Commentary: University-Industry Alliances

Author(s): Dorothy Nelkin, Richard Nelson and Casey Kiernan

Source: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Winter, 1987), pp. 65-74
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/688818
Accessed: 11-12-2015 16:01 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/688818?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science, Technology, & Human
Values.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Commentary:
Alliances
University-Industry

DorothyNelkin and RichardNelson,

with the assistanceof Casey Kiernan

The last decade has seen a majorincreasein re- try-universityrelationships,publishedmaterials

searchand development(R&D) collaborationbe-
tweenuniversitiesand industry. Industrialfunds
goingto collegesand universitiesto supportR&D
rosefrom$84 millionin 1973 to $194 millionin
1979, and furtherto $370 million in 1983. Al-
thoughthe totalis stillunder5% oftotaluniver-
sityR&D, mostobserversacknowledgethatthere
has been an explosionin thenumberand variety
of university-industry alliances, theirpotential
for changingthe scientificenterprise,and the
need forcarefullyconsideredguidelines.'
This articledescribessome ofthe centralques-
tionsasked about the rashofnew arrangements:
Whathave been the motivationsof universities
and industries?Whatarethevariouskindsofpro-
grams?What are the problemsthathave arisen,
andhow havethesebeenmet?How can one begin
to definethe public interestin these changesin
researcharrangements? At present,we can only
sketcha roughmap ofa complicatedterrain,and
makesome observations on isolatedpoints.More
definitiveanswerswill requiremonitoringand
evaluationovertime.2
Our inquiryis based on a reviewof historical
materialsand contemporary analyses of indus-
DorothyNelkinis a Professor in the Programon Sci-
ence,Technology, and Society,and in theDepartment
ofSociology,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY 14853.Ri-
chardNelson is a Professorin the School of Interna-
tionaland Public Affairs,Columbia University, New
York,NY 10027. Casey Kiernanis on the staffof the
Government-University-Industry Roundtable, Na-
tionalAcademyof Sciences,Washington, DC 20418.
Thisstudywas done undertheauspicesoftheGovern-
ment-University-Industry Roundtable.
bearingon particularcontemporary cases, and in-
terviewswithindividualsinvolvedin a numberof
theprograms (see Table 1).We firstprovidea brief
reviewto assess what is new, and not so new,
aboutrecentdevelopments, and thenmap out the
contemporary variegatedlandscape. Finally,we
addresssome issues thatmust be consideredto
evaluaterecentchanges.
The Historical Context
Commentators on recentindustry-university re-
lationshipssometimeswriteas if these are new
and novel and in some sense stainthe otherwise
purefabricofacademicscience and teaching.3In
fact,manyofthe recentprogramshave recogniz-
able antecedentsthatgo farback in time. Many
fieldsof sciencehave traditionally been oriented
towardapplications;teachingin thesefieldshas,
forthe mostpart,attemptedto preparestudents
forindustrialcareers.4Also, many universities
have seen the fosteringof local or stateindustry
as one oftheirmissions.
Such a perspectivedoes not necessarilymini-
mize thepotentialfortensionand conflictsome-
times inherentin industry-university relation-
ships. Althoughthese relationshipshave long
been an intrinsicpartofthe academicenterprise,
the presentsituationinvolvesa dramaticexpan-
sion in theirnumberand an importantchangein
theircharacter.Whetherthese constitutefunda-
mentalchangesin the participating institutions
is a matterofdispute,and one ofthe concernsof
our inquiry.

? 1987 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Presidentand Fellows of Harvard College
Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp. 65-74 (Winter 1987) CCC /0162-2439/87/010065-10$04.00

This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 Science, Technology, & Human Values-Winter 1987
The constellation of research universities in
the United States arose from several different
sources. The group of East Coast universities
whose groundingpredates the American revolu-
tion were originally designed to educate Ameri-
can theologians, and other members of the intel-
lectual elite. Many writers on "university
culture" seem to have these institutionsin mind.
But the American university scene is marked
also, and perhaps more prominently,by another
group of universities formed for quite different
purposes: the land grant universities, put into
place to traincommon citizens in the agricultural
and mechanical arts. Still another strain of re-
search universities,particularlyprominentin the
currentcontext, grew up as "technical schools,"
and are now the great engineeringoriented uni-
versities such as the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti-
tute (RPI), California Instituteof Technology and
Georgia Institute of Technology.5
Table 1. ProgramsStudied
Ben FranklinPartnershipProgram, Pennsylvania*
CouncilforChemicalResearch*
GeorgiaInstituteofTechnologyIncubatorProgram*
IndustrialTechnologyCenter,Carnegie-Mellon/IBM*
IndustrialTechnologyInstitute*
MicroelectronicsCenterofNorthCarolina*
New Jersey Commissionon Scienceand Technology*
RensselaerPolytechnicInstituteIncubatorProgram*
Semiconductor ResearchCorporation*
University Technology,Inc.,Case WesternReserve
University*
Washington University/Monsanto BiomedicalPro-
gram*
CenterforBiotechnology Research& Engenics
CenterforIntegratedSystems,Stanford University
CenterforIronand SteelmakingResearch,Carnegie-
Mellon University
Centocor,Inc.
The CornellUniversityBiotechnology Program
DepartmentofMolecularBiology,Massachusetts
GeneralHospital/Hoechst
MagneticsTechnologyCenter,Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology/Exxon Re-
search& Engineering Co.
NeogenCorporation
The RoboticsInstitute,Carnegie-MellonUniversity
Note:an asteriskafter thatourin-
nameindicates
a program
formation regarding was gathered
thisprogram throughan
interviewas wellas through materials
studyofwritten sup-
pliedbytheprogram.
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Because modernscience enteredthe curricu-
lum ofthe old elite universitiesas "naturalphi-
losophy,"theseuniversitiesstrongly resistedany
notionthatthe trainingtheyprovidedwas to be
"practical."In contrast,the land grantschools
and technicalschoolswere inclinedto stressthe
applied and the useful. Yet, these institutions,
too, were frequently ambivalentabout the two
approaches.On the one hand,theirmandateem-
phasizedappliedscience;on theotherhand,their
facultyand governmentofficerslooked toward
themoretraditional, and prestigious, institutions
forguidance.As theoreticalsciencegraduallybe-
came a centralpartof the curriculain the older
institutions,theland grantschoolstendedto fol-
low. A considerablediversityevolved.
Cuttingacross these differences in university
culturesare significant variationsamong scien-
tificfieldsin termsoftheirintimacywithpracti-
cal applications.Some sociologists of science
have used theoreticalphysicsas an exampleof a
fieldwherethereis a sharpsplitbetweenthephil-
osophicaland intellectualconcernsof academe,
and the practicalconcernsof industry.6Histo-
rians,however,have pointedout thatthe fieldof
thermodynamics arose largelyout of curiosity
abouthow enginesworked.Certainimportantar-
eas of contemporary theoreticalphysics,forex-
ample, the studyof materials,are closely con-
nectedwithpracticalconcerns.Nonetheless,for
manyfieldsofphysics,thecharacterization ofthe
sociologistsringstrue.
Academicchemistry offers a differentexample,
for it has long been closely tied to industrial
chemistry. Chemistry, as a field,tookholdin uni-
versitiesin the UnitedStatesat about the same
time thatthe U.S. chemicalindustrywas flour-
ishing.Fromthelate 19thcenturyon, professors
ofchemistry have oftenservedas consultantsto
chemicalfirms,movingback and forthbetween
industry and academia.Undergraduate chemistry
graduates, thenandnow,have foundtheircareers
largelyin industry.ArnoldThackraydescribes
how Ph.D.-level trainingin chemistryin the
east coast universitieswas initiallya closed aca-
demic circuit; industry-oriented Ph.D.s were
trainedin the land grantcollegesand technical
schools.7
Much of modernbiologyis, of course,deeply
rootedin thesearchforsolutionsto practicalagri-
cultural,medical,and industrialproblems.Simi-
larly,computerscience,bytheverynatureofthe
subject,is closely tied to applications.And, of
 Nelkinand Nelson: University-Industry
course,the set of appliedscientificfieldswhich
call themselves"engineering disciplines"are di-
rectlyorientedto applications.
We are not tryingto playdown the differences
betweenscience in academia and science in in-
dustry.Rather,we stresstwopoints.First,propo-
sitionsabout a naturalchasmbetweenacademic
science and industryscience have oftenbeen
drawntoo sharplyand too globally.Second;these
cultureshavebeenlivingtogether fora longtime.
Indeed,academic science and industrialscience
in the UnitedStatesgrewup together.
If scientificfields differsignificantly in the
strength and natureoftheirconnectionswithin-
dustrialapplications,so, too, do industriesdiffer
in the extentto which the developmentof their
technologiesis connectedto academic research,
and is dependenton academictraining ofemploy-
ees. In the 19thcentury,those industrieswhere
"mechanical engineering"was the dominant
technicalskill dependedmainlyon practical,on-
the-job experience. Academically-trained me-
chanicalengineershad a difficult timegainingac-
ceptance in these industries.In contrast,from
theirbeginning,the chemical-basedindustries,
and those concernedwith electricalphenomena
and apparatus,turnedto the universitiesforsci-
entifictrainingoftheirtechnicalemployees.Both
of these industriesearly establishedclose con-
tactswithtechnicalschools,like MIT.8
Industryinterestsin academicresearchare not
static.While academic scientistsplayedan im-
portantrolein the earlydaysofthe modernelec-
tricalindustry,the work done in industrylater
came to standlargelyon its own.In theearlydays
of semiconductorand computertechnologies,
universityresearcherswere heavilyinvolvedin
researchrelevantto industry. However,industrial
R&D on transistors and, later,on integrated cir-
cuitsgraduallybecame quite separatefromwork
done at universities.In contrast,academiccom-
puterscience departmentscontinueto do work
thatis highlyrelevantto industrialR&D.
For the past quartercentury,certainpartsof
academic biology and biochemistryhave been
veryimportantto industry.Universityresearch
has pointedtheway to new drugs,and pioneered
manyoftheimportant techniquesin pharmaceu-
tical R&D now employedby corporations.At
present,corporateR&D in the biotechnologies
draws heavily on universityresearchand the
techniques and instrumentationdeveloped at
universities.
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alliances 67
The natureand strength ofuniversity-industry
connectionsvarywith the traditionsof the uni-
versityin question,the scientificdisciplinein-
volved,andtheindustry. Theyarealso influenced
bythe sourcesofuniversity funding,and prevail-
ing attitudesabout the appropriateroles of uni-
versities,business,and government.
During the 1920s and 1930s, privatefounda-
tionswere the dominantexternalsource of uni-
versityresearchfunding.Those who made deci-
sions about fundingemphaticallybelieved that
the objectivewas to benefitmankindand made
theirdecisionsaccordingly; buttheyalso believed
thattheappropriate roleforuniversitieswas to do
basic research.Withfewexceptions,the founda-
tionslookedaskanceat university workthatwas
close to commercialinterests,and universities
thatseemedtoo "cozy" withindustry. Theiratti-
tudereflected and sustainedthenotionthata rel-
ativelysharpline shouldbe drawnbetweenuni-
versitylaboratoriesand industrialR&D.
AfterWorldWar II, as the federalgovernment
becamethedominantexternalsourceofresearch
fundingat theuniversities, academicresearchers
in theNSF and NIH, forexample,playeda princi-
pal role in allocatingfunds.Althoughthis ar-
rangement reinforceduniversityvalues callingfor
distance from business interests,government
fundswere oftenjustifiedby the argumentthat
focusedacademicsciencewas thekeyto practical
progress.9
Universityfacultymembersand facilitieshad
also playeda majorrole in militaryR&D during
boththe firstand secondworldwars.Duringthe
postWorldWarII period,the DepartmentofDe-
fense,theAtomicEnergyCommission,and,to a
lesserextent,NASA, continuedthatinvolvement
bybecomingmajorsupporters ofR&D at univer-
sities,oroffacilitiesassociatedwithuniversities.
These projectssometimescalled also forinterac-
tion betweenthe universityand corporatecon-
tractorsto the government.In a numberof in-
stances, the universityresearchersdeveloped
linkswithbusinessfirms,or set up firmsoftheir
own.
Thus, duringthe 1960s and 1970s,the sources
offunding tendedto supportthenotionofa sepa-
rate academic researchenterprise,but, at the
same time,to pull partsof the academic enter-
prise into closer contact with business. The
sourcesalso increasingly definedcertainuniversi-
ties as researchinstitutions,withlong-term con-
sequencesforthebalanceofinterestswithinaca-
68 Science,Technology,& Human Values-Winter1987
demia. These trends set the stage for the
developmentof the new industrialalliances and
also forthe ambivalentreactionsto them.
What lies behindthe recentsurgeof new ar-
rangementsamong universitiesand industry?
One factoris clearlythe nationaleconomy;an-
other,thechangingrelationsbetweentheuniver-
sities and the federalgovernment.During the
1970s, universitiesbecame increasinglyaware
that,in manyfields,the cost of doingresearch
was increasingat the same time that federal
supportwas in dangerof decline.'0It was rather
natural,then,thatuniversity administrators and
researchersshould look to industryforsupport.
Route 128 and Silicon Valleycame intofocusas
potentialmodels.
Developmentson theindustrialfront led indus-
tryto reciprocatetheinterestin new,or strength-
ened,connections.The 1970s'perception thatthe
United States was losing its technologicalpri-
macyin a varietyofindustrieswherewe had be-
come accustomedto unquestionedleadership"
led industryto seek new sourcesof innovation.
At least two areas of cuttingedge technology-
computersand biotechnology-wererecognized
as closelylinkedto academicscience.It is note-
worthythatan importantpartof the new indus-
try-universityarrangementsare involved in
thesetwo fields.
The relativedeclineofAmericanindustry soon
became a matterof widespreadpopularconcern,
affectingbothfederaland statepolitics.The ques-
tion of how to link industryand universityre-
search,and thepresumption thatthiswas a good
thingto do, lay behinda varietyof new policy
departures.At the federallevel, the Patentand
Trademark AmendmentAct (1980), and the
Stevenson/Wydler TechnologyInnovationAct
(1980)are particularcases in point.Federalagen-
cies, such as the NSF, developedprogramswith
the objectiveof formingindustry-university co-
operativeprojects.'2A numberof statesinitiated
programs to encourageuniversities to supportthe
developmentof state and regionalhightechnol-
ogyindustry.
We have stressedthelonghistoryofinteraction
betweenuniversitiesand industry, but the new
situation involves an explosion in the numberof
alliances and qualitativechangesin theirform.
Theyhave been createdfordifferent reasons,but
in everycase theyinvolvean elementoffaiththat
theywill be goodforbusiness,helpfuland appro-
priateto universities, and in the publicinterest.
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Whetherthis faithis justifiedremainsan open
question.It is apparentthatthenationis engaged
in an experiment, and the stakesare high.
The New Alliances
Those commentingon the new alliances point
to theexplosionin theirnumbersand to theirsize
in termsof dollarsor numberof researchersin-
volved. We are impressedby these things,too.
However,we are also struckby their variety.
Some oftheprograms listedon Table 1 (in partic-
ular, the SemiconductorResearch Corporation
and the CouncilforChemical Research)are basi-
cally fundingconsortia.Others,such as the Ben
FranklinPartnership, are state programsinvolv-
inga numberofdifferent elements,includingsub-
programsat severaluniversities.Still othersare
free-standingcorporations thatreach out to uni-
versities;Centacoris the best example.
In whatfollows,our focusis not on thesepro-
grams,but ratheron particularprogramsthatare
locatedin particularuniversitiesorgroupsofuni-
versities.But even the narrowergroupdisplays
considerablevarietyin importantdimensions.
Belowwe mapthevariegatedterrainbyindicat-
ing importantdimensionsof variation,and by
identifyingseveralbroadlydefinedtypesof pro-
grams. Our classificationemphasizes certain
structuralfeaturesof these programsthat will
help in theirevaluation.
Dimensions of Variation
Activities
The partnerships varyconsiderably in theirac-
tivities.Some are largelyconcernedwith basic
research.The scientistsinvolvedsee the project
as likelyto enhance theirscientificreputations
and the sponsorssee it as a means to enhance
understanding ofphenomenaofbroadinterestto
theirown endeavors.In otherarrangements, the
workis largelyapplied,intendedto solve or illu-
minatea well-defined practicalproblem.In many
are imposedto limitfacultyen-
cases constraints
trepreneurship,while in othersthe arrangement
is designedto channelor facilitateentrepreneur-
ship.

Nelkinand Nelson: University-Industry
Goals and Expectations
The goalsand expectationsofindustry anduni-
versityparticipants reflectthenatureoftheactiv-
ities. Some industryparticipantsarticulatetheir
goalin termsofa "window"intoa scientific field.
Elsewhere,corporateinterestis tiedto particular
productor processdevelopment.
There is similarvariationin what academics
are tryingto achieve. Some simplywant to aug-
mentfundsforcertainkindsofresearchorequip-
ment.Some believethe arrangements will facili-
tatejob-hunting by theirstudents.Often,faculty
membersindicatethatbetteraccess to theworld
of corporateR&D enhances theirown compe-
tence and knowledge.It may enhance theirin-
comes as well throughconsultingarrangements.
In fact,some ofthenew arrangements have been
to regularizeorgain controlovercon-
putin place
sulting and entrepreneurial activitiesof faculty,
or to provideopportunities forfacultyto attract
themto theuniversity orto keepthemfromleav-
ingformorelucrativejobs. In a numberofcases,
university administration sees theactivitiesas an
effective wayofcarrying out a mandateofprovid-
ingpublicservice.
UniversityCulture
Most of the arrangements we studiedare loca-
tedin partsofuniversitieswithstrongappliedin-
terests; that is, engineeringschools, medical
schools,and chemistryor computerscience de-
partments. However,universitiesdiffer greatlyin
theirattitudestowardwhatkindsofrelationships
with industryare or are not appropriate.Those
withlongstanding havecus-
liberalartstraditions
tomarilyconsideredthesciencesin termsoftheir
contributions to knowledgeratherthantechnol-
ogy. They avoid relationshipsotherthan those
whichsupportbasic research,and insistthatuni-
versityfacultypreservethelion's shareofcontrol.
The technicaluniversitieslike MIT and RPI have
showna greaterwillingnessto engagein applied
researchwithindustryfunding.And universities
like GeorgiaTech, whichgrewup witha strong
commitmentto communityservice,considera
rangeof activities,frombusinessincubatorpro-
gramsto proprietary contractresearch,as partof
theirmandate.In otherwords,it is the univer-
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alliances
69
sity'sculturethatdefinesthe rangeof activities
consideredappropriate.
Organizationand Governance
The arrangementswe have considereddiffer
significantlyin termsoforganization and govern-
ance. Those involvingbasic researchare located
in regularuniversitydepartments or schools,and
are closelyconnectedwith generalacademicac-
tivity.Others,forexample,the incubatorsand
theinstitutesforcontractresearch,involvefacili-
ties outsidethe main academicorganization.
Funding
In manyof the programs, corporations are the
principalsourcesoffinancing;in a fewcases, in-
dustryassociations.In some,university fundsare
up front,withhopethat thesecan be recouped.In
some programs, federalor state governmental
fundsare important.
The natureofthe activities,expectations,uni-
versityculture,and governanceare clearlycorrel-
ated. Fromone viewpoint,theyfollowa contin-
uum; however,alongthatcontinuumare certain
recognizableclusters.We describefive of them
below, but thereare obvious overlapsbetween
adjacenttypes.
Clusters
Researchprogramsor centersthatsupportmany
researchprojects,and thatare closelytiedto
generalacademicresearchand teaching
activities
We include here the Monsanto-Washington
Universitypartnership,the Cornell Biotech-
nology Program,the StanfordCenter for Inte-
grated Systems, the relationship between
Massachusetts General Hospital and Hoechst,
and the Exxon-MIT arrangement.These pro-
gramssponsorresearchthatis germaneto thedis-
ciplinaryinterestsof the involvedfaculty,and is
70 & Human Values-Winter1987
Science,Technology,
"basic" in the sense thatit is expectedto yield
publishablescientificfindings. Trainingofgradu-
ate studentsis part of these programs. Although
the sponsoringcorporationsmay expect special
benefitsfromtheprojectsand therefore mayhave
some proprietary stake in the results,specific
commercialproductor process developmentis
not involved.Universityunits are protectiveof
academicfreedom, althoughalso sensitiveto the
interestsof the sponsor.Consultingactivityand
facultyentrepreneurship may resultfromwork
on a project,but theyare not consideredto be
integralto it.
Theremaybe a singlesponsorormultiplespon-
sors,or sponsorshipthroughan industryconsor-
tium;however,thereis an identifiable and stable
clientele.Corporateinfluenceis exertedthrough
membershipon projectselectioncommittees,so
thatcorporatefundersdo notdirectlyorindepen-
dentlyspecifywhatis to be done.University fac-
ultyretainsconsiderable, usuallydominant,con-
trol.
Focusedprojectsinvolvingbotha well-defined
practicalobjectiveand intellectualgoals
Projectsofthissortengagea researchteam (of-
tenincludingbothuniversity andcorporate scien-
tists)workingtowarda well-defined goal ofinter-
est both to the sponsor and the faculty.The
academicsinvolvedtendto be in fieldslike engi-
neering,applied physics,or computerscience,
whereadvancingorconfirming ideasis associated
with creatingor testingof devices or systems.
There is only one of these in the set we have
consideredin detail-the relationshipbetween
Carnegie-MellonUniversityand IBM, aimed at
developinga computersystemappropriate fora
university.There are, however,manysuch pro-
gramssupportedby the DepartmentofDefense.
Characteristically,the client,be it a corpora-
tionora government agency,has a majorproprie-
tary interest in the achievement of certain
results.The academicreputationsof keyfaculty
membersare also on the line; the projecttests
theirideas. The designoftheprojectrepresents a gan, differfromthe above organizations;while
combining of both interests.The projectmay be
locatedin a universitydepartment orschool,orat
a researchinstituteaffiliatedwiththeuniversity,
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
but regularuniversityfacultyare centrallyin-
volvedin the endeavor.
Programsdevelopedto help commercialize
facultyresearch
The incubatorprogramat RPI largelyfitsthis
mold,as does Case WesternReserve'sUniversity
TechnologyIncorporated, and Engenics (associ-
atedwiththeUniversity ofCaliforniaat Berkeley
and Stanford University).
These operationsdiffer
from traditionalcontract research operations
withintechnicaluniversities,in thattheiraim is
to help facultyimplementthe fruitsof theirre-
search;however,the two kinds of activitiesare
related.For example,the Route 128 companies
werefirstestablishedby scientistsand engineers
who had been workingat MIT on contractre-
searchprojects.
Programsor institutionsorganizedto help
clients,operatingoutsidetheuniversity
This groupincludescertainincubatorprograms
(forexample,at GeorgiaTech) anduniversitycon-
tractresearchlaboratories.The serviceprovided
may be directedto industry,or to a government
agency.
The universitiesinvolvedin thiskindofactiv-
itytendto have a longtraditionofpublicservice
and industrialcollaboration,often associated
withengineering schools.The programsare con-
ductedin laboratories
thathave some administra-
tivedistancefromtheuniversity, althoughaccess
to universityfacultyand equipmentmay be im-
portant.
contractresearchinstitutes,
Free-standing
linkedto severaluniversities
The Microelectronic CenterofNorthCarolina,
and theIndustrialTechnologyInstituteofMichi-
universityofficialsare on theirgoverning boards,
theyoperateon theirown,staffed largelybytheir
own employees.In both of these cases, the dis-
 Nelkinand Nelson: University-Industry
tancingfroma university culturewas deliberate,
with the purposeof makingthe operationmore
like a corporatelaboratoryor a contractresearch
facility.However,both organizationsdependon
part-time ofuniversity
participation faculty,and
on otheruniversity resources.
All industry-universityalliancesraisedelicate
questionsabouttheproximity oftherelationship
andtheireffect on thecultureandprioritiesofthe
university.Most sensitive are those programs
thatare connectedto coreuniversity activitiesin
an essentialway.
CommercialValues and the Cultureof
the University'3
Industry-universityarrangements
haveraiseden-
thusiasm,but generatedconsiderableconcern.
Those expressingenthusiasmhave arguedthat
thesenew programshave promiseofreinvigorat-
ingAmericanindustry, and ofhelpingU.S. firms
stayat the frontier
of science-basedfields.They
also proposethata moreappliedorientation will
be goodforAmericanuniversity science,reducing
theacademicisolationthatdevelopedduringear-
lierpostwarperiods.The concernedpartiesallege
thatthe new relationshipsalreadyhave brought
commercialvalues into universitylife,affecting
the way basic researchprioritiesare set, entan-
gling universityresearchand researcherswith
proprietaryinterestsand constraints,and more
broadlychangingthe nature of universitycul-
ture.'4While hopes and fearsare oftencast too
broadly,thereare importantissues to ponder.
ResearchPriorities
In certain fields of academic science there is
strongand nearuniversaladherenceto thepropo-
sition that researchprioritiesshould be set by
workingscientiststhemselveson thebasis ofcri-
teriainternalto theirfield.The ideal is thatofa
self-governing communityof scholars working
towardtheunderstanding ofan agreed-upon setof
scientifically
interestingquestions.Each scientist
buildson thepriorresearchofthewholecommu-
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alliances 71
nity,and in turn,contributes to thatpublicstock
ofknowledge.
Yet,sinceWorldWarII, basic sciencein univer-
sities has been sold politicallyto the American
public and to Congress,in termsof its practical
benefits.Indeed,concernwithpracticalproblems
and promisingavenuestowardtheirsolutionhas
profoundlyinfluencedthe allocation of public
monies among and withinmost fieldsof basic
research,especiallyin engineeringand medical
schools.While clearlynot a new trend,the new
alliances representa significantincrease in the
influenceof potentialcommercialopportunities
on decisionsaboutresearchpriorities.
At present,the corporatefundssupporting uni-
versityresearchare still small comparedwith
fundscomingfromtheNational ScienceFounda-
tion($1032millionin 1985)and allocatedlargely
in termsof internalcriteria;they also are less
thanfundscomingfromothergovernment agen-
cies, includingthe Departmentof Defense($932
million in 1985), and allocated on the basis of
clientgoals.However,in some fieldsand in some
universities,corporate fundsarebecominga more
significant influence.15 Knowledgeable and
thoughtful people disagreeoverwhetherthis in-
crease is a dangerousdevelopmentor a highly
promisingopportunity foruniversityscience.
Thereare parallelquestionsabout the value of
theseprograms to corporations. To whatextentis
it sensibleandresponsiblebusinessstrategy to tie
into academia forcertainkinds of research,in-
steadofdoingtheworkin-house?Althoughbusi-
ness gainsby access to top-flight universitypeo-
ple,theacademicroutereducescorporatecontrol
overresearchand limitstheabilityto appropriate
returns.The counterpart to the university'scon-
cernaboutwhatkindofcorporatefundsto accept
is thecorporateissue ofwhatit shouldbe seeking
ofacademia.
The issues are not easy. They involve such
questionsas the appropriate divisionoflaborbe-
tweenuniversities, corporate,and government re-
searchfacilities,and theappropriate natureofpri-
ority-settingmechanisms.The factthattheyare
so difficultand that the stakes are so high is a
strongargumentforfurther analysis.
ProprietaryConstraints
Virtuallyall researchsupportarrangements
in-
volve agreementsthat put some constraintson
72 Science, Technology, & Human Values-Winter 1987

publicationrights,at least to permitpatentappli- Changing the University

cationsto be filedwheretheremaybe patentable
material.Universitieshave establishedcontrac- Beyondits influenceon researchprioritiesand
tual limitson permissiblepublicationdelays,but communication practices,the influxofcorporate
these varygreatly,rangingfromthirtydays to fundsaffectsotheraspectsofuniversity life-for
morethana year.Forexample,CornellandWash- example,thebalancebetweenresearchand teach-
ingtonUniversitypermitindustryto reviewpa- ing,and the distribution of facultyamongdisci-
pers forconfidentialinformation on patentable plines.The availabilityof industrialfundingen-
subjectmatter,and to delaypublicationfor90 to courageshiringin specificareas,whichmay not
120 days.MIT permitsonlya 60-to 90-daydelay. matchlong-term educationpriorities.
Carnegie-Mellon, on the otherhand,allows de- Anotherobservablechange is the growthof
lays of more than a yearto protectconfidential university publicrelationsactivity.Manyuniver-
information. 16 sitiesare behavingas if theybelieve thatcorpo-
More worrisomethan these contractualcon- ratefundingis dependentin goodparton a favor-
straintson publicationis the atmosphereof se- able publicimage.Indeed,journalistsreferthese
crecy and confidentiality which, in some in- days to "pressconferencescience." Public rela-
stances, is associated with working on a tions (in effect,a formof advertising) oftenem-
corporate-financed projectorevenon researchun- phasizes the spectacular promises of research in
deranyauspicesin fieldswherethereis consider- order to attractcorporate funds. It is not clear that
able commercialpromise.The problemhas been thishypeis, in the longrun,good foreitheruni-
mostacute in the fieldofbiotechnology. Donald versities or science.2'
Kennedy,Presidentof Stanford,has repeatedly Further institutional changehas followedfrom
warnedoftheeffects ofproprietary constraints on the legal complexity of the various contractual
scientificcommunication.'7 In a study ofresearch arrangements between industries and universi-
in thisfield,Sandra Panem, a Brookings Institute ties. Patenting research results involves legal ex-
scholar, conducted interviews with scientists pertise, and universities have upgraded their legal
working on interferon and found the collegiality competence, bringing in lawyers often skilled
andflowofinformation in thisfieldhas decreased both in patentlaw and specifictechnicalfields.
considerably since the 1960s. Her respondents at- Suchchangescouldresultin increasedbureaucra-
tributedthis changeto at least in partthe com- tizationand rule-boundbehaviorwithina com-
mercialvalues at stake.'8 munitywhere informalrelationshipsare func-
The issues of sponsorcontrolof publication tionallyuseful.
rights,and concernsabouttheimpactofimposed Universityadminstratorsstrugglewith the
secrecyrequirementson scholarlycommunica- problemof growingsalarydifferentials that fol-
tion,have been aroundfora long time.'9They low fromtheeffort to keep "stars"in well-funded
have been mostprominentin the classifiedwork researchareas. Some observerssuggestthat the
supportedby the Departmentof Defense.How- newcentersdistortthetraditional processofallo-
ever,in certainfields,particularly thoserelatedto catingfacultyappointments, as departments be-
biology,theproprietary problemsassociatedwith come weighted with faculty whose research ties
industry researchhave sharpenedin recentyears. in withcorporateinterest.Changesin the alloca-
Again,a parallelset ofquestionsconfront cor- tion of resourcesand the distributionof faculty
porate strategists.Universitiesare inherently positions can affectthe educationof studentsas
leakyplaces. Securitytherecannotbe as strict as well as the researchagenda.
it can be in a corporatelaboratory. Ifproprietary Again, these issues are not new, nor are they
rightsare important,does it make sense to fi- tied particularly to corporatefundingof univer-
nance the workin academia? sity research. Some universitiestraditionally
Whethercorporate threats to intellectual com- have courted contracts fromthe Departmentof
municationdiffer in kind,in effect, orin justifica- Defenseand NASA. Formanyyears,foundations
tionfromgovernmental constraints is well worth and governmentagencies have favoredcertain
discussing.20 So, too, are questionsaboutthe ac- fieldsofacademicinquiryoverothers.Thehuman-
tual effectiveness of these constraintsin achiev- itieslonghavefeltundersupported relativeto the
ingtheirintendedpurposes,and theircoststo sci- sciences.Faculty in medical and business schools
entificprogress. have long been paid more than faculty in colleges

This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Nelkinand Nelson: University-Industry
of arts and science. Yet the new arrangements
have heightenedsensitivity to theseold issues of
intra-academic inequalities,and universities
will
have to strugglewiththem.
Conclusions
What have we learnedabout the questionsthat
motivatedour limitedinquiry?Our most basic
findingis that the new alliances are extremely
diversein theiractivities,goals, organizational
structure,and operatingstyle. Generalizations
and quickgeneralizations
will be difficult, almost
surelywrong.
Whatkindsof problemshave arisen,and how
have thesebeen dealtwith?Most ofthe arrange-
mentswe consideredare so new thatthe parties
to them are still gropingto finda formatwith
whichbothare comfortable. However,bothuni-
versityand corporateparticipantsappearto pre-
sume that theirdiverseinterestscan be easily
harmonized,and that problemscan be easily
workedout. The corporatefundersofvariousar-
rangementsseemed confidentthattheircompa-
nies will benefitfromthemiftheyadopta broad
and long-termview of corporateinterests.The
university participantsviewedtheirinvolvement
as quite consistentwith traditionalacademic
practices,and seemed quite unconcernedabout
undermining thesepracticesin the longterm.
We are undecidedabout the meaningof this
rosypicture.It is certainlycomforting. However,
thepeoplewithwhomwe talkedwerethosewho
had walked into the agreementsand who had a
stakein them.We foundit difficult to getbeneath
the promotionaltone of the involvedcorporate
and universityscientiststo findout what was
reallygoingon. To theextentthatthesenew rela-
tionshipsare "experiments," theymaybe experi-
mentsthatstrongly resistnegativeevaluation.
What is the public interestin these relation-
ships and what typesof policy departuresseem
appropriateto further it? This, of course,is the
centralquestion. One could take the view that
the public interestshouldbe definedby the par-
ticipants. Both corporationsand universities
shouldwatch aftertheirown interests,and gov-
ernmentalmeddlingin the name of an assumed
generalpublic interestis uncalledfor.However,
to take thisview withoutreflection would be to
cut offthe discussionprematurely. The partici-
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alliances 73
pants in industry-university alliances tend to
view the issues on a case-by-casebasis, in terms
of theirimmediateinvolvementin a particular
typeof program.Because each new arrangement
is relativelysmall, each can be regardedas not
significantly changingthe basic pictureof aca-
demicscience.A new programat one university
servesas a precedent,and even a goad,forother
programs. Andthetotaleffectofmanyincremen-
tal changesis notnecessarilysmall.The threat,as
seen by some observers,is that the cumulative
effectmay be a transformation of largeareas of
academicscience.22 Thereis a realissue here.It is
notobviousthatpluralisticcase-by-casedecision-
makingis adequate to preservethe integrityof
the scientificcommunityand its role as a disin-
terestedsourceoftechnicalinformation.
We have some confidencethatthe bottomline
ofprofitwill keep corporations fromcontinuing
to investin activitiesthatare not goodforthem.
We have less confidencethat academia has as
clear a yardstickto judge the meritsof various
arrangements forits own integrity. There also is
thequestionofwhetheruniversity officers
can be
reliedon to assess the public interestregarding
universityactivitiesin a sufficiently broadcon-
text.All institutions have a tendencytowardspa-
rochialism.Simplybecause an arrangement with
a companyor a groupof companies suits both
academicsand theircorporatesponsors,it is not
clearthatit suitsthe public interestas well.
We saw no sharpsignsofpresentdanger,noth-
ingto warrantthe attemptto set generalground-
rulesbeyondthoseset by thepartiesthemselves.
But the magnitudeof thesefundscould increase
significantlyand thetermsofthe contractscould
change.The situationwarrantscarefulwatching.
Notes
1. See, forexample, Robert D. Varrin and Diana Ku-
kich, "Guidelines forIndustry-SponsoredResearch
at Universities," Science, Volume 227 (25 January
1985): 385-388; Philip H. Abelson, "Pressures for
Change in Scientific Research," Conference
Speech, Spokane, Washington, 24 July1985; John
Walsh, "New R&D Centers Will Test University
Ties," Science, Volume 227 (11 January 1985):
150-152; Partnersin the Research Enterprise(Uni-
versityof Pennsylvania Press, 1983).
2. For an earlieroverview of the same terrain,see Na-
tional Science Board, University-Industry Re-
74 Science, Technology, & Human Values-Winter 1987
searchRelationships:SelectedStudies (Washing-
ton,DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice,1985).
The study by Lois Peters and HerbertFusfeld,
"CurrentU.S. University-Industry Connections,"
containedthereinsurveysa wide rangeofarrange-
ments,includingmanyofthosewe have studied.
3. Irwin Stark,"The UniversityGoes to Market,"
Thoughtand Action,Volume11 (Fall 1984):9-21.
4. David Noble,Americaby Design (New York:Al-
fredA. Knopf,1977); HenryEtzkowitz,"Entrepre-
neurialScientistsandEntrepreneurialUniversities
in AmericanAcademic Science," Minerva,Vol-
ume 21 (Summer1983): 198-233.
5. See Roger Geiger, To Advance Knowledge:
GrowthofAmericanResearchUniversities, 1900-
1940 (Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress,
1986).
6. WhileDerekPriceoftenreferred to sciencein gen-
eral in his argumentthatscienceand technology
developindependently of each otherin termsof
the purposesand agendas,his discussionsalmost
alwaysconcernedphysics.See,forexample,Derek
J.de Solla Price,TheNatureoftheScientificCom-
munity(New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress,
1970).
7. ArnoldThackray,"University-Industry Connec-
tions and Chemical Research:An HistoricalPer-
spective,"in NationalScienceBoard,op. cit.
8. Noble, op. cit.
9. HarveyBrooks,The Government ofScience(Cam-
bridge,MA: The MIT Press,1968).
10. Donald Kennedy,"GovernmentPolicies and the
Cost ofDoing Research,"Science,Volume227 (1
February1985): 480-484.
11. President'sCommissionon IndustrialCompeti-
tiveness,Global Competition:The New Reality,
Volume 2 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice,January 1985).
12. National Science Foundation,CooperativeSci-
ence: A National Studyof University and Indus-
trialResearchers,November1984; J.D. Eveland,
This content downloaded from 64.76.2.5 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:01:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Communications Networksin University/Indus-
tryCooperativeResearchCenters,"National Sci-
ence Foundation,March 1985.
in the normsof sciencein the in-
13. The differences
dustrialand universitysettingsare discussed in
William Komhauser, Scientists in Industry(Berke-
ley,CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress,1962); R.
Ritti, The Engineer in the Industrial Corporation
(New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press,1974).For
discussionof the normsof academic science,see
Robert K. Merton, Sociology of Science (Chicago
of ChicagoPress,1973).
IL: The University
14. These contrastingpositionsappearin Twentieth
Century Fund, The Science Business (New York:
TwentiethCenturyFund,1984).
15. M. F. Kenney, Biotechnology: The Birth of an In-
dustry(New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress,
1986).
16. For a reviewof these policies,see Associationof
American Universities, University Policies in
Conflict of Interest and Delay of Publications,
February1985.
17. Donald Kennedy,"CommercializingUniversity
BiomedicalResearch,"testimonybeforethe Sub-
committeeon Investigations House
and Oversight,
Committeeon Scienceand Technology,97thCon-
gress,1stsession,8 June1981.
18. Sandra Panem, The InterferonCrusade (Washing-
ton,DC: BrookingsInstitution, 1984).
19. For discussionof this point,see "Openness and
Secrecyin ScienceandTechnology"(specialissue)
Science, Technology, & Human Values, Winter
1984.
20. Dorothy Nelkin, Science as Intellectual Property
(New York:MacMillan,1984).
21. Dorothy Nelkin, Science, Technology and the
Press(New York:FreemanPress,1986,forthcom-
ing).
22. SheldonKrimsky,"CorporateAcademic Ties in
A Reporton Researchin Progress,"
Biotechnology,
Gene Watch(September-December 1984): 3-5.