The values that underlie industry are different from, indeed incommensurable with, those of both science and universities. Consequently, serious problems can arise during collaborative research. These include prevention of the free publication of results and the influence by financial interests of the direction of research agenda and of the conclusions drawn from the results. The unavoidable tension implicit in research collaboration between industry and academy should be explicitly recognized. If the consequences of such a Faustian contract between universities and industry are to be avoided then it is the responsibility of academics to identify the value conflicts and deal with them creatively. The authors draw on experience in the USA and UK and consider what might be done to minimize the potential conflict inherent in such collaboration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Times Higher Education Supplement, 28 June 1991.
2.
Times Higher Education Supplement, 1 November 1996.
3.
Guide to EPSRC Research Grants, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, London, April 1996.
4.
BBSRC Postgraduate Studentships 1996–97, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, London, n.d.; EPSRC letter PGA 4/1966, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, London, 29 April 1996.
5.
White Paper, Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, Cm 2250, HMSO, London, 1993.
6.
Ibid, § 3.12, 3.13.
7.
Ibid, § 2.30.
8.
Ibid, § 3.33.
9.
Ibid, § 3.9; Feedback on Foresight: Results of Consultations on the Approach to UK Technology Foresight, Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd, Cambridge, 1994.
10.
GrayJ.‘The unavoidable conflict’, Times Literary Supplement, 5 July 1991; MacIntyreA., Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, Duckworth, London, 1988; MacIntyreA., Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition, Duckworth, London, 1990.
11.
MacIntyre, 1990, Op cit, Ref 10, p 217; MacIntyre, 1988, Op cit, Ref 10.
12.
Gray, Op cit, Ref 10.
13.
MacIntyre, 1988, Op cit, Ref 10.
14.
BerlinI.Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1969.
15.
McMurtryJ.‘Education and the market model’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, Vol 25, 1991, p 209.
16.
FriedmanM.Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1962, p 133.
17.
MertonR.K., Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press, New York, 1968, p 606.
18.
ZimanJohn‘Is science losing its objectivity?’, Nature, 29 August 1996, p 751.
19.
GibbonsMichaelLimogesCamilleNowotnyHelgaScottPeterTrowMartin, The New Production of Knowledge, Sage Publications, 1994.
20.
TaskerM.E.PackhamD.E., ‘Industry and higher education: a question of values’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 18, 1993, p 127; (http://www.bath.ac.uk/∼mssdep/paper2.htm); TaskerM.E.PackhamD.E., ‘Government, higher education and the industrial ethic’, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol 48, No 3, 1994, p 182; PackhamD.E., ‘Summer reading for the Dearing Committee’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 2 August 1996 (http://www.bath.ac.uk/∼mssdep/paper6.htm).
21.
CaputoG.‘The Magna Charta of European Universities’, CRE-action, No 2, 1988, pp 81 and 85.
22.
GiamettiA. Bartlett, Science, Vol 218, 1982, p 1278.
23.
Education Reform Act1988, § 202(2)(a).
24.
FellerI.‘Issues for the HE sector — lessons from US experience with collaboration’, Symposium on the True Price of Collaborative Research, Royal Society, London, 22 January 1991.
25.
BokDerek, Universities and the Future of America, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1990.
26.
RelmanA.S., New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 320, 1989, p 933.
27.
TaskerM.E.PackhamD.E., ‘Freedom, funding and the future of universities’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 15, 1990, p 181.
28.
Ministry of Defence Annex A to form CB/RAE2b/6, revised August 1991.
29.
WengerC.The Research Relationship, Allen & Unwin, London, 1987.
30.
Ibid.
31.
GlantzS.A., Times Higher Education Supplement, 6 September 1996, p 15; The Cigarette Papers, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1996 (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/cigpapers).
32.
Op cit, Ref 22.
33.
BokD.‘Business and the academy’, Harvard Magazine, May-June 1981, p 23.
34.
RelmanA.S.‘Dealing with conflicts of interest’, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 310, 1984, p 1182; ElliottJ., ‘Towards a code of practice for funded educational research’, Research Intelligence, February 1989, p 14; MartinoJ.P., ‘The role of university research institutes in technology transfer’, Industry & Higher Education, Vol 10, No 5, October 1996, p 317.
35.
Sponsored University Research: Recommendations and Guidance on Contract Issues, CCVP, June 1992.
36.
Fitz-GibbonC.FurlongJ.MurphyR., Educational Research Contracts: a Survey, School of Education, University of Nottingham, April 1991; Official Report of the House of Lords, cols pp. 942–960, 17 October 1988, debate on the Health and Medicines Bill; PettigrewM., ‘Coming to terms with research: the contract business, in methodological and ethical issues associated with research into the Education Reform Act’, ESRC Seminar, Warwick, 5 May 1993, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia, Norwich, 1993; PettigrewM., and NorrisN., Expand and Contract — the Conditions of Government Sponsored Social Research, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia, Norwich, 1993.
