We told you about the big deal between [tag-tec]BP[/tag-tec] and UCB and Univ of Illinois recently and how they are trying to build a research institute to develop [tag-tec]alternative fuels[/tag-tec]. The deal was announced with big fanfare at UCB. Well now the faculty and students at Berkeley have spoken up and demanded to be heard on this issue.
The chancellor of the university Robert Birgeneau has said that the overwhelming response he has heard to date on this deal has been positive. But campus critics spoke up and asked for a forum to have their voices heard on the this topic.
The deal between the two universities and BP calls for $50 in funding per year for ten years that would go towards [tag-tec]energy research[/tag-tec] facilities at the two campuses. The oil giant corporation has tried to paint this deal in the best light of cooperation between themselves and the universities.
The forum was sponsored by the Academic Senate and some of the speakers included, Shankar Sastry, director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Information Technology in the Interest of Society; Beth Burnside, vice chancellor for research and a professor of cell and developmental biology; Ignacio Chapela, an assistant professor of microbial ecology; David J. Vogel, a professor of political science and business ethics; and Robert Reich, a professor of public policy and labor secretary under former President Bill Clinton.
Here is some of the dialogue from the event held at UCB on 3/8/07.
Anthropology Professor Paul Rabinow cited the 1998-2003 research deal between Swiss biotech firm Novartis and Cal’s Department of Plant and Microbial Biology. That deal, which provided for $5 million a year from 1998 to 2003, was intended to develop genetically engineered foods. It sparked campus protests and was criticized at the time by faculty members who felt it was implemented without collegial debate.
“The way the university handled it was completely, recklessly stupid,” Rabinow said.
The same mistakes are being repeated with the BP deal, he said.
“It should have been transparent, there should have been consultation,” he said. “This is silly. You should have given us more time to debate this.”
Art history Professor Tim Clark voiced deep misgivings about the lack of discussion on the conflicts that may occur in a research agreement between a public university and private corporation.
“The tension between one imperative and the other ought to be explicit in whatever deal the university strikes,” he said. “The deal ought to be open to inspection.”
Faculty governance should have a place of power in the arrangement, he said.
“The ongoing research program of the university should be as relentless in the pursuit of (Cal’s) interests as (BP) will continue to be in its,” he said.
I doubt very much that this forum will put any halt to this effort to build a large research institute. TRhere is too much money at stake for the parties involved to change their minds or alter things. The most one can hope for is perhaps some special oversight of the process to make sure it gets done right.
Read more about this event here
and here