2008 Woodie Awards
Drew declares independence from corporate influence
Erica Varlese
- Page 1 of 1
Universities are being warned not to bite the hand that funds them.
Fortunately, this is not the case for Drew University. Out of an endowment of approximately 200 million dollars, Director of Corporate, Foundation, and Government Relations Kenneth Alexo said, corporate support comes in at 1 to 1.5 million dollars per year, consisting largely of corporate foundation grants.
When asked, "On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate the amount of corporate influence at Drew?" Alexo concluded at number one. "It's not something we've aggressively pursued in the past," Chief Communications Officer David Muha said.
According to an article titled "Higher Education: Social Institution or Business?" by P.A. Lamal, a professor of Psychology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, "A fundamental transformation underlying, and responsible for, many of the changing practices [in the academic world] is the movement towards the corporatization of higher education." This means that universities are beginning to adopt the practices of big business to better meet the demands of a changing world and issues of funding. Despite mounting debate, Drew remains largely outside of the cause for concern.
"The fact is there are real pressures on schools because the state has pulled back funding," Muha said. Consequently, the question universities must ask themselves now is from what sources they should request alternate funding. Provost Pamela Gunter-Smith echoed this sentiment. "It's very difficult to single-handedly supply the resources that our students need. The reality is the money we have cannot stretch that far."
Both Gunter-Smith and University President Bob Weisbuch profess a desire to have more corporate funding, though Gunter-Smith warns against direct sponsorship. She emphasized the idea of "partnerships" between Drew and corporations, particularly pharmaceutical companies in the area.
"Wouldn't it be good to have partners to talk about where they see a certain field going? If we're not translating what students are learning on campus to the real world, then we're doing them a disservice," Gunter-Smith said.
"A lot of academics will talk about the big, bad corporations," Weisbuch said. "But it's naive to think we exist apart from specific social and economic systems." While many intellectuals cite the corporatization of higher education as inherently detrimental to society, such as Kristin Jensen in her article in Sojourners Magazine, "Degrees of Influence," there do exist benefits to the incorporation of businesses into the academic realm.
Two examples are Drew's Healthy Transitions programs, funded by a grant from pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis, and a research project funded by the Merck Institute for Scientific Education in the chemistry and biology departments.
Kathy Werheim, coordinator of the Aventis Wellness Program Initiatives, something Drewids know better as Healthy Transitions, sponsor of the Tea and Talk Series, said she hasn't seen any negatives in her experience with Sanofi-Aventis and the institution of her intiative. "There were no programs for students on campus where they could learn healthy behaviors that they could take with them. Sanofi-Aventis was looking for a program like this, something that other universities could use as well," she said.
The only direct connection Healthy Transitions has to Sanofi-Aventis, apart from the appearance of the pharmaceutical company's logo on Healthy Transitions mailings and posters, is a yearly report with the purpose of ensuring that the grant money is indeed being used for what it was intended, Werheim said. Her concern, however, lies in dependency issues. With the end of the grant approaching, she wonders what will happen to her initiative. "It's okay to start a program with grant money, but at some point the university needs to take ownership."
Professor of Biology Christina McKittrick is one of a few professors benefiting from a grant from the Merck Institute for Scientific Education. "Professor Stephen Dunaway approached me about testing how a cancer drug he was developing affected animals-particularly brain cancers," McKittrick said. "The grant allowed us to expand our project to incorporate a variety of different models for testing."
The grant has two goals, she said. The first is to increase the opportunity for undergraduate students to engage in research, and the second includes an increase in the collaboration between the biology and chemistry departments.
The grant, McKittrick explained, has allowed the science department to host lectures and real-life study opportunities for students, particularly through the Drew Summer Sciences Institute program and research with Dunaway.
As with the Sanofi-Aventis grant, McKittrick and her peers provide Merck with an annual report detailing the progress of the initiative, but otherwise there is no connection to the company. This is a rarity-most schools receive funding from corporations in the science and business departments, as exemplified in an article in Business News detailing a new program funded and largely created by IBM at North Carolina State University.
The reason for this, Alexo said, is that "to sell a liberal arts education to the business world is much more difficult than Stevens University asking for funding for a program that would directly help a pharmaceutical corporation."
Despite her independent status, McKittrick recognizes the dangers a university might face when approached by pharmaceutical companies asking them to test their specific products. "It's a tough call because research funding from the government has been flat-meaning, considering inflation, it's declining," she said. "But if you can strike a deal with a company where you feel you have autonomy and can work ethically, then corporate-academic partnerships can be productive."
While Drew remains relatively free from corporate influence-as Director of University Purchasing Harry Scarpa put it, "I don't see too many corporations with their names on the side of our buildings"-a new Office of Sponsored Research would put Drew in contact with more big business. Gunter-Smith isn't worried. "Education drives the funding that it seeks, funding doesn't drive the program," she said. "When you think about partnerships, they need to be crafted in such a way that it supports the institution." Furthermore, she said, will be seeking funding from government agencies and foundations more than corporations themselves.
The University is aware of the issue at large. However, the fact is that there is an agreement amongst the Drew community that this is an institution with a particular mission statement that no one would sell out. "We're not going to compromise the University to fill our purses," Alexo said.
Even in contractual relations between Drew and corporations such as dining service providers, Scarpa has seen very little corporate influence exerted on campus, apart from the product they're selling. "Before companies come to Drew, we tell them what they're allowed to do. We put the control in early," he said, explaining that there are committees that must approve every action a corporation takes on campus. A big difference in comparison to Lehigh University, where Scarpa worked previously. "It worked more like a department than a vendor," he said. "Drew is very strict, it keeps the influence minimal."
Weisbuch understands that the main cause of concern for most academics is the question of where to draw the line. "Some of the calls are difficult rather than ethically obvious," he said. Muha expressed similar sentiments. "There is a tradition of independence in academia, and partnering and sponsorships can raise the question that the line is being blurred," he said.
In terms of science, McKittrick explains, "When researching, the important thing is to have full disclosure of all funding sources-most journals require that." Furthermore, she said, objectivity is an crucial factor in the validity of scientific research.
"It is a question of when does the tail wag the dog. When do you lose your validity as a university?" Weisbuch said. Yet, he worries that in a small, intellectual community like Drew, there is a risk of ignoring the outside world-a great disadvantage to any student. He said, "There is a danger at an institution like ours of becoming too ingrown rather than prostituting ourselves to big business."