Of Professors And Money

LAST WEEK, the Corporation took a position it could not realistically avoid. Negative reaction from the Faculty, the press, and other academic institutions made the University's participation as a minority shareholder in a proposed DNA company tactically and politically impossible--at least right now.

But the thumbs-down decision was not a sign that the Corporation no longer wants the University to benefit from its potentially lucrative DNA patents. That desire spawned this first proposal a venture conceived almost entirely without academic considerations. While Faculty and outside discussion of the issue brought the academic questions to the forefront, the seven-member Corporation came precariously close to approving a business move that might have seriously impaired academic values.

Three major non-financial issues confronted President Bok and the six other Fellows in their consideration of this question. First, the company would have involved a Faculty member--Mark S. Ptashne, professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology--in a major role. Second, the University had to determine its role in the commercial application of its potentially lucrative DNA patents. And, in general, the issue of "technology transfer"--how knowledge is transmitted from the academic to the commercial sector--became more pressing than it has since Harvard re-examined its patent policy in 1975 and decided to help professors patent their discoveries.

The Corporation had no choice but to abandon the possibility of participation in the DNA company, at least until these three aspects of the issue could be examined further. Bok has said that he hopes the Faculty will continue to look into the broad question of Faculty involvement in outside ventures. Across every aspect of academic life, the DNA company decision stirs long-dormant questions about Faculty members' relationships to the outside world in consulting, publishing, political advising, jockeying for government and foundation grants, and professional practice. In their debates, the Faculty and the Corporation ought to widen their focus and consider how, in each of these areas, the interaction of academicians and the outside world can sometimes compromise academic values.

While the Faculty debates these issues, the Corporation must also continue to discuss updating the University's patent policy. And both groups must consider Harvard's role in the commercial application of knowledge. In these discussions, other questions will inevitably arise. The Faculty will be forced to look at its tenure process--which could be seriously impaired if Faculty members involved in outside ventures are judged for tenure on their non-academic accomplishments.

Bok said last week that in the future the Corporation might consider participating in a venture like the DNA company proposal, provided the University would not own stock in the firm. Although this type of arrangement would not link Harvard and a Faculty member as shareholding business partners, the University would still receive a share of the company's profits in exchange for its patents and it would still confront as yet unresolved academic conflicts. Before the Corporation ventures farther into the mixed-up world of patent development, DNA technology and Faculty moonlighting, it must consider these issues. Unless University groups continue to discuss the unanswered questions raised by consideration of the DNA company, the Corporation may approve a similar venture-- without bothering to publicize the results.