Protecting Academic Integrity When Universities Collaborate with Industry

1. Protecting Academic Integrity When Universities Collaborate with Industry James L. Turk Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training University of British Columbia February 25, 2014

2. CEOs? HR Policies CEOs Customers From 1973 when UBC President Kenny began his "reforms", followed by changes in the upper bureaucracy, increasing pressure on faculty to "report", intensified by a campaign begun under President Strangway to show that UBC was a willing "partner" in industry has: (a) changed the original public-good, public-service orientation of UBC and (b) displaced the locus of academic authority. --Bill Bruneau

3. Solicitation: No. S13-14426 • Date: 2014-01-30 • Strengthening Research Partnerships • between Post-Secondary Institutions and Industry • “The overall goal of this project is to enhance the engagement of industry partners in research partnerships related to the social sciences and humanities as per SSHRC's key commitment in 2013-14 following the Budget 2013. • “Achievement of this goal will result in: • an increased awareness of opportunities for partnerships between post-secondary institutions and industry involving the social sciences and humanities; • an increased number of grant applications for projects that involve industry partners; • an increase in the average number of industry partners involved per application; and, • strengthened partnerships between post-secondary institutions and industry.

4. Strengthening Research Partnerships between Post-Secondary Institutions and Industry “3.2 Definitions of "industry" and "postsecondary institution" For SSHRC, "industry" is defined as 'a for-profit organization, or an organization that assists, supports, connects and/or represents the common interests of a group of for-profit, incorporated organizations, such as an industry association or a formal or informal consortium.' The scope of this definition allows SSHRC to bring a variety of industry-focused organizations together with the best researchers and graduate students to add value to the Canadian business environment.” https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2014/01/31/0c2aaa01db028666cb4c67c9b061aa9b/rfp_s13-14426_e.pdf

5. $21.8-million for the Engage Grants program: • The Engage Grants Program “is supporting short-term research and development projects aimed at addressing a company-specificproblem in the natural sciences or engineering fields.” • http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/RPP-PP/Engage-engagement_eng.asp • “In 2013-14, NSERC will work with Industrial Research Assistance Program to assess and implement tools to link the expertise base within the NSERC systems with the new Concierge Service system being developed under the leadership of IRAP.” • http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reports-Rapports/RPP-PPR/2013-2014/index_eng.asp#s2.1.3

6. NSERC Spending Priorities In millions, 2013 dollars. Source: NSERC 2013-14 Report on Plans and Priorities

7. Thorsten Veblen, The Higher Learning in America.  New York: Sagamore Press, 1957 (originally published 1918) “What is here said of the businesslike spirit of the latterday ‘educators’ is not to be taken as reflecting disparagingly on them or their endeavours. They respond to the call of the times as best they can…to substitute the pursuit of gain and expenditure in place of the pursuit of knowledge, as the focus of interest and the objective end in the modern intellectual life.” (p. 149)

9. Purpose of University • Advancement of knowledge • Preservation and dissemination of knowledge • Education of students

10. Made possible by: • Academic freedom • Teaching • Research • Intramural • Extramural • Collegial governance

11. University collaborations

12. Big Oil Goes to College An Analysis of 10 Research Collaboration Contracts Between Leading Energy Companies and Major U.S. Universities http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/10/14/8484/big-oil-goes-to-college/

13. Big Oil Collaborations

14. Findings • In 9 of the 10 agreements, the university failed to retain majority academic control over the central governing body charged directing the university-industry alliance. 4 of the 10 alliances actually give the industry sponsors full governance control. • 8 of the 10 agreements permit the corporate sponsor or sponsors to fully control both the evaluation and selection of faculty research proposals in each new grant cycle. • Noneof the 10 agreements requires faculty research proposals to be evaluated and awarded funding based on independent expert peer review.

15. Findings (continued) • 8 of the 10 agreements fail to specify transparently, in advance, how faculty may apply for alliance funding, and what the specific evaluation and selection criteria will be. • 9 of the 10 agreements call for no specific management of financial conflicts of interest related to the alliance and its research functions. None of these agreements, for example, specifies that committee members charged with evaluating and selecting faculty research proposals must be impartial, and may not award corporate funding to themselves.

16. Findings (continued) • 9 of the 10 agreements affirm the university’s right to publish, but in many instances this contractual right is curtailed by potentially lengthy corporate delays. The National Institutes of Health generally recommends no more than a 60-day delay on academic research publication, which it deems adequate time for the corporate sponsor to file a provisional patent application and remove any sensitive proprietary information. None of the 10 agreements analyzed abide by this maximum-60-day federally recommended publication delay; most far exceed it.

17. The same in Canada?

20. Basic Principles • Terms of the proposed collaboration should be available to the university community so they can participate meaningfully in the decision about whether the university should enter into the collaboration. • Faculty and researchers involved in donor agreements and/or collaborative arrangements must have explicit protection for academic freedom. • In no case should a funder or a private collaborator or their representatives have any role in deciding matters related to the academic affairs of the institution or academic aspects of the collaboration. • Clear detail must be provided about how faculty may apply for funding and about what evaluation and selection criteria will be used.

21. Basic Principles (continued) • Any grants or research funding should be evaluated and awarded using academic methods of independent impartial peer review. • The planning, design, data collection, analysis and dissemination of results should be under the control of the researchers, not the donor or organizational partner. • Collaborators have no right to change the content of publications nor permit delays in publication for longer than 60 days, and then only if there is a compelling reason for the delay.

22. Basic Principles (continued) • Relationships between faculty members and graduate students should be safeguarded by ensuring a bright line between the involvement or non-involvement of graduate students in collaborative agreements and their admission, program choices, and evaluation. • There must be no negative impact on the work of those within the department/faculty/university who choose not to be part of a collaborative agreement. • Intellectual property rights should be consistent with the faculty association collective agreement. or, in the absence of a collective agreement, with the generally accepted practices in Canadian universities.

23. Basic Principles (continued) • Researchers and their immediate families should have no direct or indirect financial interest in any organization funding a collaborative agreement. • No member of the university’s senior administration should have direct or indirect financial interest in any donor or collaborative partner organization. • An independent post-agreement evaluation plan must be part of the agreement. The results of the evaluation should be a public document readily available to the academic community.

24. How do the 12 measure up? • Transparency? • The terms of 10 were secret. • 2. Academic freedom protected? • 7 had no specific protection for academic freedom. • 3. Does the university retain complete control over all academic matters? • 6 had no provision assuring the university retained control of all academic matters affecting their students and faculty. • 4. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? • Only 1 requires disclosure of institutional or individual conflicts of interest. • 5. Requirement that academic staff have no financial interest in the collaborating partner?’ • Only 1 prohibited financial conflicts of interest

25. How do the 12 measure up? • 6. Right to publish? • 5 protect faculty members right to publish; 5 do not; and for 2 it is not clear. • 7. Recruitment and evaluation of postdocs and faculty members protected from being influenced by their potential involvement in the collaborative project? • 6 had not such protection. • 8. Mechanism for regular, publicly-available assessments of the effects and effectiveness of each agreement? • No agreement had that provision. • 9. Independent post-agreement evaluation plan? • Absent in 11 of 12 agreements.

26. For 7 research collaborations only • 10. Funding decisions based on peer review? • Only in 1 of 7 research collaborations • 11. Clear details about how faculty apply for funding and what evaluation and selection criteria will be used? • Only in 3 of 7 research collaborations • 12. Researchers assured access to all the data collected? • Only in 3 of 7 research collaborations

27. What are academic staffto do? “At a certain point…we don’t have universities any more, but outlying branches of industry. Then all the things that industry turns to universities for – breadth of knowledge, far time horizons and independent voice – are lost."

28. Starting points • Compile a list of collaborations on your campus. • Request copies of the agreements for each. • Develop a set of principles to guide academic collaborations and evaluate each existing agreement against those principles. • Make the set of principles a university policy. • Embed that policy in the collective agreement. • Demand openness in future – that the proposed terms are shared with the university community before the collaboration is finalized. • In the absence of university policy and in the face of an unacceptable collaboration, refuse to participate.

29. Issues to explore • Individual conflicts of interest • Institutional conflicts of interest • How collaborations affect: • Curriculum – undergraduate and graduate • Graduate student dissertation and funding options • Opportunities for faculty who do not participate in the collaboration • Academic freedom for those that do • Hiring • Promotion • Graduate student admission

30. References • Jennifer Washburn, Big Oil Goes to College. Washington, DC: Centre for American Progress, 2010. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/10/14/8484/big-oil-goes-to-college/ • Canadian Association of University Teachers, Open for Business: On What Terms. Ottawa: CAUT, 2013. http://www.caut.ca/docs/default-source/academic-freedom/open-for-business-(nov-2013).pdf • Canadian Association of University Teachers, Guiding Principles for University Collaborations. Ottawa: CAUT, 2012. http://www.caut.ca/uploads/GuidingPrinc_UCollaborationv2.pdf • American Association of University Professors, Recommended Principles and Practices to Guide Academy Industry Relationships. Washington, D.C.: AAUP, 2012. http://www.aaup.org/media-release/report-academic-industry-partnerships

31. References • Sheldon Krimsky, “Academic Freedom, Conflicts of Interest and the Growth of University-Industry Collaborations” in James L. Turk (ed.), Academic Freedom in Conflict. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co., (forthcoming April 2014). • Sheila Slaughter et al., “Institutional Conflict of Interest: The Role of Interlocking Directorates in the Scientific Relationships Between Universities and the Corporate Sector.” The Journal of Higher Education 85(1): 1-35, 2014