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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers