Summer 1993 (v5n4)
A report of The Biotechnology
Project, Wisconsin Rural Development Center. 1993
A key concern for sustainable
agriculture is the content of the land grant research agenda. Sustainable
agriculture advocates ask: To what extent does this agenda serve the needs
and interests of farmers, farmworkers and rural communities? To what extent
does it serve the needs of academic researchers and corporations? And,
most importantly, who controls the agenda?
This brief report addresses
these questions within the context of the University of Wisconsin's College
of Agricultural and Life Sciences. The authors sought to determine the
extent to which grants from the biotechnology industry were shaping that
college's research activities. While limited in scope, the study's methods
and findings will interest those who are pursuing similar questions elsewhere,
including California.
Methodology
Researchers from the Biotechnology
Project of the Wisconsin Rural Development Center (a private non-profit
group) conducted a thorough review of 39 research agreements between College
of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS) faculty and various funding entities,
both private and public. They focused their attention on 21 contracts
with business entities that involved biotechnology research. The researchers
asked whether university policies and practices impact the ability of
CALS to perform its public function of setting and responding to the state's
agricultural agenda.
The corporations entering
contracts to fund the research projects include four biotechnology companies
(Forgene, Advanced Genetic Sciences, Agracetus, Agrigenetics), one pharmaceutical
firm (Unimed), seven chemical/pharmaceutical corporations (Eli Lilly,
W.R. Grace, American Cyanamid, S.C. Johnson, Du Pont, Pitman Moore, International
Minerals and Chemical), two food companies (Campbell Soup Company and
Nutrasweet Company), a diversified household products company (Proctor
and Gamble), and one commodity group (National Dairy Promotion and Research
Board). The principal investigators represented the departments of bacteriology,
biochemistry, horticulture, meat and animal science, plant pathology,
dairy science and veterinary science. The projects ranged from six months
to several years in length, and from $8,400 to $603,484 in funding. Total
support for CALS research for the 21 contracts was $3,075,094.
Conclusions
The report finds that private
industry support for biotechnology research alters the "terms, structure,
and objectives" of CALS research. Industry money leverages public
investments in salaries and infrastructure to pursue private ends. As
the authors put it:
"Over 80% of the CALS
research budget comes from public funds, both state and federal, while
12% comes from industry and commodity groups. State funds are used largely
to pay salaries and other fixed costs. Relatively little remains for specific
research projects. By funding a specific research project, industry sponsors,
with relatively small amounts of discretionary spending, are able to obtain
public facilities and publicly funded researchers for their private research
agenda." (p.1)
A number of specific policies
and procedures facilitate the subsidy to industry. For example, the investigators
found that 13 of the 21 research contracts studied paid less than the
university's federally audited overhead rate. Since that overhead rate
represents the amount the university needs to break even in conducting
the research, this means that taxpayer dollars are paying for the difference.
While there might be legitimate public reasons to subsidize particular
research projects, the researchers found "no set of criteria by which
administrators are to judge the importance of projects." They add,
"it is not immediately apparent why these 13 projects were sufficiently
important to warrant over $300,000 of public subsidy."
The authors note that no
mechanism exists for obtaining citizen input into this agenda-setting
process. While ordinary taxpayers pay most of the costs of running the
university, they have little say in deciding how researchers use their
time. The report recommends that a university-industry relations committee
be formed to decide and monitor what constitutes "fair and appropriate"
contract provisions with industry. A significant portion of the membership
of this committee would be from the public at large.
Other problems were uncovered
by the WRDC study. In some instances, University of Wisconsin policies
allowed university researchers to assign patent rights to corporate sponsors
as a condition of receiving the grant. In other cases, industry support
was predicated on agreements that restricted the free flow of information,
especially where trade secrets or other proprietary information was used
in carrying out the research. Also, many of the university's topflight
researchers received lucrative consulting contracts with the industries
that sponsor their research, raising questions about whose interests are
being served and when.
The authors are concerned
that these problems will grow more severe as research funds become scarcer.
Rather than blaming the researchers, they conclude that University of
Wisconsin policies do not sufficiently protect researchers from industry
pressure to dictate the terms of research. They conclude: "The loose
rules governing research contracts leave many researchers vulnerable to
pressure from corporate sponsors who are free to withhold funding if their
conditions are not met."
Reviewer's Comments
This report from Wisconsin
raises issues that are becoming increasingly critical in California. As
public support for the University of California declines, and as industry
seeks to spend less on in-house research, the practice of "technology
transfer" from university to industry is being promoted as a mutually
beneficial solution. Many of California's approximately 350 biotechnology
companies already have established close links with universities. The
UC system is actively considering new ways to promote technology transfer,
including possible creation of an independent foundation to fund university
research and development in return for the right to license new technology.
According to a recent study, UC's systemwide Patent, Trademark and Copyright
Office already expects to earn approximately $22 million yearly from licensing
technologies discovered by UC researchers (Postlewait et al., 1993). Most
of this money comes from biomedical research at UC San Francisco, but
UC Davis ranks second among the campuses, generating royalties of approximately
$2.5 million per year. Of this amount, $2 million comes from plant-related
patents, an area where biotechnology appears poised to make major advancements
in the near future.
For advocates of sustainable
agriculture, the questions raised by these developments include the following:
If land-grant universities increasingly define their mission as developing
and transferring technology to commercial interests, what will happen
to the broader goals and constituencies that land-grants were originally
created to serve? Will industry interests, however valid, exclude from
the agenda competing social interests? Will the effort to upgrade salaries
and facilities in order to attract industry-funded research drain funds
from research and extension services that directly aid farmers, farmworkers
and rural communities?
The study by Postlewait et
al. concludes that efforts to transfer biotechnology in agriculture will
not be cost effective unless the personnel and resources of Cooperative
Extension play a significant role. But they end their analysis on a cautionary
note:
"By its very nature,
biotechnology tends toward privatization. An overemphasis on the promise
of biotechnology may mean that agricultural problems that can be effectively
solved through cultural practices (e.g., crop rotation) may instead be
addressed with high-tech product-oriented solutions. It is best if expertise
in biotechnology comprises a component in the Cooperative Extension portfolio,
but is not the only part." (p.16)
If the Wisconsin study is
any indication, many land grant universities are currently ripe for just
the sort of "overemphasis" these authors fear. Few have adequate
mechanisms for insuring that the research and extension agenda are oriented
toward the broad public good rather than primarily by commercial interests.
Opinions on the proper role of various biotechnologies in the future of
agriculture vary, and land grants must consider the interests of all
of their constituents before moving forward. A detailed study of UC research
policies and practices similar to that conducted in Wisconsin is certainly
in order.
References
Postlewait, Alyssa, Douglas
D. Parker and David Zilberman. 1993. The advent of biotechnology and technology
transfer in agriculture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43:1-17.
For more information write
to: Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 1406 Bus.Hwy. 18-151 East, Mount
Horeb, WI 53572.
(DCC.005)
Contributed by David Campbell
[ Back | Search | Feedback ]