Universities in the Age of Corporate Science: The UC Berkeley-Novartis Controversy

  • Alan P. Rudy,
  • Dawn Coppin,
  • Jason Konefal,
  • Bradley T. Shaw,
  • Toby Ten Eyck,
  • Craig Harris &
  • Lawrence Busch
Temple University Press: 2007. 256 pp. $54.50 1592135331 | ISBN: 1-592-13533-1
Crushed underfoot? Many researchers were unhappy at a deal between the University of California, Berkeley, and Novartis. Credit: G. NIKITIN/AP

Universities can be ambivalent about their relationships with industry. Ideally, researchers can carry out fundamental scientific research without having to worry about commercial applications. Industry, on the other hand, is less likely to undertake research into basic science because of the limited return, and so is more likely to focus on research that yields commercial products. In principle, then, university and industry research are complementary.

But the reality is not always this simple. Industry scientists sometimes pursue fundamental science, and university scientists sometimes work on projects that will potentially yield commercial payoffs. Moreover, there is not always a clear line between applied and fundamental research. Industry and university research can overlap substantially, with collaborations producing benefits to society as well as supporting financially constrained academics.

The challenge is how to foster relationships between industry and academic scientists in ways that enable university researchers to keep their academic independence while allowing companies to generate returns for their shareholders. Balancing these objectives is not easy.

Industrial support of university research is nothing new, and in recent years both governments and universities have tried to find ways of bringing university research to the market. Nevertheless, the agreement between the University of California, Berkeley, and the pharmaceutical giant Novartis (the UCB–N agreement) in 1998 was unusual in both its size and its scope, and was highly controversial (see Nature 399, 5; 1999). As a way of resolving the controversy, the university agreed to commission a study of the UCB–N agreement and its impact. Universities in the Age of Corporate Science is the outcome of this study.

The book provides fascinating details of the deal, the players and the controversy, and does an admirable job of empirically and qualitatively measuring the effects of the agreement on scientific research. It succeeds in its aim of analysing the UCB–N deal despite being written in a way likely to appeal more to sociologists than to people interested specifically in the issue, especially in the early part of the book — the reader is not properly introduced to the UCB–N agreement until the fourth chapter.

Alan Rudy and co-authors attempt to put a theoretical structure on the analysis — a laudable intention as testable theories help to frame analyses and clarify the precise questions being asked. In this case, though, theory does little to structure the analysis. The reader's reward for ploughing on is an in-depth discussion of the UCB–N deal and the firestorm it ignited.

The authors explain the many factors that came together to intensify the controversy. First, the deal was unique in that the company made the agreement with an entire university department, rather than with just a single researcher. As a result, and unlike the usual grant funding system, the agreement subjected an entire population of researchers to its stipulations. It also seems to have exacerbated some resentment between departments over resources. Second, many perceived that the deal was not sufficiently transparent and that it was made with scant input from groups that could have been affected, such as graduate students and postdocs. Third, Novartis was given unprecedented access to the department's research, including the right of first refusal to licensed discoveries — regardless of whether or not they were funded by Novartis.

Ultimately, though, none of the opponents' fears about industry affecting university research were realized. The authors conclude: “it appears that UCB–N resulted in modest benefits and very little harm” to the department.

The authors labour to draw general lessons from the UCB-N experience, although it is not obvious that there are many to be drawn. Generalizing lessons from a case study is often problematic, particularly if there are factors specific to the case. For example, as the authors note, Novartis was undergoing radical corporate restructuring throughout much of the agreement, so the extent of its involvement may have been affected, even though its funding commitments were met.

Case studies are typically chosen precisely because there is something unusual about them. The furore surrounding the UCB–N deal also makes it hard to generalize. Potential abuse, for example, may have been kept in check while people were keeping a close watch on the collaboration, and interactions between scientists from both sides may have been affected for fear of fanning the flames. In other words, both the benefits and the costs of the agreement may have been muted by factors unique to the UCB–N agreement.

Complaints would not necessarily have been resolved more satisfactorily if the university had handled them differently. Graduate students and postdocs felt left out of the process, but what should their level of involvement have been? The interests of both groups are short term compared with those of the faculty. The outcome may have been adversely affected if too many parties were involved, as negotiations could have become unwieldy and agreement less likely.

Collaborations between university and industry can bring large benefits: more resources to university faculty and students, faster dissemination of research results, new products on the market, and fresh insight from interactions that might not otherwise have happened. But such collaborations can be difficult to manage because universities and industries have different objectives.

In short, Universities in the Age of Corporate Science is a compelling and detailed description of the events surrounding the UCB–N deal. It should be enjoyed by all those who follow the evolution of university–industry relations, offering as it does a unique look at how the collaboration was made.