Commercialization of university research brings benefits, raises issues and concerns
AuthorWilliam B. Lacy
Author Affiliations(ed.), Knowledge Generation and Transfer: Implications for the 21st Century ().
Hilgardia 54(4):72-79. DOI:10.3733/ca.v054n04p72. July 2000.
New commercial opportunities, patent laws and federal policies, as well as growth in private-sector research and a relative decline in public-sector funding for agricultural research, have contributed to a changing collaborative relationship between universities and industries. While such partnerships have existed for decades, these new relationships, particularly in agricultural biotechnology, are generally more varied, wider in scope, more aggressive and experimental, and more publicly visible. Examples of UC-industry collaborations include Calgene at UC Davis, Ceres, Inc. at UCLA, and the Novartis alliance at UC Berkeley. On the benefits side, such collaboration may bring useful products to market, promote U.S. technological leadership in the world economy and provide funding and “hands-on” opportunities for students. However, concerns have arisen that such collaborations may narrowly redirect research agendas, disrupt long-term research and create conflicts of interest. For these collaborations to be mutually beneficial, the potential negative consequences must be monitored and addressed aggressively with appropriate policies, practices and organizational arrangements. At the same time, adequate investment for public-sector research will be essential for universities to be a strong and complementary partner.
Blumenstyk G. Colleges reaped $576 million in licensing royalties in 1998, survey finds. 1999. Chron Higher Ed, 12/10/99:A44.
Blumenstyk G. Berkeley pact with a Swiss company takes technology transfer to a new level. 1998a. Chron Higher Ed, 12/11/98:A56.
Blumenstyk G. Conflict-of-interest fears rise as universities choose industry support. 1998b. Chron Higher Ed, 5/22/98:A40-1.
Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New Eng J Med. 1996. 335:1734-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199612053352305 PubMed PMID: 8929266
Broad WJ. U.S. back on top in industrial research. 1999. NY Times on the Web. www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/122899sci-research-money.html . December 1999.
Busch L, Lacy WB, Burkhardt J, Lacy L. Plants, Power and Profit: Social, Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies.. 1991. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. 275.
Campbell EG, Louis KS, Blumenthal D. Looking a gift horse in the mouth: Corporate gifts supporting life-sciences research. JAMA. 1998. 279(13):995-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.13.995 PubMed PMID: 9533497
Cho MK. University-industry research must get closer scrutiny. 1997. Chron Higher Ed, 8/1/97:B4-5.
Cohen WM, Florida R, Randazzese L, Walsh J., Noll RG. Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. Challenges to Research Universities.. 1998. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. p. 171-200.
Desruisseaux P. A gift not of cash, but of opportunity. 2000. Chron Higher Ed 3/3/00: A36.
Genetic Engineering News. Guides to Biotechnology Companies. 1998. Larchmont, NY: GEN Publishing Inc. 84.
Korzumi K, Nelson SD, Terch AH, Nelson SD, McEnaney C. An overview of federal budget proposals for R&D in FY 1998. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook. 1997. Washington, DC: AAAS. p. 151-65.
Lacy WB, Busch L., Molnar J, Kinnucan H. Changing division of labor between the university and industry: The case of agricultural biotechnology. Biotechnology and the New Agricultural Revolution.. 1989. Boulder, CO: AAAS Symposium Series. p. 21-50.
Lee YS. University-industry collaboration on technology transfer: Views from the Ivory Tower. Policy Studies J. 1998. 26(1):69-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01925.x
McMillen L. Quest for profit may damage basic values of universities. 1991. Harvard's Bok warns. Chron Higher Ed, 4/24/ 91, A1, A31.
Meyer JH. Transforming the Land Grant College of Agriculture for the Twenty-First Century. 1995. Davis, CA: UC Davis.
Murashige KH, Terch AH, Nelson SD, McEnaney C. Patents and biotechnology. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook.. 1997. Washington, DC: AAAS. p. 283-90.
Nelsen L. Bridging the two cultures in university/industry research collaborations. Paper presented the annual meeting of American Association for the Advancement of Science 1999. Anaheim, CA:
[NRC] National Research Council. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land-Grant Universities: Public Service and Public Policy. 1996. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 121.
NRC. Investing in the National Research Initiative.. 1994. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 143.
NRC. Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural Food and Environmental System.. 1989. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 155.
[NSF] National Science Foundation. Indicators 1998. 1998. Washington, DC:
Pollan M. Playing god in the garden. 1998. NY Times Magazine, Oct. 25:44-51, 62-3, 82, 92-3.
Press E, Washburn J. The kept university. Atlantic Monthly. 2000. (March):39-54.
Price SC. Public and private plant breeding. Nature Biotech. 1999. 17(Oct):835-
Rausser GC. Fueling the research engine. California Monthly. 1999. (April):24-6.
Weaver RD. U.S. Agricultural Research Strategic Challenges and Options.. 1993. Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute. 380.
Wright S. Venturing into new territory. UC Davis Magazine. 2000. 17(2):26-31.
Also in this issue:On-farm management of agricultural drainage water: An economic analysis
New technologies are changing the face of agriculture
The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato
Q&A: Developing nations key to solving global food, resource problems
Sidebar: News from the UC plant genomics frontier
Organics profit from premiums
Scientists study farm over century
Controversy over agricultural biotechnology continues
Structural adjustment, resources, global economy to challenge California agriculture
Perspective: Is this California agriculture's last century?
Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming
Transgenes are revolutionizing crop production
Perspective: How natural is modern agriculture?
Genetic engineering to improve quality, productivity and value of crops
Genetic engineering and cloning may improve milk, livestock production
Advanced information systems to improve livestock management
Precision agriculture can increase profits and limit environmental impacts