BY MARK SHWARTZ

It's a familiar story in higher education: A professor with a novel idea teams up with a corporate sponsor, and together they launch a commercial enterprise licensed by the university. Such arrangements are designed to encourage the transfer of new technologies from academia to society in a manner that preserves academic integrity while providing commercial benefits to all parties involved.

But without clear policies on technology transfer and relations with private industry, campus administrators may find themselves embroiled in serious ethical conflicts that undermine the very mission of the university.

"Fortunately, Stanford has a set of policies in place that usually helps us avoid these pitfalls," says Pat Jones, professor of biological sciences and vice provost for faculty development.

Jones' comments came during a June 8 Ethics at Noon forum in which she discussed ways to avoid conflicts of interest and commitment when faculty, students or staff enter into for-profit ventures.

"What are the downsides of the increasingly close ties between academia and private industry?" Jones asked. Does it pose a threat to the academic mission? Is it skewing the type of research being done on campus or limiting the amount of time faculty devotes to teaching?

The profit motive brings with it the "potential for what might be called the corruption of academic integrity," Jones observed, and the best way to combat corruption is by being "honest and open about the work we do."

A cornerstone of that philosophy is Stanford's Openness in Research policy, which bans virtually all secret research on campus. Approved by the Faculty Senate in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War in response to concerns about clandestine Defense Department research on campus, the policy states that "the principle of openness in research ­ the principle of freedom of access by all interested persons to the underlying data, to the processes and to the final results of research ­ is one of overriding importance."

The openness policy means that faculty and students cannot prohibit the results of their work from being published ­ a significant policy that has helped strike a balance between Stanford's academic mission and technology transfer.

The university's conflict of interest guidelines also encourage faculty, students, postdoctoral fellows and staff to foster an atmosphere of academic freedom and openness.

While conceding that "conflicts of interest are common and practically unavoidable in a modern research university," faculty guidelines point out that it is wrong for an individual's actions "to be determined by considerations of personal financial gain. Such behavior calls into question the professional objectivity and ethics of the individual, and it also reflects negatively on the university."

To minimize conflicts of interest, Jones said, all university personnel must disclose potentially patentable inventions that result from university work. Ownership of the invention must be assigned to the university, and the inventors ­ defined as anyone who made a significant contribution to the work ­ are limited to sharing a third of the royalties. The remaining two-thirds typically is divided between the department and the school where the faculty member is assigned.

The university takes a different approach on matters of copyright. According to campus policy, copyright remains with the creator unless the work is a work-for-hire, is supported by a direct allocation of funds through the university for the pursuit of a specific project, is commissioned by the university or makes significant use of university resources or personnel.

"Stanford does not claim ownership to pedagogical, scholarly or artistic works, regardless of their form of expression," according to official university policy. "Such works include those of students created in the course of their education, such as dissertations, papers and articles. The University claims no ownership of popular nonfiction, novels, textbooks, poems, musical compositions, unpatentable software or other works of artistic imagination which are not institutional works and did not make significant use of university resources."

Jones pointed out that determining software ownership is a gray area, especially when it comes to materials developed for distance learning.

Conflict of commitment is another area covered by university policy.

"Faculty owe their primary professional allegiance to the university," Jones noted, "and their primary commitment of time and intellectual energy should be directed toward Stanford's teaching and research mission." For that reason, faculty consulting is restricted to one day a week.

Given the large turnover of students and the constant recruitment of new faculty, Jones stressed the importance of campus-wide education on all issues involving technology transfer, copyright and conflicts of interest and commitment.

"We probably can do a better job of disseminating these policies," she concluded, "but it really does come down to the ethics of the individual and your own values."