Researchers Say Schools Cannot Rely on Industry

Harvard Medical School researchers warned in a recent study that universities should not rely on corporate research funding as a substitute for federal funding.

David Blumenthal, chief of health policy at Massachusetts General Hospital, and several colleagues, suggested that university scientists' increasing dependence on corporate money could stifle free exchange of information and weaken support for ambitious, long-term projects.

The study, released in the February 8 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, presented an industry survey of 210 companies which fund life science research regarding relationships between academia and industry.

"After more than a decade of sustained interaction, universities and industries seem to have formed durable partnerships in the life sciences, although the relationships may pose greater threats to the openness of scientific communication than universities generally acknowledge," the authors concluded.

"Industrial support for university research is much smaller in amount than federal support, and companies are unlikely to be able to compensate for sizable federal cutbacks."

The survey found that many companies require university collaborators to keep their results secret for months or years while the companies pursue patents and commercialize their findings.

These agreements may impede scientific progress by preventing scientists from sharing information freely and prolonging the time other researchers spend on avenues already known to be fruitless, according to Blumenthal.

Over 90 percent of respondents had alliances, including consultations, fellowships and training grants, with an academic institution in 1994.

Nearly 59 percent of the companies in the survey directly supported research in universities with funds amounting to about $1.5 billion, which makes up nearly 12 percent of the universities' research and development budgets, according to the study.

More than 60 percent of the companies investing in academic research have received patents, developed products or increased sales as a result, the study reported.

Withholding publication of scientific research, or secrecy, was prevalent among industry-supported research, with 82 percent of respondents reporting that their companies sometimes require academic researchers "to keep information confidential to allow filing of a patent application."

More than half reported that in practice, research they support in universities often or sometimes results in information "that is kept confidential to protect its proprietary value beyond the time required to file a patent."

Ronald C. Breslow '52, president of the American Chemical Society, told The Washington Post that the desire for secrecy is understandable because patent protection is often not enough.

"Once this stuff gets out, [competing] companies can often figure out ways to get around a patent," he said. Universities can also benefit from the delays if their contracts offer them royalties, Breslow noted.

Even if industry was called on to pay for more of the nation's collaborative research tab, it would be hard pressed to do so, the study reported.

Industry's contribution is small compared to the $6.5 billion contribution to university research from the National Institutes of Health in 1994, the study reported.

According to the study, a 10 percent cut in NIH funding of universities in 1994 would require an increase in industry outlays by 41 percent, an unlikely event.

Jerome Groopman, professor of medicine at HMS, told The Washington Post that "it is essential to the future of the research enterprise in the United States and our competitive position in the world that there be a healthy symbiosis between private companies and academic labs."

"There's nothing wrong with a profit and nothing wrong with collaboration," he said. "It's a matter of striking a healthy and ethical balance."