Robert Reich on the UC Berkeley-BP Project

– The academic freedom of researchers to contract with whomever they wish for funding. There should be no mistake about this important principle. The University has recognized it as recently as last fall, when Berkeley’s Assembly of the Academic Senate, in light of concerns about tobacco funding, instructed the Chair to advise the President that grave issues of academic freedom would be raised if he Regents deviated from the principle that no unit of the University has the authority to prevent a faculty member from accepting external research funding based solely on the source of funds. The issue is now pending before the Regents – The Regents’ Proposed RE-89 Policy Restricting University Acceptance of Funding from the Tobacco Industry.

For all the other potential problems of academic freedom, we must understand that were it not for such corporate funding, some research would never get done.

But this is only one issue of academic freedom. Individual researchers are also members of an academic community. What they do and how they conduct themselves has a bearing on what others in the University do now and in the future, how the University as a whole understands its role in society, and how society and the rest of the world understands what Berkeley does and stands for. The university exists to protect and foster an environment conducive to free inquiry, the advancement of knowledge, and the free exchange of ideas. Hence, we need to be concerned about any potential adverse effects on academic freedom in the academic community. These would include, for example:

– Prior restraints on communication of research results. Corporations are interested in making proprietary whatever intellectual capital is generated from their sponsorship. But academic freedom – indeed, the life of the mind – depends on the free flow of information. Berkeley’s policy for contracting with outside entities, emailed to me by Beth Burnside, Vice Chancellor for Research, states, in summary, that (1) the University owns the intellectual property developed by its employees in its facilities; (2) sponsors typically receive right to review publications and presentations before they’re disseminated but this preview period typically limited to 30 days; (3) in this 30 day period the company sponsor may ask that confidential company information inadvertently included be removed but does not have direct editorial control, and may request that the university file a patent application on any of the funded results; (4) if such a request is made, typically an additional 60 day publication delay is allowed. The typical research agreement also sets out how such intellectual property may be licensed by the corporate sponsor, who usually has a time-limited first right to negotiate a commercial license.

The question is whether, given the size of the current proposed research contract with BP, these safeguards are adequate. I do not voice an opinion on this, but I do hope the University has or will grapple with the question.

– Control over or distortion of the research agenda. A university’s or department’s or even a professional field’s research agenda can be affected by mere knowledge of what research corporations are funding – a gravitational pull whose force-field may be apparent even though its source may not be, like a black hole in space. Researchers may also avoid examining questions that could upset potential corporate donors. The fundamental question, it seems to me, is not just whether researchers feel free to follow their own interests, as opposed to the interests of the sponsors, but whether the problems of society are being addressed.

At its worst and most blatant, the corporate agenda can be directed at distorting public understandings of important issues: In 2003, in anticipation of a contentious debate over the proposed Medicare drug benefit, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of American budgeted $1 million for what it described as an "intellectual echo chamber of economists" to speak out against federal price control regulations through research and testimony. In 1998, Exxon-Mobile distributed $2.9 million to researchers who would raise doubts about climate change.

Berkeley has two policies that are relevant to this potential problem. First, researchers are to decide for themselves whether or not they will participate in given sponsored research. It is up to them to draft the scope of work plans, not the corporate sponsor. Secondly, Berkeley’s policy on Integrity in Research provide in part that "all persons engaged in research...are responsible for adhering to the highest standards of intellectual honesty and integrity in research"

Again, the question should be whether, given the magnitude of the BP contract, these safeguards are adequate.

– Corporate influence on university personnel policies, including hiring or promotion. Researchers seeking to be hired or promoted may look to corporate supervisors for recommendations; the university, in its hiring and promotion decisions, may not only consider such recommendations but also seek to curry favor with corporate sponsors or avoid upsetting them. The danger here is potential intimidation within the university community with regard to criticizing a specific corporate sponsor, an industry, or corporations in general.

I do not know of any particular Berkeley policies to guard against this potential problem.

– Use of a university’s image or goodwill to enhance the corporation’s position on a matter of public controversy, thereby potentially tainting the reputation of the university as a whole. In 2002, Stanford signed at 10-year $225 million deal with Exxon and other energy companies for a Global Climate and Energy Project. Shortly after the deal was signed, Exxon ran ads on the op-ed page of the New York Times announcing its new alliance with the "best minds" at Stanford. One such ad read "Although climate has varied throughout Earth’s history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about ...the climate’s response to the presence of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." The ad was signed by the Stanford professor who headed up the project, and carried the official university seal.

Here again, I do not know if Berkeley has policies or procedures to guard against this potential problem.

These latter potential dangers to academic freedom should not and do not rule out corporate-sponsored research, in my view, but they should delimit the relationship and inform any process of negotiation, the terms and conditions of any research contract, and the university’s own internal rules and guidelines for maintaining the independence of the academy. Given the size of the BP project, it seems to be very important that safeguards be put in place that are capable of safeguarding academic freedom in all its manifestations. To put the matter bluntly, I believe the quality of such safeguards will help determine whether, in years to come, this arrangement is regarded as a huge feather in Berkeley’s cap or a noose around its neck.

Robert B. Reich is a Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as the Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton. He is the author of ten books, including The Work of Nations, which has been translated into 22 languages.