Corporate Ties: A Look Back at Monsanto

When the University last year considered joining one of its professors, Mark Ptashne, in a commercial venture to exploit the findings of Ptashne's recombinant DNA research, many Harvard scientists raised their voices in protest against the deal. Such a venture, the critics warned, could severely compromise the integrity of University researchers and would steer research in the direction of profits rather than the "public good."

Fina" in late 1980, and largely because of the Faculty's fears, President Bok announced that the University would not, after all, join Ptashne in the venture. But that announcement by no means suggested that Harvard had adopted a policy against forming ties with industry in general. On the contrary. Harvard, along with most other research-oriented institutions, has become increasingly dependent on corporate funding.

What the Faculty members protested so loudly about in 1980 was the idea of Harvard actually forming a corporation with one of its professors. When it comes to the University accepting money from companies in return for rights to products and services which may result from the research, however, researchers seem much more reluctant to protest. Under the threat of Reagan administration cuts of federal research funding, universities and their scientists are finding themselves increasingly reliant on outside sources of money, most noticeable of which are the large corporations.

Nevertheless, recent contractual agreements between research institutions and corporations have sparked considerable concern in academic circles about possible conflicts between unbiased scientific investigation and corporate profits. Harvard again became a focal point of attention in this area this spring when two weeks after one of its teaching hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital, announced it had received a $60-million grant from the German chemical firm Hoechst, the Medical School announced that it had received a $6-million grant of its own from DuPont. Both of the grants will fund research in the controversial field of recombinant DNA.

Tufts professor Sheldon Krimsky, long an outspoken critic of corporate-university links, says that such ties have a "chilling affect" on the willingness of researchers and institutions to speak out on issues that might hurt companies from whom they receive funding.

Society loses when a university is captured by corporate goals," he says.

But researchers involved with corporation grants, at least at Harvard, steadfastly maintain that their academic integrity has not been compromised. While it is still much too early to determine the success or failure of agreements like the recent one with DuPont. Harvard officials point to a tie formed seven years ago between the University and a large midwestern chemical firm, as an example of a successful linkage between a corporation and an academic institution.

In 1974, after lengthy internal discussion and debate, the University announced an agreement it had formed with the Monsanto Corporation for a long-term grant of $23 million for research to be conducted under the guidance of two Medical School professors. The announcement surprised--and provoked--many scientists at Harvard and nationwide, and some of the same questions were raised which have since been brought up in relation to the DuPont and the Hoechst deals.

But now, seven years after the funding began, officials both at Monsanto and the University say the linkage has worked successfully and insist that the researchers have not compromised their integrity. Dr. M. Judah Folkman, Andrus Professor of Pediatric Surgery at the Med School and one of the principle researchers under the Monsanto grant, says that neither he nor the researchers in his lab have compromised their integrity and have felt "no pressure at all" to conduct research that will specifically result in profits for Monsanto.

"What we decide to study is completely up to us." Folkman says, adding that "this grant is not any different in terms of responsibility to the funder than a grant from the government."

Otto T. Solbrig, professor of Biology, who opposed the Ptashne deal, calls the Monsanto link beneficial to the University, and says Harvard would never participate if it meant succumbing to pressure from the company. The Monsanto deal "has zero strings attached--you've got to remember that integrity is the most important concern for researchers at this university." Solbrig says.

And Joyce M. Brinton, assistant to the dean for finance and business at the Medical School, flatly denies that the corporate money in any way interferes with the researchers or the University as a whole. "The research is very clearly under the direction of the researchers. Harvard is very jealous of its academic freedom. This is something that the University regards as sacred."

"We don't want to direct their research," Montee C. Throdal, senior vice-president for Monsanto, says, adding that "we're not competent to judge--we were very impressed by the work we saw going on there, and we decided to give them the grant." Throdal said the company could withdraw its support from the University if it did not approve of its research but added "that it is very unlikely--even if we decided to do this, there is a clause in the contract which requires many intricate steps and several years of notice." The contract is scheduled to run through 1986.

Throdal says it is still too early to tell what products or services, to which the company holds exclusive rights, if any, may result from the Harvard research, but Science magazine reported last May that the Collagen company, of which Monsanto owns 30 per cent, will manufacture bone powder to be used in a study by Julianne Glowacki, associate in surgery at the Medical School and a researcher in Folkman's lab, to study techniques in developing artificial bones.

Throdal says Monsanto originally proposed the linkage with Harvard because it provided "the quickest way to get new services from the researchers to the general public." But getting new service for the general public, while beneficial for patients, also means potentially hefty profits for Monsanto, and some scientists remain skeptical of the separation between the University and its corporate friends. Krimsky, while not familiar with the specifics of the Harvard-Monsanto ties, criticizes the University for not making public the details of its contracts with the company. Harvard has not made public the contract with Monsanto or the recently announced one with DuPont, instead releasing summaries of both. "I can't understand what reason they could have for keeping the contracts secret, other than that they have something to hide," Krimsky says.

But Brinton rejects Krimsky's statement, saying. "A person's private papers are a person's private papers, and an institution's private papers are an institution's."

Asked why students, as members of the Harvard community, are not permitted to look at the details of the contracts, Brinton says "The basic question is 'why would they want to?"' The summaries provide "pretty much anything someone would want to know," he says, adding that because of the complexities and details of the contracts, certain phrases might be taken out of context.

The Monsanto deal, Briaton says, is a good indication that links between universities and corporations can work successfully, and while she says that "no two individual grants are alike," the Monsanto grant may provide a model for successful links in the future.