Setbacks

Many professors considered it a victory, but the Harvard Corporation's decision last November not to become a minority shareholder in a company that would have used Harvard-owned patents to develop and manufacture drugs using recombinant DNA was a setback of sorts to those who advocated "technology transfer" as a way for the University to make some extra money.

The rejected proposal, which received a great deal of national attention, called for the University to receive shares in a genetic engineering firm--in which at least one Faculty member, Mark S. Ptashne, professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, would have played a major role--and royalties on any profits the firm might have made. Harvard would have allowed the company to use some University-owned patents, but it would not have invested any money.

President Bok said he rejected the plan because it might have compromised academic pursuits by mingling them with financial goals. Faculty members expressed widespread opposition to the idea on similar grounds. The proposal represented the first formal attempt to involve the University in technology transfer, the process by which inventions get from the laboratory to the marketplace.

While the DNA company decision represented a theoretical setback to what Harvard might have gained financially had it invested in the firm, the University suffered a tangible loss when a six-alarm fire, set by an arsonist, destroyed the press box in Harvard Stadium in late April, causing an estimated $75,000 in danage. Firefighters fought for 20 minutes to contain the blaze, which was whipped along by winds gusting at times to 45 miles an hour. Police arrested an 18-year-old Boston man, who admitted setting the blaze, three weeks after the fire. Despite the damage, officials say the press box can be rebuilt by September 26, when Harvard plays its first football game.

* * *

Efforts to unionize workers in the Medical Area and at the Harvard Cooperative Society suffered major setbacks this year. In April, Medical Area workers rejected the bid of District 65, United Auto Workers, to represent them in their future dealings with Harvard--a major blow to the union's seven-year organizing effort. The day after the vote, District 65 field a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), charging that Harvard engaged in unfair labor practices that influenced the outcome of the vote.

Employees of the Harvard Cooperative Society voted in late March to deny United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) the right to represent them in contract negotiations. The vote, which ended up 273 against and 156 in favor, took place amidst charges that management's policies and actions before the election may have unfairly influenced employees. UFCW quickly filed with the NLRB, charging that Coop management intimidated workers and possibly coerced them into voting against unionization.