Abstract
This paper questions the ethicality of commercial relationships between universities and external donors. By examining cases such as technology transfer and the outside funding of research interests, we identify possible conflicts of interest between the external provider of financial support and academic institutions. The reality today is that university administrators, who have significant decision-making powers, proactively seek large corporate sources of funding that may compromise academic values including academic freedom and the ability to make institutional decisions without the influence of commercial interests. For example, Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola have provided extensive funding to universities in return for exclusivity rights to market their product on campuses even though such products may not be healthy alternatives to other soft drinks. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may have opposing interests to faculty and universities if the results of research do not meet the expectations of the sponsors. Curricula issues may be slanted to promote the interests of a corporation or other provider of outside funding. Corporate partnerships between universities and companies such as Nike raise ethical questions when students or other members of the campus community object to the acceptance of financial support from a company that allegedly practices anti-social labor practices in developing countries. On the other hand, corporate funding can be used to supplement diminishing financial resources available to academic institutions, especially for public universities. One benefit of external funding is that it supports pharmaceutical and technology-oriented research and development into new products and processes that have the potential to serve the public good. One cost of such funding arrangements is that the acceptance of financial support from commercial interests solely to market their products on campus restricts the choices available to students that should exist in a free market economy such as in the U.S. The ethicality of the relationship between universities and commercial interests is a matter of concern because of the potential influence of providers of external funds to universities that can compromise academic freedom and objective decision making.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For an in-depth discussion of academic freedom, see Lieberwitz (2005: 111–117).
In 1980, the federal government had approximately 30,000 patents of which only 5% led to new or improved products. Many patents were not being used as the government did not have the resources to develop and market the inventions. Thus, Bayh-Dole gave universities control of their inventions. Prior to Bayh-Dole, fewer than 250 patents were issued to universities per year. In FY 2000, there were over 330 U.S. and Canadian institutions and universities engaged in technology transfer. Technology transfer has helped to spawn new businesses, create industries and open new markets. In fact, core technologies, likely to spark new industries, often result from university patents. University-industry collaborations have helped to move new discoveries from the lab to the marketplace faster and more efficiently than ever before—ensuring that products and services based on federally funded research reach the public. The Bayh-Dole act is considered to be vital to the university as a whole. University gross licensing revenues exceeded $200M in 1991 and by 1992 that number had risen to $250M. In FY 2000, U.S. and Canadian institution and universities gross licensing income was reported to be $1.26 Billion.
Tuchman is a professor of Sociology at the University of Connecticut. While she never refers to her institution by name, one need only look at the success of its men’s and women’s basketball program over the past dozen years or so to know she is using the University as the backdrop for Wannabe U.
As of June 2010, the Pac-10 Conference added two additional universities—the University of Colorado and the University of Utah—and is now the Pac-12.
References
American Association of University Professors. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Available at: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.
American Association of University Professors (1987). Statement on Professional Ethics. Available at: (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/statementonprofessionalethics.htm?PF=1).
Arnone, M. (2003). The wannabes. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(17), A18.
Atlas Society (2010). Objectivist philosophy. Available at: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-408-FAQ_is_Objectivism.aspx.
Bass, R. H. (2006). A dialogue on Ayn Rand’s ethics: egoism versus rights. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 7(2), 329–349.
Bok, D. C. (2004). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Browning, L. (2006). BMW’s custom-made University. The New York Times (August 29): C1.
Burress, C. (2005). Berkeley: Embattled UC teacher is granted tenure: Critic of campus’ ties with Biotech lost initial bid. San Francisco Chronicle (May 21): B1.
Cleveland State University. Policy for Managing Conflicts of Interest. 2005.Available at: (http://www.csuohio.edu/organizations/facultysenate/conflict.html).
Croissant, J. L. (2001). Can this campus be bought? Commercial influence in unfamiliar places. Academe Online. Available at: www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubres/academe/2001/SO/Feat/croi.htm?PF=1.
Davis, C. (2005). Ayn Rand studies on campus, courtesy of BB&T. Available at: www.npr.org › News › US › Education –
Eisenberg, R. (1988). Academic freedom and academic values in sponsored research. Texas Law Review, 66(7), 1363–1404.
Geary, B. (2006). Meredith College faculty reject BB&T money. The Independent Weekly. Available at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1178232151.html.
Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university invention process. Research Policy, 91, 240–259.
Just, R. E., & Huffman, W. E. (2009). The economics of universities in a new age of funding options. Research Policy, 38, 1102–1116.
Kant, I. (1959). Foundations of metaphysics of morals. Trans. Lewis White Beck. New York: The Liberal Arts Press.
Lieberwitz, R. L. (2005). Confronting the privatization and commercialization of academic research: an analysis of social implications at the local, national, and global levels. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1), 109–152.
Loomis, D. (1998). The Nike contract with UNC-Chapel Hill: ‘The power of money here at home.’ An unpublished term paper for the Nike Seminar at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Los Angeles Times. 2009 California agribusiness pressures school to nix Michael Pollan lecture. (October 14). Available at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/california-agribusiness-pressures-school-to-nix-michael-pollan-speech.html.
Marsa, L. (1997). Prescription for profits. New York: Scribner.
Marshall, E. (1995). NIH gets a share of BRCA1 patent. Science, 267(5201), 1086.
Marshall University (2008). BB&T awards $1 million gift to Marshall University College of Business. Available at: http://www.marshall.edu/www/pressrelease.asp?ID=1225.
Mead, A. (2009). UK trustees approve Wildcat Coal Lodge despite students’ protests. November 6. Available at: http://www.kentucky.com/2009/10/28/994234/new-wildcat-lodge-okd.html.
Miller, T. (2009). Poly takes heat as Pollan speaks. The Mustang Daily. (October 15). Pacific-10 website. Corporate partnership opportunities. Available at: http://www.pac-10.org/sponsorships/pac10-sponsorships.html.
Olson, G. A. (2009). The limits of academic freedom. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(16), A31–A32.
Rand, A. (1986). What is capitalism? Capitalism: The unknown ideal. New York: Signet Publishing (Penguin).
Shuchman, M. (2005). The drug trial: Nancy Oliveri and the science scandal that rocked the hospital for sick children. New York: Random House.
Shulman, S. (1999). Owning the future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
The University of Texas at Austin (2008). BB&T donates $2 million for Ayn Rand research At The University of Texas at Austin. University News. (March 20) Available at: http://www.utexas.edu/news/2008/03/20/lib_arts_ayn_rand/
Tuchman, G. (2009). Wannabe U: Inside the corporate university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Unger, M. (2008). Curriculum stipulations of BB&T grant concerns some MU administration. The Partheneon. (February 13). Available at: (http://www.marshallparthenon.com/2.13765/curriculum-stipulations-...).
University of California at San Diego (2010). University Interaction with Industry: Conflict of Interest. Available at: (http://research.ucsd.edu/industry/faculty/coi.htm).
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2009). Conflict of interest and commitment policy. Available at: http://www.hr.unc.edu/epanf/epa-nf-pol/conduct/coi -
Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc: The corporate corruption of higher education. New York: Basic Books.
White, A. (1999). Coke and Pepsi are going to school. Multinational Monitor, January. Available at: http://www.essentialaction.org/spotlight/CokeSchool.html.
Whiteley, R., Aguiar, L. M., & Marten, T. (2008). The neoliberal transnational university: the case of UBC Okanagan. Capital & Class, 96, 115–142.
Wiener, C. (1986). Universities, professors, and patents: a continuing controversy. Technology Review. February–March, 33–43.
Wilson, A. (1995). U. parties settle dispute on Cancer-Gene patent. Salt Lake City Tribune (February 16).
Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. R., & Massy, W. F. (2005). Remaking the American University: Market-smart and mission centered. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mintz, S., Savage, A. & Carter, R. Commercialism and Universities: An Ethical Analysis. J Acad Ethics 8, 1–19 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9109-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-010-9109-9