Daniel Finn, the Students Union research and development officer, has generously offered to support my own campaign, citing the fact that he will probably be studying abroad from next year. Daniel has been incredibly supportive of my candidacy, and I would like to thank him publicly for his positive input. He has authored the documents below which give a background to current higher education issues:
THE PERILS OF PRIVATE FUNDING by Daniel Finn
Many commentators have claimed that the answer to the funding problems in third-level education is for universities to rely more on private funding. This approach has already been put into practice in Britain, Australia, and above all the United States, so we can see in advance what the results might be if we went down the same route. Reliance on corporate funding in these countries has had a deeply harmful effect. It has distorted research priorities, compromised academic freedom, and stifled debate on campus. The proper role of the university in society has been undermined. Nor has much been offered in return: the existence of private sponsorship has been used by governments as an excuse to cut back public funding of third-level education. With this experience in mind, Irish students should oppose moves in this direction by our university sector.
CONTEXT
In the countries mentioned, universities first came under pressure to seek corporate sponsorship because of cutbacks in public spending. It was seen as a temporary expedient until future governments reversed these cutbacks. But once the principle that universities could take private money was established, governments used this as an excuse to extend cutbacks. It’s easy to argue that, if universities take 10% of their money from private companies, why can’t it be 20%, or 40%? In Australia, for example, 85% of college revenue came from the state in 1987; by 2002, that figure had fallen to 44%. Between 1983 and 1993, public research funds in Britain fell in real terms by 20%.
So we should be aware in advance: private funding is unlikely to be in addition to existing state revenue, rather, it will be used as a substitute for that revenue. Government ministers and university administrators may paint a glowing picture of abundant wealth that will solve all the funding problems of Irish universities, but this just isn’t realistic. In practice, by opting for private funding, universities will just be exchanging one source of revenue for another.
PROBLEMS:
1) NARROWING OF RESEARCH
What problems have been caused by reliance on private funding? First of all, it has led to a narrowing of research, as companies demand that universities concentrate on research that will deliver short-term profits. In scientific research, this has led to a concentration on applied science, using existing knowledge to deliver commercial results, at the expense of experiments that will create innovations.
Worse, research that would be of great use to society as a whole has been neglected because it conflicts with corporate priorities. For example, five times as much money is spent in British universities on research into oil and gas as on research into renewable sources of energy. This is hardly surprising, when there are more than 1,000 research projects being funded by the fossil fuel industries. The need for research into renewable energy is much greater; but when companies are allowed to dictate research priorities, social needs have to be ignored.
In the same way, sponsorship of medical research by drug companies in the US has seen universities concentrate on drugs to treat non-lethal ailments that affect First World patients; this is where the big money is to be made. Meanwhile, the search for a malaria vaccine, which would be of incalculable benefit to people in poor countries, but not quite as profitable, has been neglected.
2) RESEARCH CENSORSHIP
This narrowing of research priorities is bad enough. Even worse, it has led to the suppression of research findings that conflict with the commercial interests of the companies sponsoring research. There have been a number of high-profile cases of this in the United States. In 1995, medical researchers at the University of California carried out trials on 2 drugs, one of which was more expensive than the other and produced by the Boots company. It was found that the cheaper drug had exactly the same effect as the more expensive equivalent; this had the potential to save patients $365m a year, while costing Boots $600m. Boots had sponsored the research, and blocked its publication. After a public outcry, the findings were finally published two years later.
In 1998, the same thing happened in the University of Toronto. The medical company Apotex wanted tests done on one of its drugs. The scientist Dr. Nancy Olivieri carried out these tests, but discovered that in some cases, the drug might have life-threatening side effects. Apotex stopped the tests and threatened to sue Olivieri if she went public. When she defied these threats and went public, the college authorities sided with Apotex and demoted her to a lower-ranking position.
These cases were exposed to public scrutiny because the researchers involved were brave enough to go public and take the ensuing flak. In the majority of cases, corporate interference doesn’t generate any publicity. A 1994 survey of research partnerships in US universities found that in 35% of cases, companies exercise the right to stop publication of findings. Writing about the UK, journalist George Monbiot concludes: “I have been unable to find a university anywhere in the UK which does not accept corporate money for research in which the companies involved have an immediate interest.”
3) LOSS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Corporations have also been able to exercise broader influence over what goes on in university life. In 1995, the Centre for Human Ecology at Edinburgh University was abolished. Its work had highlighted the harmful effect on the environment of a number of high-profile projects and government policies. The university came under intense pressure from Scottish companies hostile to this work; one businessman told the college authorities: “You really will have to gag Alastair McIntosh [the head of the Centre]. His hard-hitting article in the Glasgow Herald debunking the Government’s Science and Technology White Paper will alienate most, if not all, wealth creators.” Given the university’s increasing dependence on private funding, it was in no position to resist this pressure.
In America, corporations have also tried to gag students and academics critical of their policies. When the University of Wisconsin signed a sponsorship deal with Reebok in 1995, it inserted a clause to the effect that “the University will promptly take all reasonable steps necessary to address any remark by any University employee, agent or representative, including a Coach, that disparages Reebok, Reebok’s products, or the advertising agency or others connected with Reebok.” This clause was removed after a campaign by students and faculty members against sweatshop labour in Asia; but in other cases, gag orders were only revealed after contracts had already been signed; the University of Kentucky has a similar arrangement with Nike.
At Kent State University, Coca-Cola has exclusive vending rights. When the university branch of Amnesty International launched a campaign to highlight Coke’s dealings with the military dictatorship in Nigeria, they were denied funding to bring over a Nigerian speaker after being asked “is he going to speak negatively about Coca-Cola?”
Much more could be said on the subject. But it should be clear enough that if Irish universities go down the same road as their counterparts in Britain or the US, it will have serious negative consequences. Nor will these harmful side effects be counter-balanced by a beneficial increase in funding, as our governments are likely to use the existence of private sponsorship as an excuse to cutback public spending. Students and academics should oppose moves in this direction, and argue instead for an increase in government funding. A specific corporation tax for education, as has been suggested by some, would ensure that companies contribute their fair share to an education system from which they greatly benefit, without giving them unhealthy influence in our schools and universities.
More by Daniel Finn (on the OECD report) here:
http://danieldunne.com/ucd-governing/2004_09_08_authority.html