employment of university employees. With whom are they dealing, how much are they paid, what are they supposed to do, how much time is involved, and to what, if any extent, students and university facilities are involved in their deals?
Corporate board memberships of the university president and other senior officials. These memberships, paying $50,000 to over $100,000 a year for quarterly meetings, rarely benefit the university, while lending its good name to a business enterprise. Some presidents hold four or five of these lucrative sinecures, thus devoting considerable time to non-university business. Because of public-disclosure requirements, the memberships are not secret, but neither are they normally made easily available to the campus community or others.
Admissions policies and practices. As the frenzied competition for admission to brand-name schools continues — and will continue, despite the coming demographic dip in the college-age group — trust in the fairness of the process is essential. What are the criteria for admission, and how strictly are they applied? Who makes the decisions? What are the deals for “legacies,” athletes, and other special categories?
Institutional conflicts of interest. Washington has repeatedly nudged academe to provide assurances that endowment stock holdings and other financial interests are not twisting academic values or advice to the government and the public. The response has been paltry, as universities concentrate on scooping up money rather than wrestling with real or potential conflicts. At a minimum, the endowment holdings should be easily accessible.
Transparency on these and other matters is clearly in the public interest. Support, however, is likely to vary among the diverse sectors that comprise an academic community: trustees, administration, faculty, students, parents, alumni, local community, and, in the case of public institutions, the state government. But for each of these, there’s a great deal to be gained from transparency — and a great deal to be lost from concealment, which is all too prevalent today.
Posted at 03:19:55 PM on March 21, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Needed: Simple Inventions to Make Life Happier
Next: Academic Pork Has Accomplished a Lot of Good
All the more reason for public universities (at least) to be required by law to maintain open books, accessible to the public online. The way has been shown by Oregon State University, and its system could be adopted by any university for a trivial cost:
http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/07/financial
Are you listening, state legislators?
— R.J. O'Hara · Mar 21, 04:24 PM · #