COMMERCIALIZATION OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH
ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB81160
J u d i t h A.
Science Policy Research Division
T H E L I B R A R Y OF C O N G R E S S
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
MAJOR I S S U E S S Y S T E M
DATE ORIGINATED 10/26/81
DATE UPDATED 07/01/82
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700
Technical discoveries of the past 10 years in the field of molecular
genetics have greatly expanded the horizons of industrial microbiology.
These new techniques provide the framework for the speciality commonly
referred to as genetic engineering. This expertise enables the researcher to
recombine DNA (the hereditary material of the cell) in a very precise manner.
The same techniques can be used to manufacture products which have never been
produced before by bacteria and to manufacture products a t a higher rate and
yield than previously possible. While the controversy concerning the ethical
issues associated with this new biochemical tool seems to have abated
somewhat, a new concern has arisen:
the role of the university i n the
commercialization of genetically engineered products which are developed on
campus. Congress has begun to address whether commercialization will have an
adverse impact on university biomedical research and, if so, whether there
are mechanisms available to protect the interests of the university.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS
The issues associated with the commercialization of university research
recently received public attention due to the announcement by Harvard
University that it was considering the formation of a new biotechnology
company. On Oct. 9 , 1980, President Derek Bok released a "Discussion
Memorandum on Technology Transfer at Harvard University1' to the f a c u l t y . for
its consideration. The memorandum reviewed in general terms the formation of
a new company, in conjunction with a Harvard professor and outside venture
capital, that would make use of patents held by the University.
would have been given a minority share (10%) in the company, and in return
the company would have received the rights to use the University's patents.
The many drawbacks to such a venture were also reviewed. The memorandum drew
extensive criticism, not only from the Harvard faculty but also from the
media and other universiti.es. On Nov. 17, 1980, President Bok announced that
Harvard had decided for a variety of reasons not to become a minority
shareholder in the new biotechnology company.
The more general issue of the relationship between commercialization and
university research, however, is not unprecedented.
Industry and the
academic community have long recognized that they have many mutual research
interests. During the first decades of this century, many liberal arts
colleges were expanded and rapidly transformed into research centers for the
emerging electrical and chemical industries. The financial ties between the
two gradually weakened, however, following World War I1 as government
spending for research on defense, nuclear energy, and medicine increased.
the mid 1950s the Federal Government provided about 55% of the support for
university research. Industrial firms supplied 8% of the funds while the
remaining 37% came from foundations and. State and local governments. By the
late 1960s, the Government's share had expanded to more than 70% while
industry's share fell to under 3%.
Lately, however, the trend appears to be changing:
industry support is
increasing relative t o that of the Federal Government. Private companies are
searching for technological innovations to help offset growing competition
from abroad, falling productivity, and rising energy costs.
also realize that as an adjunct to their own in-house research efforts the
universities are a relatively
inexpensive source 'of new ideas.
duplication of facilities and staff available would be both wasteful
On the other hand, the universities are in need of
funding sources to offset shrinking enrollments, fiscal austerity, and
overall decline in Government support of research.
The desire to lessen the regulations associated with the expenditure of
Federal dollars also influences the universities to increase their reliance
on industrial funding.
The amount of time spent by researchers in compliance
with Federal regulation has been increasing over the years.
I t has been
estimated that in 1975 the faculty of Harvard University spent 80,000 hours
filling out forms in compliance with Federal regulation.
The amount of time
i s certain to increase with the implementation of Circular A-21
Feb. 26, 1979) from the Office of Management and Budget, Which requires that
each individual scientific investigator inform the Government how he spends
100% of his professional time, even if he is not entirely supported by
Yale University recently (Mar. 22, 1982) declined a $30,000
Federal grant when it decided not to comply with the regulation in circular
An article in Science (1980; 210:
34-37) has estimated that Circular
A-21 would increase the number of forms filed with Washington from 3000 to
8 0 , 0 0 0 in the coming year. The less the dependence on Federal support, the
greater the freedom from Federal regulation.
There are many ways i n which the academic community may participate in the
Perhaps the simplest and most well established i s
to obtain exclusive licenses of university patents.
In general, however,
molecular biologists have been less active than chemists and engineers in
obtaining patents, perhaps because their w o r k , until recently, has lent
itself less often to commercial applications.
discoveries tended to remain unpatented since the tradition of dedicating
health-related research to the public was generally observed.
Another arrangement i s the research partnership in which one university
and one company work together on a
University/Monsanto arrangement i s an example of such a partnership.
1 9 7 4 , after a year and a half of negotiations, Harvard and Monsanto signed an
agreement that over a period of 1 2 years Monsanto will give the University
$23 million in research support, laboratory space construction, and endowment
In return, Harvard gave Monsanto the patent
rights on TAF
angiogenesis factor), a biological substance which may be involved in the
growth of cancerous tumors.
The agreement was touted a s an original,
imaginative, and precedent setting arrangement.
The research consortium, another collaborative effort, is
It joins a single university with a group of companies
that a r e interested i n a common area of research. The NSF (National Science
Foundation) introduced the idea several years ago and provided the initial
funding for a number of programs.
the leading industry-funded
consortia are the MIT Polymer Processing Program and the Carnegie-Mellon
A less formal version of the research consortium i s the industrial
associates (or affiliates) programs.
These a r e short term arrangements
which university scientists visit companies, listen to their pr.OblemS, and
explore approaches to solving them; these activities lay the groundwork
future cooperative efforts.
Stanford University's biochemistry department,
after rejecting a proposal similar to Harvard's, has decided upon an
industrial affliates program under which companies will give the University
In return the companies will
representatives to a seminar on the department's work, to receive one visit
per year from a faculty member for discussions on the company's research, and
to send a representative to Stanford to discuss this research with the
faculty. Stanford scientists feel that this arrangement allows them to avoid
direct commercial involvement while still seeing that research results reach
the public domain.
The University of Wisconsin runs more than 100 separate
projects of this sort ranging from forestry and fisheries to genetic
On a smaller scale than the industrial affliates/associates programs a r e
the individual arrangements between a single faculty member and a particular
company. These can range from simple consulting contracts to partial
ownership/founder relationships. Herbert Boyer's (University of California,
S.F.) tie with Genentech is an example in the genetic engineering field of a
partial ownership/founder relationship.
A f e w new companies have emerged which attempt to bridge the gap between
the individual researcher or university and private venture capital.
much publicized D N A Science of E.F. Hutton i s one such company. DNA Science
recently (August 1981) underwent a transformation which would enable it to
capitalize on a new tax law, P.L. 97-34, and allow the creation of a series
of tax-advantaged partnerships.
The partnerships will allow the firm's
customers to invest in biotechnology and a t the same time receive substantial
P.L. 97-34, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, allows
among other things a 25% tax credit for 65% of all of a n investor's payments
to universities for basic research.
The new law also permits a larger
deduction for charitable contributions of equipment used in scientific
research. A similar idea has been put forth by University Genetics
Ugen), a private company owned by University Patents. The parent company i s
an established business which patents technologies or inventions developed by
university scientists and then licenses them to commercial concerns.
emerged last October and has since raised over $30 million in capital.
provides a function which allows for private investment in university
research on genetic engineering and related topics.
Public Law 96-517 (the Patent and ' ~ r a d e m a r kAmendment Act of 1980) gave
organizations such a s Ugen a freer hand i n this type of research funding
The law took effect July 1 , 1 9 8 1 , and provides a single
Government-wide policy on the allocation of patent rights resulting from
federally supported research with preferential benefits for universities,
small business firms, and non-profit organizations.
that (with certain exceptions) small businesses, universities, and non-profit
institutions be given preferential title rights to inventions made under
Currently active grants are not affected under P.L.
federally funded R&D.
96-517, but new funding arrangements made after July 1 , 1981, are covered.
Its intent i s to encourage cooperation between universities and industry by
allowing the universities to offer future licenses in exchange for support
even if Federal money i s involved.
Even though commercialization of academic research i s not an entirely new
issue, there has been considerable discussion and controversy over the
entrance of biomedical research into this arena. Recent articles written on
the subject often mention that there are many differences between
commercialization of physics and chemistry and what is now happening in
biomedical research. The following are some of the differences which have
been cited, and perhaps account for this increased controversy.
(1) Commercialization of biological techniques'seems to'have
occurred much faster than previous instances in chemistry
(2) The commercialization experience in biology is thought
to involve a much broader spectrum of expertise in its
participants than was the case previously in chemistry
The new technology involves many individuals
with interests in genetics, biochemistry, cell biology,
microbiology, immunology, development, etc., while
commercialization in the physical sciences frequently
involves only a small number of specialists.
(3) The range of application seems to be much greater than
in the commercialization of discoveries in the physical
The areas of agriculture, medicine, waste
disposal, speciality chemicals, energy, and oil recovery
all have the potential for future innovation by recombinant
DNA techniques and have caught the interest of researchers
and the private capital of industry.
It may also be the case that since this is the first time biology has a
major technology which is saleable, the biologists are merely experiencing
the growing pains that physicists and chemists went through 50 years ago.
Whether or not biology is a case of commercialization distinct from
chemistry and physics, there have been a number of objections raised to its
Foremost is the issue of secrecy, which is frequently
widespread in high1.y competitive fields of even basic research.
scientist will not discuss the results of his work until he is sure that his
methodology and assumptions are correct. The possibility
t.hat a research
discovery may be patented is often cited as a source of secrecy.
patentability may contribute to secrecy over the short term, in the long run
it eliminates the need for secrecy.
the filing date of a patent
application, the information is at that point in the public domain and can
then be used for discussion and noncommercial use by others.
In the scientific community of the university, secrecy can be the source
of friction and conflict. For example, a t Harvard two researchers in the
same department are part owners in different genetic engineering companies:
Walter Gilbert of Biogen, a Swiss-based company, and Mark Ptashne of the
The Harvard proposal mentioned
complicated matters even further if it had been approved, for the faculty
would have included those associated with "Harvard Companyn, those with other
industrial affiliations, and faculty members without commercial
Questions may have been raised as to whether the university administration
would have treated certain faculty members preferentially in terms of space
allocation, hiring, and promotion.
However, a s pointed out in a recent issue
of the New England Journal of Medicine (May 1 4 , 1981, p. 1232),
of preferential treatment
Faculty salaries for an entire research department are
sometimes drawn from grants to individual faculty members.
influence on appointments in a department by individuals who are capable of
bringing with them external funding may be considerable.
As faculty members become increasingly involved with outside companies
(i.e., from consulting arrangements, to part ownership, to company officers),
critics question whether they will be able to remain equally dedicated
campus activities such as teaching undergraduate students and guiding the
research efforts of graduate students.
The development of a new company i s
likely to require much more time than a consulting agreement.
question whether it is wise for graduate students to work on projects related
to their thesis advisor's industrial interests, and whether commercialization
may cause a shift in the nation's research from basic t o applied biomedical
Will graduate students receive a well rounded education if their
graduate school experience is in applied research?
Would they now choose
industry over teaching and basic research?
Would a shift from basic to
applied biomedical research be in the country's best interests?
New biotechnology companies emerge every month, and each seeks t o recruit
the best possible staff. These companies a r e prepared to pay
higher than the academic community.
Thus commercialization is contributing
to the phenomenon known as "brain drain."
One writer has compared it to the
American Indians' being forced to consume their seed corn, and therefore
dooming the fate of the following year's crop (Science, July 1 0 , 1981).
the university faculties are being recruited for industry jobs, who will
remain to teach the next generation of scientists? The Harvard proposal and
companies such a s Ugen and DNA Science were designed to circumvent this
However, the Harvard proposal had problems which
unacceptable to the faculty, and DNA Science has had preliminary troubles in
starting up its new form of investment company.
It remains to be seen
whether companies such as Ugen and DNA Science will have an effect on the
"brain drain" phenomenon.
One of the qualities which university researchers take pride in i s their
the ability to be impartial When making statements on subjects
of public interest.
Recently, however, the credibility of university
scientists associated with industry has fallen into question.
Supreme Court hearing on the patentability of a genetically
microorganism, reference was made t o Walter Gilbert's (Harvard/Biogen)
on the safety of recombinant DNA research.
The United States Solicitor
General argued that because of Dr. Gilbert's involvement with a biotechnology
company, "he i s thus hardly an impartial observer in the debate 'over the
biohazards associated with genetic engineeringw (Science, 1980, 208:688-692).
(Dr. Gilbert has recently announced that he will resign from Harvard a s of
July 1 , 1982, rather than relinquish his position in the company he helped
A final objection, which also was a major topic in a recent
(June 8 , 9 ,
1981) congressional hearing, is whether the American public i s indirectly
funding industry by allowing the commercialization process to continue.
Chairman Albert Gore of the
Investigations has asked if industry is "skimming off the cream produced by
case in point is the Massachusetts
decades of taxpayer funded work."
General Hospital (MGH) arrangement with Hoechst A.G., a West German chemical
and pharmaceutical company. Hoechst agreed to pay MGH $50 million over the
next 1 0 years and in return is receiving the first options rights for
licenses from any projects which the company has funded.
The licenses will
be negotiated on a case by case basis, reflecting the financial contribution
of the company to the specific patent being discussed.
specify what type of work it would like MGH to perform, but i t may refuse to
support specific research projects.
In addition, Hoechst is allowed to send
individuals to MGH for training and consultation with the Hospital's faculty.
The individual scientists at MGH will be allowed to publish when they choose,
provided that hospital authorities are informed in advance. There will also
be no restrictions on collaboration with other scientists.
contract was the subject of a General Accounting Office
a t the request of the House Science and Technology Investigations and
Oversight Subcommittee. The GAO report indicates that it should be possible
for MGH to separate research funded by Hoechst from federally funded
According to the report, however, difficulties may arise when
there i s doubt over whether a patent exploited by Hoechst has been supported
exclusively by the German company.
In addition to the $50 million from
MGH i s reportedly also receiving $15 million from two
philanthropists, Arthur 0. and Gullan M. Wellman, for the construction of
new laboratory facilities.
Massachusetts General Hospital is not the only biomedical research
facility with ties t o industry.
In addition to the funds Harvard is
receiving from Monsanto, Dupont recently announced (June 1981) a $6 million
grant for basic research in molecular genetics.
The research will be
directed by Philip Leder, formerly of NIH, who recently joined the Harvard
Medical School a s chairman of the newly formed Department of Genetics.
grant will be spread over a five year period with a $ 2 million payment in
July 1981 and annual payments of $1 million through 1985.
Some further reported arrangements are as follows:
(1) Phillips Petroleum invested $10 million in a joint venture with
Salk Institute to develop commercial applications of basic research from
(2) The new French biotechnology
company, Transgene, has distributed
equity to the Pasteur Institute in Paris and to the University of Strasbourg.
England's national biotechnology company, Celtech, will be sh sharing its
profits and research results with the Medical Research Council Molecular
Biology Laboratory at Cambridge.
(3) At the University of Wisconsin, two scientists with research interests
in agriculture have formed consulting/partnership
associations with two
biotechnology companies. Winston J. Brill is associated with Cetus, a firm
near San Francisco which is in the process of setting up a Madison,
Hall i s working with Agrigenetics.
(4) Several members of the molecular biology and microbiology
a t Tufts University medical
school have formed a research
partnership separate from the University.
(5) The University of California, Davis signed an agreement with Allied
Chemical for a $2.5 million grant over the next five years.
Valentine, a plant geneticist a t Davis, played an instrumental role in the
contract negotiations which lasted for about two years.
negotiations were taking place, Valentine proceeded
to form a non-profit
institution called Cal Gene which was eventually transformed into Calgene, a
Shortly after the grant negotiations were finalized,
Allied announced that it had purchased a 20% equity interest in Calgene.
avoid possible charges of conflict of interest, Valentine agreed to cease his
A University committee
involvement with the University's $2.5 million grant.
i s in the process of preparing a detailed set of recommendations, to be
released in June, defining University-industry interactions.
(6) Washington University in St. Louis and Mallinckrodt Inc.,
manufacturer, have signed a $3.88 million agreement for genetic research.
The research involves the production
artifically created cells called hybridomas.
Mallinckrodt will have the
option to license results from research it sponsors and will pay royalties to
the University. The scientists will be free to publish
findings and to exchange new cell lines and antibodies with outside
Washington University has also signed a $1.8 million agreement
with Monsanto Corp. to produce monoclonal antibodies.
(7) The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) accepted
gift of $7.5 million and $120 million for the establishment of the Whitehead
Institute for Biological Research.
Nobel laureate David Baltimore will
become the Institute's director while continuing as a professor of Biology at
for both gifts was donated by Edwin C. Whitehead
Connecticut who recently sold Technicon, a company he founded in 1939, to
Revlon for $400 million.
(8) Y a l e University and Celanese Corporation, a chemical manufacturer,
announced the signing of a three-year $1.1 million research contract on Feb.
1 7 , 1982. Celanese is interested in learning how to use naturally occurring
enzymes in the manufacture of chemicals and fabric.
Yale has also formed an
Office of Cooperative Research in an effort to tighten ties between the
University and corporations.
(9) The Alberta Research Council, an agency of Alberta
signed a 4-year, $ 8 million agreement with Biologicals, Inc. for the use of
enzymes in industrial applications. Work on the project will be conducted on
the campus of the University of Alberta in Edmonton.
(10) Dr. Herbert Boyer', director and vice president
genetic engineering company, still retains his faculty
University of California, San Francisco.
of Genentech, a
position a t the
(11) Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, directed by Dr. James Watson, is , i n
the process of setting up a corporation which will help commercialize the
laboratories' scientific discoveries.
separately from the Laboratory.
(12) The University of California at Berkeley, Stanford, and Engenics, a
biotechnology concern, have received financial backing from six major
General Foods Corp.; Bendix Corp.; Elf Technologies unit of
Societe Nationale; Elf Aquitaine; Koppers Corp.;
Power and Paper Co., a subsidiary of Noranda, Mines Ltd.
shares of the research funding will be channeled through a new cooperative
nonprofit center for biotechnology research., The center will hold a 30%
equity share of Engenics and will channel any capital appreciation or stock
dividends from the new company back into basic research a t the two
The universities will cooperate in research with Engenics,
which received $7.5 million from the six corporations.
(13) Johns Hopkins University and Hybritech, a San Diego biotechnology
firm, signed an agreement Feb. 1 2 , 1982, to develop and evaluate radioactive
antibodies for cancer treatment.
Hybritech will provide the antibodies Which
Hopkins' oncology center will use in clinical trials.
(14) The Rockefeller University and Monsanto Co.
1982) a five-year $4 million agreement under which Monsanto will support
basic research in plant molecular biology at the University.
(15) Dupont and the University of Maryland have an
interferon in Bacillus subtilis, a non-pathogenic soil bacterium.
(16) FMC Corporation has given (June 1981) Frederick M. Ausubel of Harvard
University $190,000 for each of the next 3 years for research on nitrogen
fixation in plants.
(17) A.M. Chakrabarty of the University of Illinois has agreed to a 2-year
Contract with Petrogen for the development of genetically engineered bacteria
for enhanced oil recovery.
(18) Monsanto Co. and Washington University announced on June 3 , 1982, a
$23.5 million 5-year biomedical research contract for study of the breakdown
of genetic functions and cell communication associated with several diseases.
Universities are beginning to set up their own conflict-of-interest-rules.
The University of California, Davis, mentioned above, is one example.
late September 1981, the faculty council of Harvard University agreed to
recommend to the full faculty a new set of procedures which would establish
the "Faculty Committee on Conflicts of Interest." If adopted, the new rules
would require that faculty members notify the Conflicts of Interest Committee
about any outside commitments. The rules would also limit such commitments
to 20% of the faculty member's time.
Stanford University already has a
formal set of guidelines due to its faculty's involvement with
However, Stanford i s in the process of developing
new proposals to tighten up the existing guidelines.
In addition, on Mar.
27, 1982, the presidents of five leading U.S. universities (Stanford, Harvard
MIT, California Institute of Technology, and the University of California
system) attended a conference in Watsonville, California, with scientists and
business leaders on the commercial use of university scientific research.
The conference produced a 10-page statement containing recommendations for
universities that have recently
Meanwhile, the House Science and Technology Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee has asked the National Academy
of Scien.ces and the American
Association of Universities to draft a code of ethics for financial
arrangements between universities and industry.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Allows, among other things, a 25%
tax credit for 65% of all a firm's payments to universities to perform
research. Also permits a larger deduction for charitable contributions of
equipment used in scientific research.
Introduced July 23, 1981.
House July 29, Senate July 31. Signed into law Aug. 1 3 , 1981.
Amends the patent law to extend the term of patents which encompass
specified products over a method for using a product any of which are subject
to certain nonpatent regulatory review periods.
Introduced Feb. 1 8 , 1981;
referred to Committee on Judiciary.
Amends the Small Business Act to require Federal agencies to
small business innovation research
1981; referred to Committee on Small Business.
Reported with amendment
(H.Rept. 97-349) N O V . 20, 1981. Referred sequentially t o several committees.
Passed House, amended, June 23, 1982. Measure laid on table in House; S. 8 8 1
passed in lieu June 2 3 , 1982.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the authorities
under that Act relating to national research institutes.
Also, requests a
report from the Institute of Medicine on the effects of commercialization on
Introduced Mar. 22, 1982; referred to Committee o n
Energy and Commerce.
S. 255 (Mathias et al.)
Amends the patent law to extend the terms of patents which encompass
specified products or a method of using a product, any of which are subject
to certain nonpatent regulatory review periods.
referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Reported (S.Rept. 97-138) June 1 6 ,
1981; passed Senate amended July 9 , 1981; referred to House Committee on the
Judiciary July 1 3 , 1981.
S. 881 (Rudman et al.)
Amends the Small Business Act to require Federal agencies to establish
Introduced Apr. 7, 1981;
small business innovation research (SBIR) programs.
referred to Committee on Small Business. Reported with amendment
97-194) Sept. 25, 1981; passed Senate Dec. 8, 1981. Passed House, amended,
in lieu of H.R. 4326 June 23, 1982.
House. Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.
Innovation Development Act, H.R. 4326.
Hearings, 97th Congress, 2nd session.
Feb. 2 , 1982.
(not yet printed)
Committee on the Judiciary.
on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice.
Patent Term Restoration Act, S. 255 and H.R. 1937.
Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session. July 22; Sept. 30;
Oct. 1 , 7; Nov. 5 , 1 2 , 1 8 , 1981.
(not yet printed)
Committee on Science and Technology.
Small Business Innovation Development Act, H.R. 4326.
Hearings, 97th Congress, 2nd session. Jan. 26-28, 1982.
(not yet printed)
Committee on Science and Technology.
Investigations and Oversight.
Subcommittee on Science, Research
and Technology. University/industry cooperation in biotechnology.
Hearings, 97.th Congress, 2d session.
June 1 6 and 1 7 , 1982.
(not yet printed)
Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology.
Subcommittee o n Investigations and Oversight.
on Science, Research and Technology.
academic biomedical research.
Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session. June 8 and 9 , 1981.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 166 p.
Senate. Committee on Small Business.
on Innovation and Technology.
Small Business Innovation
Research Act, S.881.
Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session.
July 15-16, 1981.
(not yet printed)
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care.
Business Innovation Development Act, H.R. 4326.
Hearings, 97th Congress, 2nd session. Jan. 27, 1982.
(not yet printed)
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
The presidents of five leading U.S. universities
(Stanford, Harvard, MIT, California Institute of
Technology, and the University of California system)
attended a conference in Watsonville, California,
with scientists and business leaders on the commercial
use of university scientific research.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) held a session entitled wCommercial Genetic
Impacts on Universities and Nonprofit
The General Accounting Office published a legal
analysis of the research contract between
Massachusetts General Hospital and Hoechst A.G.,
a West German chemical company.
H.R. 4242, the Economic Recovery Tax Act, was signed
into law (P.L. 97-34).
Allows tax credits for basic
gifts of $7.5
Institute of Technology (MIT) accepted
million and $120 million from E.C.
the establishment of the Whitehead
The editorial "The fate of the seed c o r n m appeared i n
Highlighted the impact of losing experienced
university professors to the biotechnology industry.
Dupont announced a $6 million grant to Harvard Medical
School in support of basic research in molecular
House Science and Technology Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on
Science, Research and Technology held hearings on the
"Commercialization of Academic Biomedical Research."
The advisory committee to the director of NIH held a
meeting which discussed whether the quality of basic
research is compromised by industrial support.
The West German Chemical f i r m , Hoechst A.G., announced
a $50 million grant to Massachusetts General Hospital
to support basic research in molecular genetics.
H.R. 6933, the Patent and Trademark Amendment
Act was enacted (P.L. 96-517), providing a new policy for the
allocation of patent rights resulting from
Harvard President Derek Bok announced that Harvard
University would not become involved in a new
genetic engineering company.
Monsanto announced a $25 million grant to Harvard
University in support of investigations in molecular
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
Pursuit of knowledge and of profit clash over DNA
BioScience, July/August 1981:
Bok, Derek C. Business and the academy.
Bromley, D. Allan.
The fate of the seed corn.
Science, July 1 0 ,
Culliton, Barbara J. Harvard and Monsanto:
Science, Feb. 25, 1977:
Biomedical research enters the marketplace.
England journal of medicine.
May 1 4 , 1981: 1195-1201.
Davis, Bernard D.
Profit sharing between professors and the
The New England journal of medicine.
May 1 4 ,
Conflict of interest on California campus:
scientist Steps away from grant.
Nature, Oct. 8, 1981:
Fox, Jeffrey L.
Can academia adapt to biotechnologyls lure?
Chemical and engineering news.
Oct. 1 2 , 1981:
Biology loses her virginity.
Dec. 1 8 ,
Academic science for sale.
July 1 6 , 1981:
Harvard backs off recombinant DNA.
Dec. 4, 1980:
House panel examines
Hoechst makes deal with Mass General.
June 1 8 , 1981:
N&w company could turn academics into
New scientists. May 2 8 , 1981:
Kiefer, David M.
Forging new and stronger links between
university and industrial scientists. Chemical and
Dec. 8 , 1980:
Murray, Thomas J.
Industry's new college connection.
Business goes back to
Nobel, David F. and Nancy E. Pfund.
college. The Nation.
Sept. 20, 1980:
ROark, Anne C. Academic ties face challenge.
Dec. 23, 1981: p. 1 , 22.
Los Angeles T i m e s ,
Tenner, Edward. The laboratory a s profit center.
General Accounting Office. Report to Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
Committee on Science and Technology. U.S. House of
Legal analysis of a contract signed in
May 1981 between Massachusetts General Hospital and Hoechst
Chemical Company of West Germany.
Oct. 1 6 , 1981. 9 p.
Document no. B-204687
Library of Congress.
Congressional Research Service.
Recombinant DNA molecule research [by] Vikki A . Zegel and
James M. McCullough.
Archived Issue Brief 77024.
Yanchinski, Stephanie. Deafening silence from genetic engineers
about commercial threats.
New scientist. Oct. 1 , 1981:
Universities take to the market place.
Dec. 3, 1981: