Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships

Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships

Copyright Date: 2014
Pages: 368
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships
    Book Description:

    From MOOCS and intellectual property rights to drug industry payments and conflicts of interest, this book offers AAUP policy language and best practices to deal with all the campus-wide challenges of today's corporate university: Preserving the integrity of research and public respect for higher education; Eliminating and managing individual and institutional financial conflicts of interest; Maintaining unbiased hiring and recruitment policies; Establishing grievance procedures and due process rights for faculty, graduate students, and academic professionals; Mastering the complications of negotiations over patents and copyright; Assuring the ethics of research involving human subjects.

    eISBN: 978-0-252-09658-7
    Subjects: Education

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-ii)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. iii-iv)
  3. Preface
    (pp. v-viii)
    Cary Nelson
  4. Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations
    (pp. ix-xii)
  5. Summary of Recommendations 56 Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Engagement
    (pp. 1-24)

    The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has drafted these principles to encourage universities and their faculties to adopt stronger, more comprehensive rules to guide sponsored research on campus and to manage individual and institutional conflicts of interest more effectively. In issuing this report, the AAUP seeks to ensure that the standards and practices it recommends are consistently applied across the university as a whole. The report contains 56 recommended principles. A majority (35) are closely drawn from previous statements issued by the AAUP or other prominent academic societies and associations (such as the Institute of Medicine, the Association of...

  6. Introduction An Overview of the Benefits and Risks of Heightened Academy-Industry Engagement
    (pp. 25-116)

    In 1915, the American Association of University Professors warned of the risks to higher education from the influence of “commercial practices in which large vested interests are involved.”² The 1915 Declaration warned of “a real danger that pressure from vested interests may, sometimes deliberately, and sometimes unconsciously, sometimes openly and sometimes subtly and in obscure ways, be brought to bear upon academic authorities.”³ Yet the Declaration’s framers could never have envisioned a corporation offering a university president hundreds of thousands of dollars to serve on a corporate board, or a start-up firm offering faculty members stock options and research funding...


    • PART I. General Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships University-Wide (1–7)
      (pp. 118-135)

      The university must preserve the primacy of shared academic governance in establishing campuswide policies for planning, developing, implementing, monitoring, and assessing all donor agreements and collaborations, whether with private industry, government, or nonprofit groups. Faculty, not outside sponsors, should retain majority control over the campus management of such agreements and collaborations.

      Threats to faculty control over research and teaching as well as violations of good shared governance practices run through many of the case studies and risk categories associated with academy-industry engagement we have reviewed. Academy-industry partnerships play a vital role in funding research and bring many additional benefits. Yet...

    • Part II. General Principles for Academic Education and Training (8–10)
      (pp. 136-140)

      Students, postdoctoral fellows, adjuncts, and junior researchers participate in a variety of industry-sponsored activities, both on and off campus. Such collaborations—working in an industry-sponsored lab on campus, a professor’s start-up company off site, or a corporate lab—offer attractive professional opportunities, especially as a growing proportion of science and technical careers are now in the private sector. These experiences can enhance exposure to the commercial research environment and can foster relationships that will lead to full employment.

      Yet such collaborations present serious risks. Faculty mentors involved with an outside company may divert graduate students toward efforts that will benefit...

    • Part III. General Principles for Management of Intellectual Property (IP) (11–21)
      (pp. 141-162)

      The management of inventions, patents, and other forms of intellectual property (IP) in a university setting warrants special guidance because it bears directly on the university’s core values, including principles of academic freedom, scholarship, research, and the transmission of knowledge to the public. These core values distinguish university activity from that of government and industry, and provide the argument for public support of research and the role of the university as an independent contributor to and commentator on both policy and commerce. The negotiation and management of university-generated IP can be complex and carry significant consequences for those directly involved...

    • Part IV. General Principles for Management of Conflicts of Interest (COI) and Financial Conflicts of Interest (FCOI) (22–31)
      (pp. 163-188)

      We have already discussed conflicts of interest at many points in this book, most thoroughly in “A Brief History of Efforts to Address Financial Conflicts of Interest at US Universities and Academic Medical Centers” under Risk 5 in the Introduction. This section will necessarily repeat some points in order to emphasize the reasons why COI and FCOI remain among the most serious threats to the freedom, autonomy, and integrity of academic work, and to the public’s support for and confidence in that work. They also remain among the most challenging problems on university campuses: and never more so than in...

    • Part V. Targeted Principles: Managing COI in the Context of Clinical Care and Human Subject Research (32–35)
      (pp. 189-193)

      With the welfare of patients and research subjects always of utmost concern, academic institutions should give COI in the areas of clinical care, pre-clinical research,⁵²⁷ human subject research, and animal research close scrutiny, regulation, and oversight.⁵²⁸ The integrity of science and the moral imperative of medicine to “do no harm” intensify the importance of such vigilance. This principle is codified in the Charter on Medical Professionalism issued by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM).⁵²⁹ Adopted by more than a hundred professional groups worldwide, the Charter lays out ten essential responsibilities of medical professionals; one is to maintain patient trust...

    • Part VI. Targeted Principles: Strategic Corporate Alliances (SCAs) (36–48)
      (pp. 194-212)

      An SCA is distinct from an Industrial Research Consortium (IRC), in which it is customary for a group of some ten or more companies to pay yearly membership fees to jointly fund a broad research goal or technology development objective that all the subscribers have a common interest in supporting. Research results developed within the IRC are usually shared among the sponsoring members under nonexclusive licensing terms. Research results in an SCA, by contrast, are commonly licensed exclusively to the sponsor.

      The structure of an SCA is different from most industry-sponsored research agreements. Traditional industry sponsored grants involve smaller dollar...

    • Part VII. Targeted Principles: Clinical Medicine, Clinical Research, and Industry Sponsorship (49–56)
      (pp. 213-229)

      As the Introduction explains, numerous academic and medical groups have warned about FCOI and industry influence in biomedicine. These include the AAU, the AAMC, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the latter in both 2006⁵⁹⁷ and 2008.⁵⁹⁸ All have issued guidelines designed to reign in industry influence and FCOI in both clinical medicine and clinical research.⁵⁹⁹

      In 2002, the American Board of Internal Medicine and more than 100 world-wide medical groups endorsed a new “Charter on Medical Professionalism,” a comprehensive statement that emphasized both a “commitment to scientific knowledge” and a “commitment to maintaining trust by managing conflicts...

  8. Appendix A: Faculty Handbook and Collective Bargaining Agreement Versions of the 56 Principles
    (pp. 230-246)
  9. Appendix B: The Sources of the 56 Principles: A Summary of Which Principles Are New, versus Those Derived from AAUP or Other Professional Groups’ Recommendations
    (pp. 247-268)
  10. Endnotes
    (pp. 269-356)
  11. Back Matter
    (pp. 357-357)