When a pharmaceutical manufac-turer provides university professors with a research budget to do an efficiency evaluation on the company's products, should the company have a say on whether the results should be published in academic periodicals?
The above question was a hotly debated topic at health economics discussion groups on the Internet in January and February of this year.
Coincidentally, the Atlantic Monthly ran an article in its February issue, headlined "The Kept University." The article probed into how US universities are gradually being "kept" by the business sector. The authors of the article, Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn, provided several examples and statistics to support their observation.
The first example was that in November 1998 the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis provided US$25 million to UC-Berkeley's Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, on condition that the university transfer patent rights on one third of the research results to company. The department was also required to set up a five-member research committee to review applications for research projects, two of whose members had to be Novartis employees.
The deal triggered fierce debates among professors from the College of Natural Resources, to which the department belongs. The focus of the debate was whether UC-Berkeley should have "sold out" its academic independence.
According to a study by Mildred Cho, a bioethics scholar from Stanford University (published in the 1996 Annals of Internal Medicine), 98 percent of drug evaluations done with corporate support reached conclusions favorable to the drugs. In contrast, only 79 percent of evaluations done with government or independent NGO funding reached favorable conclusions.
Another survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, also reached a similar conclusion. The study found that the proportion of negative results found in evaluations funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers was only one-eighth of that in similar evaluations funded by non-manufacturers.
A separate study on research already published shows that about one-third of the authors have economic interests in the research projects they undertake.
A common phenomenon is that when corporations donate money to universities for courses by visiting professors, the donations are often attached to conditions lsuch as the professor's field of research and the number of hours he or she should spend on specific services or activities each week. For example, Kmart's donation to the University of West Virginia required the professor to spend 30 days each year training Kmart's branch managers.
In this way, corporations are able to use donations to manipulate research, courses and even other activities of the universities. Most US universities now see this as a matter of course. With state governments cutting financial support for state universities by the year, we find it difficult to blame state universities for "embracing" corporate sponsors and selling out their souls.
These figures and examples led the authors of the Atlantic article to an important question: will society begin to see universities as "corporate mercenaries" instead of academic institutions supposed to safeguard truth and objectivity?
On Feb. 23, the China Times reported that Taiwan's Ministry of Education has come up with the idea of a government-owned, privately-run university
This kind of "kept university" phenomenon is far more serious in the US than Europe. The reason is simple: government funding for universities is far lower in the US than in Europe. One advantage of universities uniting with business is that the universities can acquire more resources and their research can be more "practical" or "commercialized." These are also reasons for the US' speedy high-tech development, especially in biological and information technology. US universities have also contributed much to the country's economic development. According to estimates by the Association of University Technology Managers, US universities reaped US$34 billion and supported 280,000 jobs through technology transfers in 1998.
However, this kind of success comes with a price. As US universities increasingly embrace business, they also lose out in the pursuit of the objectivity and truth that they traditionally represent.
When professors evaluate products of a company that they or their universities have invested in, the objectivity of their research becomes suspect.
While Taiwan's universities are considering the "government-owned, privately-run" model and raising funds on their own, we first need to think seriously: what kind of universities do we need? What is a university's mission? If Taiwan society thinks the function of a university is job training and research and development, perhaps US universities will be good models. Also, "government-owned, privately-run" will be a very efficient strategy.
However, once our universities head in that direction, we should not harbor high expectations about research and development in the basic sciences, humanities, social sciences and the arts. Because these areas are often seen as "valueless," they stand a good chance of being downsized in a commercially oriented university. Very few businesses are willing to spend money to support research in these fields. Also, we will not have the luxury of expecting our universities to remain epitomes of independence, objectivity and truth.
This does not mean universities should not cooperate with business, nor does it mean national universities should not become "government-owned, privately-run" or raise funds on their own. But which universities need to be protected when both national and private universities are cooperating with business? When we spend less taxpayer money to fund universities, the price we pay is forcing the universities to seek support from the private sector and gradually become"commercialized" to the extent of changing their function, especially in their service to non-business sectors of society.
If we agree that the "soul" of a university lies in the pursuit and safeguarding of truth and in the dissemination of knowledge, then I hope our society and educators will ponder and discuss the issue together: What is a university's "soul"? How much is it worth? Which part of it can be sold out?
Chi Chun-huei (紀駿輝) is an associate professor in the department of public health, Oregon State University.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US