As Governor-elect Schwarzenegger begins his audit of waste in
state government, no public sector programs should consider
themselves untouchable. One of the few institutions that should be,
however, is the University of California system.
Taxpayer funding of public universities allows schools like UCLA
to focus on research for the public benefit ““ while avoiding
the pitfalls private schools face by soliciting contributions from
the corporate world.
While private universities raised billions of dollars during the
recent boom of the economy, these economic rewards did not come
without a hidden cost. College administrators who turn research
institutions into moneymaking machines sometimes do so at the cost
of education and, in some cases, valuable research that could save
lives.
As an assistant professor, Dr. Sheldon Krimsky wrote a critical
report that fingered a local chemical company for polluting nearby
well waters. When word got out, the company attempted to have the
university suppress the report. The university didn’t back
down, but ever since then, Dr. Krimsky has been investigating ties
between academia and the corporate world. He has developed a
skeptical eye.
He recently explained the phenomenon to The New York Times:
“We are learning that the privatization of research affects
the way that studies are done, as well as the outcome, which
appears to have a greater tendency than similar studies by
nonprofit sponsors to favor the financial interests of their
sponsors. I call this the funding effect in science.”
Locally, the University of Southern California and California
Institute of Technology (Caltech) provide examples of how the
funding effect in science can play out. When, in 1999, local
entrepreneur Alfred Mann was looking for a major research
institution to host a $100 million biomedical research center, the
most willing recipient was USC. USC took the money, agreeing to
research practical technologies.
In April 2002, Caltech President David Baltimore sent out a
campus-wide e-mail notifying students and faculty of the
university’s structural deficit, the need for
across-the-board 5 percent cuts and his intention to go out and
find new revenue. At the same time, he warned that monies coming in
from a $600 million private gift would mostly “be for
specific projects.”
But the funding effect on research applies not only to
multi-million-dollar grants. As Dr. Charles Spence, a former
Caltech postdoctoral fellow in biological physics, pursued academic
career options, faculty advisors pointed him toward a local biotech
company. After negotiations went back and forth, Dr. Spence became
uneasy with the arrangements being proposed. Although his
laboratory space would have been on the Caltech campus, he would
have been an employee of the outside company, performing research
for hire.
This proposed arrangement goes beyond the Krimsky funding effect
because it would have made Dr. Spence’s research the property
of an outside company ““ not that of the researcher and
university. When he blew the whistle, his funding and lab support
as a postdoctoral scholar at Caltech trickled to a stop.
We may never know what research has been lost because of abuses
of the “funding effect in science.” Dr. Spence was
working on a faster way to sequence DNA. Within a matter of years,
this may have sent searches for cures to cancer and genetic
research into hyper-speed.
These cases underscore the need for public research
universities. While private universities begin to look more and
more like research and development labs for Fortune 500 companies,
only public institutions, like the University of California system,
can be trusted to pursue pure scientific research for the public
good. As our new governor scours the state government looking for
savings, the UC system is one program that should be spared.
Gaines is a UCLA alumnus, former student regent and USAC
president, and is the founding partner of Gaines & Stacey,
LLP.