Bok's Answers And Questions

LAST FALL. President Bok and the other six members of the Corporation decided to forego participation in a fledgling company that would have involved Harvard Faculty members. University patents, and recombinant DNA. Bok said several uncertainties had deterred the Fellows from going ahead with what had seemed like a perfect solution for Harvard's financial woes. Citing potential problems with academic freedom, research incentive, and the University's integrity. Bok nonetheless stressed that the debate was far from closed saying. "It is possible that questions such as these can be answered satisfactorily and that the participation of Harvard and its professors in commercial ventures can be structured in ways that are wholly consistent with its academic values."

In his annual report, released last week and devoted to the sticky issue of "technology transfer," Bok reiterates the issues that caused the Corporation to balk initially--issues of paramount importance to the future direction of the University, academically, financially and ethically. Because of the myriad of potential conflicts that could arise when a university haphazardly ventures into the business world, it is reassuring to see that these issues are still uppermost in Bok's mind.

But at the same time it is disturbing to find that five months and 30 pages after the "DNA decision." Bok has little more to say about one of the most important issues facing universities: he repeats Harvard's decision not to trade patents for shares and reaffirms the University's commitment to defining a lucrative but proper role in the technology transfer process. Although his report is carefully researched and written, it contains next to no new information and ends on a familiar note of uncertainty.

One of the issues that Bok once again stresses is his concern that the Faculty monitor its own involvement outside the University. In light of this position, it is also disturbing that the Faculty Council last week decided to table until next fall discussion on a suggestion involving Faculty conflict of interest. The council says it is postponing discussion on the proposal, which would have required Faculty members with potentially serious conflicts of interest to report them to the University, because it is vaguely written. Although the council certainly should not hasten to adopt a policy it will regret, the issues raised in recent months cry out for an update of Harvard's 15-year-old position.

The answers to the questions raised by technology transfer-related issues are complicated, but that does not mean that they do not exist. Certainly the University should place academic integrity above financial considerations. But the road to this goal is not all clear, and, in fact, other universities are looking to Harvard to come up with some solutions. Bok and the Faculty have a responsibility to Harvard and to those who will follow in the University's footsteps not to postpone discussion of the problems or to put off speedy pursuit of some solutions.