By Simpson
4-15-2007
Proponents of the plan to have BP fund an alternate energy research institute at UC Berkeley squared off in the San Francisco Chronicle opinion pages against those who think the university is selling out to corporate interests. Who do you trust about the dangers of Big Oil U?
Robert J. Birgeneau, UC Berkeley Chancellor, and Steve Chu, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Director write “In these partnerships, universities must protect the academic integrity of faculty.” They continue:
“The terms of the partnership must be based on fundamental principles that allow for open and timely dissemination of research results. Agreements must respect our primary commitment to the education of our students, and support our ability to make research results available for public benefit in a diligent and timely manner.”
I couldn’t agree more. I’d also add that the agreement also needs to guarantee that BP would not be able to use the $500 million deal – peanuts to a Big Oil firm – to greenwash its image in a PR campaign that rides on Berkeley’s good name. The problem with what the two physicists write is that rather than specifying how the agreement governing the Energy Biosciences Institute will ensure that laudable goal, they say, in essence, ‘just trust us, everything will be fine.’ Or, in their own words:
“The contract with BP for the EBI, which is being drafted for approval this summer, will meet these requirements.” Right, and the check is in the mail…
So far administration’s handling of the deal has not demonstrated anything to engender trust. For instance, only last week it became clear that the administration had been holding back key documents after claiming it had made them public. The missing pages were released after a student group, StopBP-Berkeley, filed a Public Records Act request.
Birgeneau and Chu cite Big Oil deals at Stanford, UC Davis and the University of Iowa to justify their attempt to join the ranks of Big Oil U. As my mother always said, two wrongs don’t make a right. Frankly, the ExxonMobil deal at Stanford is exactly what cannot be allowed to happen at UC Berkeley.
Fortunately the Chronicle opted not to leave the view from the ivory tower unchallenged. Al Meyerhoff in his article “Science for sale at UC Berkeley — also known as ‘UCBP’” gives what I’d say is an accurate portrayal of the dangers of the $500 million proposal. He writes:
“Actually, if approved, this deal is the most egregious example of ‘science for sale’ at most American universities. Through such arrangements, corporations are able to leverage far greater amounts of public funds to accomplish their commercial research agenda. In a very real sense, the university becomes the lab of the company. Taxpayer-funded scientists (and most importantly graduate students) do their bidding, and the results receive the university’s Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval…”
“The BP deal takes this "deal with the devil" one step further. In a break from the past, universities now usually at least hold onto the intellectual property rights to publicly funded research. And they license their results to more than one company. Not this time. BP will actually co-own, and may even get exclusive rights to, licenses underwritten by your tax dollar. BP then will likely charge you monopoly prices for products developed with your nickel.”
Read both articles and decide what you think. I guess it’s clear where I come down.