A Better Mousetrap?

THE University last week proposed a complex multi-million dollar fund for commercializing its professors' discoveries in what amounts to an attempt to build a better mousetrap. Under several arrangements, Harvard is trying raise $35 million to organize companies that would develop faculty research, with the University receiving 10 percent of the profits.

This plan seeks to remove Harvard's direct involvement in the companies by placing their management in the hands of a third party, but appears to answer none of the ethical questions which have surrounded university-industry ties since the biotechnology boom started more than a decade ago. University officials seem to hope that this new arrangement may avoid those problems by carefully separating the commercial side of the operation, which will be left to a Harvard-owned company, from the academic side.

Harvard has usually weighed in on the side of restraint toward closer relations with industry. Harvard's reluctance to be involved stems from a divisive controversy in 1980 when Harvard announced plans to invest in Professor Mark Ptashne's start-up biotechnology company. After furor erupted in the faculty and in the national press, President Bok switched course and decided to pull out of the deal.

BACK then, Bok and other Harvard officials cited ethical concerns that remain just as relevant today. Bok argued at the time that companies' desires to keep trade secrets may be fundamentally incompatible with academia's commitment to freedom of information. Furthermore, such investments "could confuse the University's central commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and learning by introducing into the very heart of the academic enterprise a new and powerful motive--the search for commercial utility and financial gain," Bok said.

In more practical terms, Bok noted that a school might be tempted to tenure--or funnel more lab space and research money to--a junior professor because he was working on a "matter of major commercial importance" that might prove lucrative.

Considering the large amounts of money involved, the potential for impropriety looms large. As the plan now exists, only a handful of people will be responsible for monitoring what is to say the least a sensitive venture.

But factors pressing for university-industry involvement have become more compelling in recent years. The fact is that academia needs the money. Support for basic scientific research from the federal government and private sources has fallen drastically in the last 20 years, making it harder for schools to bankroll the expensive work performed in today's labs. Harvard has promised that the 10 percent in profits it receives will be devoted to faculty research.

In addition, the prospect of vast riches to be had in the biotechnology field can act as a powerful lure for faculty and potential faculty. The new commercial venture could act as an incentive for professors to stay here, rather than venture into the for-profit world as Professor Walter Gilbert did in 1980 when he resigned from the faculty to work at Biogen. And Harvard's plan could play a more noble role by accelerating the development of important medical cures and technologies.

Other schools seem to have already decided that these positives outweigh the dangers of academia's involvement in industry. Stanford University collects more than $9 million from licenses on its discoveries, while MIT pulls in more than $3 million. Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins and Washington University have set up arrangements similar to Harvard's.

THE arguments Bok marshalled against such ties between universities and industry eight years ago remain convincing. Already, several scholars have voiced precisely these same concerns. A decision of this magnitude, which no doubt may convince other schools to engage in similar ventures, should not simply be passed down from on high.

Just as Bok carefully explained the unethical nature of such ties between companies and universities eight years ago, it is incumbent upon him to explain his about-face on an issue which strikes at the core of the University's mission. He should also provide a detailed explanation of the new plan so that the rest of the Harvard community can evaluate his change of heart.