Public Research in a Corporate World: A Role-Playing Ethics Case Study
Bioethics Institute 2005 @ Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
William Anderson, Charlie Brummer, Sylvia Cianzio, Tom Holtzer,
Rob Streiffer, Jeff Wolt, Gretchen Zdorkowski
Audience
Graduate students and advanced undergraduates majoring in the life sciences
Background
Increasingly, officials at public universities are encouraging faculty to seek funding from private sources as resources from the public sector are continuing to decline. Between 2000-2003 alone, the state of Iowa's reductions in appropriations to Iowa State, its shortfall in salary funding and unavoidable cost increases totaled more than $92 million (Inside Iowa State, May 28, 2003). The state is proposing that the university begin to generate some of its own resources. The current Governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, was quoted as saying that the regents for the state’s universities must “create a climate of entrepreneurship" on the campuses and “continue to revise the rewards they have for faculty. In the past it's been ‘publish a paper, write a book and you get rewarded.’ Well, now it's ‘come up with an idea, start a business and you'll get rewarded.’” (The Des Moines Register, 2005). In addition, university administrators are asking faculty to engage in research that results in the formation of intellectual property that can help to fill the void in public funding.
The World Seed Corporation (WSC) has approached Iowa State University (ISU) and its College of Agriculture, proposing a five-year collaborative research agreement to develop a research institute that would be called The Global Seed Institute. Over this period, the company has agreed to provide $0.5 billion for both basic and applied research on value-added traits for corn and to open new markets for corn products, and an additional $0.5 billion for general capital improvements. Research emphasis will be placed on value-added traits such as industrial and pharma materials, drought tolerance, increased yield, and enhanced nutritional quality. WSC has also offered ISU and the College of Agriculture access to WSC’s proprietal technologies and databases. In exchange for this support, ISU would agree to provide WSC exclusive access to germplasm or other intellectual property generated by the Institute
as well as to provide WSC two seats on a five-member committee set up to select research projects, if this arrangement were to materialize. ISU anticipates improvement in its physical facilities and in its ability to recruit and retain faculty. The College hopes to strengthen its programs, improve graduate studies and research opportunities as well as move in new and different directions.
Objectives
1. Understand commitments resulting from different funding sources and the conflicts that can arise regarding publication of and access to data produced with industry funds.
2. Distinguish between research that furthers public goods and research that furthers private goods.
3. Understand the ethical implications of the affect that industry funding and support can have on the academic research agenda.
4. Understand the reasons why different stakeholders might lobby for different degrees and kinds of academic-industry relationships.
5. Identify and evaluate commonly made ethical arguments on the topic of academic-industry relationships.
6. Understand the ethical arguments for keeping some research activities in the public domain rather than charging them to the private sector.
7. Outline different policy options for private institutions’ role in public research.
Activity
The president of Iowa State University, Gregory Geoffrey, has convened an ad hoc committee of interested and affected parties. Potential parties to be included might be:
1. Vice Provost of Research at Iowa State University
2. Faculty
3. Students
4. Seed industry
5. Iowa Department of Agriculture
6. Iowa Department of Economic Development
7. Practical Farmers of Iowa
(Class question: Are there other groups which should be included or represented?)
President Geoffrey has asked the committee to consider the following in arriving at a course of action:
1. How will alternative courses of action impact interested and affected parties?
2. How will alternative courses of action impact the overall level of funding available for academic research?
3. How will confidentiality agreements impact the dissemination of research results?
4. How will confidentiality agreements impact graduate students’ ability to complete and defend their dissertations?
5. How will alternative courses of action alter the academic research agenda with respect to the balance of research in the public interest versus research in the private interests?
6. How will alternative courses of action impact faculty evaluations, promotion, and tenure?
7. How will alternative courses of action impact the future employment possibilities for graduate students?
The President has asked the committee to provide advice on whether the offer is:
· Acceptable as proposed by WSC,
· Not acceptable, or
· Acceptable with modifications
The Format: Initially, students will be divided into small groups representing each of the interested and affected parties. Readings will be distributed in advance. Prior to the activity, the small groups will meet outside of class and prepare a written recommendation on the most relevant of the questions for each group.. They will need to arrive at a consensus on what course of action best promotes the interests of the particular stakeholder group they represent and develop supporting arguments for that conclusion. Each group should pick a representative to do their presentation.
In class, the group representatives will present the recommended courses of action with respect to the WSC offer. Each stakeholder group will then have 5 minutes to present their suggested course of action. After the presentations, the class will be reorganized into new groups. Each new group will have one person from each of the stakeholder groups. Each group will play the role of the ad hoc advisory committee and will take 15 minutes to develop a consensus statement of advice to the president. Each group will have 1 minute to summarize their advice. The class as a whole will then discuss the results of this exercise for the remainder of the class period.
Bibliography
Primary References:
Buchanan, Bob and Ignacio Chapela. “Novartis Revisited,” California Monthly. V. 112. No. 4, February 2004.
Leval, K. and J. Bailey. 2004. Life Form Patenting and Family-Scale Agriculture: Implications and Recommendations. Center For Rural Affairs Issue Brief
http://www.cfra.org/resources/issue_brief_patenting.htm
Rausser, G. and H. Ameden. 2004. Public-private partnerships needed in horticultural research and development. California Agriculture 58(2): 116-119. April-June 2004. http://www.CaliforniaAgriculture.ucop.edu.
Streiffer, Robert, 2005. “Academic Freedom and Academic-Industry Relationships in Biotechnology,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. (forthcoming)
Summit Conclusions and Policy Recommendations to Reinvigorate Public Plant and Animal Breeding” In: M. Sligh and L. Lauffer (eds) Summit on Seeds and Breeds for 21st Century Agriculture. RAFI-USA, Pittsboro, NC. p. 171-175. http://www.rafiusa.org/pubs/Seeds%20and%20Breeds.pdf
Yepsen, David, “Regents face daunting task,” The Des Moines Register, April 24, 2005. Retrieved from http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050424/OPINION01/504240323/1035/archive
Reply letter:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/OPINION04/505080325/1035/archive&template=printart
Secondary References:
Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, “Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico, Key Findings and Recommendations,” Secretariat Article 13 Report, November 8, 2004.
Cox, S. 2002. Aimin’ at the public’s stomach. http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry7645.html?recid=678
Eisenberg, Rebecca S., “Symposium: Academic Freedom and Academic Values in Sponsored Research”. Texas Law Review, June 1988.
Fuglie, K. N. Ballenger, K. Day, C. Klotz, M. Ollinger, J. Reilly, U. Vasavada, and J. Yee. 1996. Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions. Agricultural Research and Development Bulletin AER-735. USDA-ERS. 74 pp.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer735/
Heisey, P.W., C.S. Srinivasan, and C. Thirtle. 2001. Public Sector Plant Breeding in a Privitizing World. Agric. Information Bull. No. 772. USDA-ERS.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib772/
Jones, S. 2003. A System out of Balance—The Privatization of the Land Grant University Breeding Programs. In: M. Sligh and L. Lauffer (eds) Summit on Seeds and Breeds for 21st Century Agriculture. RAFI-USA, Pittsboro, NC. p. 109-110.
http://www.rafiusa.org/pubs/Seeds%20and%20Breeds.pdf
Kapinsky, Nick, David Braun, Damon Lisch, Angela Hay, Sarah Hake and Michael Freeling, “Maize transgene results in Mexico are artifacts,” Nature. Vol. 416, April 2002. p. 601.
Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, Rafeal Ruiz-Pérez, Victor M. Fernández, “Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research,” Nature. Vol. 417. June 27, 2002. p.
898.
Louët, S. 2003. Public-private partnerships boost research on neglected diseases. Nature Biotechnology 21(11): 1254-1255. November 2003.
McAfee, Kathleen, “Corn Culture and Dangerous DNA: Real and Imagined Consequences of Maize Transgene Flow in Oaxaca,” Journal of Latin American Geography. 2(1), 2003. pp. 18-42.
“More heat than light,” Nature. Vol. 420, 19, December 26, 2002. p. 730.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, “Have Transgenes—Will Travel: Issues Raised By Gene Flows from Transgenic Crops,” August, 2004. www.pewagbiotech.org.
Practical Farmers of Iowa. http:www.practicalfarmers.org
Scott, Dane. “Science and the Consequenecs of Mistrust: Lessons from Recent GM Controversies,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 16: 569-582, 2003.
Steinbrook, Robert, “Gag Clauses in Clinical-Trial Agreements,” New England Journal of Medicine. Volume 352:2160-2162, Number 21, May 26, 2005
Stewart, C. Neal, “Press Before Paper—When Media and Science Collide,” Nature. Vol 21. April 2003. p. 353.
Tripp, R. and D. Byerlee. 2000. Public plant breeding in an era of privatization. Overseas Development Institute. http://www.odi.org.uk/nrp/57.html.
USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology. 2001. The Future of Public Plant Breeding Programs: Principles and Roles for the 21st Century
http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/archive/acab/meetings/mtg_8-01/ppbprpt_8-01.html
http://www.agri-biotech.pdx.edu/
Page - 4 -