Tufts escapes from corporate influence

Despite the growing prominence of industry monies, Tufts research remains primarily focused on government monies and public grants.

While many universities are actively seeking corporate sponsorship, Tufts is resisting. This situation has allowed the University to deflect a recent round of discussion criticizing closer ties between companies and colleges.

In his new book, "Science in the Name of Public Interest," Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy Sheldon Krimsky argues that university research is being increasingly corrupted by corporate interests. He says professors are establishing companies to profit on inventions or innovations made at the university.

Although schools retain some of the profit on discoveries made at university facilities, Krimsky is concerned about the potential consequences of a profit-driven academia. The university, Krimsky argues, is one of the last remaining places to do scholarship for public interest. Scientists in business are tied to defending their parent company.

"It's not that corporations are evil," he said, "but they will defend their point of view."

The lure of private money, compounded by poorly performing stock portfolios and declining federal aid, has tempted many schools. Schools such as the University of Texas at Austin and the University of California San Francisco have actively recruited funding - both more than doubled corporate monies in the last decade, the largest increases in the nation.

Tufts does not rely on corporate monies as much as other large universities, such as Harvard or Cornell. At Stanford University, corporate sponsored research has increased 142 percent in the last ten years, compared to a 31 increase for all research. According to Krimsky's book, research money from corporations have doubled in the last twenty years.

At Tufts, the vast majority of research is still funded by the federal government. Associate Provost of Research Peggy Neule said at any one time between seven and nine percent might be funded by corporations. All private companies must exist in a location outside the school, although they may rent space from the school.

However, Neule said the school has detailed provisions to ensure unbiased research.

When a faculty member makes a proposal to do research in the grounds of the University, Tufts insists faculty members retain the right to publish the material. Neule said any clause that would give a company veto power "would inhibit the objectivity" of research.

Tufts also does not allow the use of the University's name in any commercial context, which protects the school from any misuse by the corporation. All proposals by the school are reviewed by Neule to ensure compensation for room use, materials, and use of the technology developed at Tufts. Any research developed at the school is registered as intellectual property.

Krimsky said the fields of toxicology, nutrition, global warming, and energy research have been particularly prone to an influx of corporate dollars.

He said there is a problem whenever a researcher has financial interest in the particular outcome. "Researchers tend not to see things they don't want to," he said.

He recommends conflict of interest rules be strengthened for universities. "If you are running clinical trials, you should have no financial interests in the results." Krimsky said.

To ensure integrity in research, Krimsky also suggests universities bar faculty members from simultaneously serving as Chief Executive Officers and Professorships.

In his book, Krimsky relates the story in his own experience about Tufts sheltering objective discussion. When he was an assistant professor, Krimsky was investigating water quality in the nearby rivers. Just as he was about to release a report which criticized local chemical manufacturer WR Grace, the company president made an appointment with then University President Jean Mayer. The Grace official requested blocking the release of the report. Mayer refused.

Neule emphasized the benefits of allowing professors to perform corporately funded research. Often a professor can take a development made at the school, and transform it into a marketable product. Some schools, such as Columbia University, have made millions based on discoveries made and copyrighted by the schools.

"It's hard to license early stage inventions [to companies]," Neule said. "The earlier stage the technology is, the higher percentage that it will turn out to be completely worthless. The later the stage, the closer you are to a commercial product."

Krimsky has been investigating the changing links between industry and research for more than three decades.

However, it was recent scholarship by other professors that inspired his new book. "I saw research popping up, and decided it was a good time to take a systematic approach to this problem," Krimsky said. "Why was this commercialization occurring and what were the scientific norms that make this possible?"

The book's September release generated much discussion in the press. In addition, Krimsky appeared at a Washington press conference in October with three other experts on university research trends. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) was also at the conference, where participants shared cautionary words and horror stories.

While the links between industry and academia are on the rise, their monies still account for a small minority of funding. Most monies still come through federal grants and non-profit organizations. However Krimsky is concerned that any increase in sponsored research may limit opportunities for others.

"The space of the university is shared with public interest scientists," he said. "They have contributed enormously to the public understanding of science through their research-and that space has to exist."