Faculty Senate minutes - May 17, 2007 meeting
THIRTY-NINth SENATE
Report No. 12
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, MAY 31
At its meeting on Thursday, May 17, 2007, the Thirty-ninth Senate of the Academic Council continued the discussion on Principles of Research Policy and Tobacco Research Funding and voted 10 to 21 against the resolution.
.
EDWARD D. HARRIS Academic Secretary to the University Minutes, MAY 31 I. Call to OrderThere was a buzz of expectation today as senators arrived from their labs, classrooms, and offices. The Academic Secretary demonstrated the timing device planned for the Unfinished Business section of the meeting - a mixing bowl beaten with a wooden spoon. The President noted, "The last time somebody banged a pan like that was to tell me that there was a strike going on and I had to leave the building." That comment, and Professor Sheppard's gavel, brought quiet.
II. Approval of Minutes - (SenD#5955)May 3, 2007 meeting of Senate 39 (SenD#5969). These, distributed by e-mail and available at http://facultysenate.stanford.edu were approved as submitted.
III. Action CalendarA. Memorial Resolutions:
Elie Abel (1920-2004) (SenD#5969)
Professor Sheppard was pleased to welcome Professor Henry Breitrose to come forward and present a brief memorial statement in honor of his colleague Elie Abel, Professor of Communication in the School of Humanities & Sciences.
Professor Brietrose began, Elie Abel, emeritus professor of communication, died in Rockville, Maryland, on June 22nd, 2004, at age 83. One of the great journalists of his time, he went on to be the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, chair of the Department of Communication at Stanford, and chair of Stanford's Faculty Senate in 1985-86.
He authored an array of significant books on contemporary history and politics, of which "The Missile Crisis: The First Full Account of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962," was probably the best known. He shared a Pulitzer prize with New York Times colleagues for reporting of the Hungarian revolution. He received the George Foster Peabody award for radio journalism, two Overseas Press Club awards and the grand prize for Press Freedom from the Inter-American Press Association for his efforts in blocking UNESCO from requiring the licensing of journalists.
Elie was a great reporter and administrator and a treasured colleague.
Madam Chair, I have the honor on behalf of a committee consisting of Marion Lewenstein and myself to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a statement in memory of the late Elie Abel, professor emeritus of communication in the School of Humanities & Sciences.
Professor Sheppard thanked Professor Breitrose, and asked the Senate and guests to stand for a moment of silence.
Benjamin Paul (1911-2005) (SenD#5960)
Sheppard was then pleased to welcome Professor emerita Jane Collier to come forward and present a brief memorial statement in honor of her colleague, Benjamin David Paul, Professor of Anthropology in the School of Humanities & Sciences.
Professor Collier read the following: Benjamin David Paul, Professor of Anthropology and chair of the Anthropology Department from 1967 to 1971, died in Atlanta, Georgia, on May 24th, 2005, at the age of 94.
Ben Paul was one of the founders of medical anthropology, and his influential books and articles explored how the cultural positions of target populations affected the success or failure of public health initiatives. He also pioneered teaching programs at Stanford and Harvard designed to introduce medical students to methods used by social scientists.
While chairing the Department of Anthropology, he oversaw its growth from a small department to one of the top ten in the nation. At the same time, he obtained national funding for graduate education that enabled doctoral candidates to visit potential field sites before writing dissertation proposals, thus greatly improving their chances of obtaining grant support. In 1994, the American Anthropological Association awarded Ben Paul its Distinguished Service Award. The people of San Pedro de Laguna in Guatemala, where Ben Paul had conducted many years of anthropological field research, honored Ben and his wife Lois by naming a local school in their honor.
Madam Chair, I have the honor on behalf of a committee consisting of Sylvia Yanagisako and myself to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late Benjamin David Paul, Professor of anthropology in the School of Humanities & Sciences.
Professor Sheppard thanked Professor Collier, and the Senate stood for a moment of silence.
IV. Other ReportsA. Steering Committee
Professor Sheppard began by congratulating two of our fellow senators who were among the recent new members elected to the National Academy of Sciences. "Congratulations," she said enthusiastically, "to Professors Steven Block and Karen Cook." Block beamed with appreciative thanks from his seat in the front row. Karen Cook, who has been a superb contributor to the Steering Committee this year, was out of town.
After the applause had subsided, Professor Sheppard continued. "I'd also like to thank Dean Pizzo and senator David Stevenson on behalf of the entire Senate for coordinating a fantastic set of tours of the Medical School at our last meeting. We toured the Stanford Cancer Center, the Goodman Simulation Center, the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and the small animal Imaging Center. I am reassured that we're fortunate to be in good medical hands. I also want to thank Kathy Gillam for coordinating all the details. So…. Thanks!"
Next came the announcements about the elections for Senate 40 chair, the Steering Committee for Senate 40, and the Advisory Board. She said, "I'm pleased to announce that Eammon Callan from the School of Education will chair the 40th Senate, and current fellow senator David Stevenson from Pediatrics will serve as vice chair. Other members of the Steering Committee are Lawrence Bobo from Sociology, Al Camarillo from History, Hazel Markus from Psychology, Bob Simoni from Biological Sciences (here for his umteenth tour of duty on the faculty senate), and Debra Satz from Philosophy.
"The results from the Advisory Board elections also have been verified by the Committee of Tellers and appeared in yesterday's Stanford Report. The three new members are Karen Cook, Thomas Wasow, and Persis Drell.
"We have two remaining Senate meetings. At our next meeting, on the 31st of May, we'll hear the Provost present his annual budget report. We'll also hear highlights from the university architect on the near future and the 20-year building plan, and the chair of the Committee on Libraries will present highlights from its annual report. We'll also have two brief presentations from two ASSU representatives on what student government has been thinking about and doing this year.
"In our final meeting, which is June 14th, we'll have a report from John Bravman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, and you'll also hear the annual report from the emeriti council. Following that meeting, at 4:30, President Hennessy will host a reception at the Faculty Club for members of Senate 39, Senate 40, chairs of the committees of the Academic Council, and members of the Board of Trustees."
B. Report from the President
After mentioning that he would have two important announcements during the Academic Council meeting he paused, and looking in the general direction of John Etchemendy, said, "No doubt you noticed that the Provost's e-mail last night to the Senate was sent at 12:20 a.m. I want you to know that he labored for several hours on the night of his birthday to send out this message! This is a degree of dedication which we should all be both appreciative and envious of." The senators erupted with applause and laughter, and scattered cries of "Happy birthday!" for the Provost, who, somehow, did not look sleep-deprived.
C. Report from the Provost
Professor Etchemendy had "…two wonderful announcements. First of all, as you know, and this is not the wonderful part as I know, Ted Harris is retiring this summer from his job as Academic Secretary. Ted is Professor emeritus in the Department of Medicine, and he has done such a wonderful job that the search committee has found a replacement who is yet another emeritus professor in the Department of Medicine. I'm pleased to announce that Dr. Rex Jamison has agreed to be the next Academic Secretary."
Dr. Jamison had been invited as a guest to the meeting, and was gracious in acknowledging the applause sent in his direction. The Provost continued. "Let me tell you a little bit about Rex. He came to Stanford in 1971 as co-chief of the Division of Nephrology. He left briefly to chair a department elsewhere and returned at the invitation of Dr. Harris, who was chair of Medicine in 1990 and has been here since, working principally at the Palo Alto Veterans Administration hospital and directing a number of special projects there. He retired in 2003, but he was called to active duty to teach in the Medical School every year since then. In addition to his service on the Senate in the mid-'80s, he's been an active member of several University committees, among them being the Committee on Research, CAAA, the Rhodes / Marshall Panel, as well as many other committees and activities in the School of Medicine. Rex says that he's looking forward to working with us on the challenges of the new position. And I'm looking forward to working with Rex.
"I would like to thank Rob Polhemus and Stephanie Kalfayan, who were the search committee for this position. And, finally, I want to thank, once again, Ted Harris, for his able service on the Senate for the last five years and to the University for the past 19 years."
The Academic Secretary was very pleased at this from the Provost whom he respects so much, and was very surprised and pleased to hear that his successor would be Rex Jamison. For the record, Rex was his assistant resident when he (Ted) was an intern at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1962-63. This was (listen up, young people!) in the days of the iron men…when interns and assistant residents were on duty in the hospital every-other-night and every-other-weekend taking care of very sick patients. It was hard, sure, but there was a definite ethic of continuity of care, and doctors knew their patients well, and the patients trusted the residents thoroughly. In return for the abusive schedule, the MGH house staff (a.k.a. residents) in internal medicine were given recognition for being selected and surviving the program, among the most competitive in the country; the MGH cachet opened doors for the best of post-doctoral research fellowships, including entry to the Public Health Service at NIH…a better alternative for military service than going off to Vietnam, because a 'doctor draft' existed then. Rex Jamison took on the challenge of figuring out how the countercurrent process in the renal tubules enabled the body to concentrate urine (a very necessary process for survival of mammals in California) and his research was recognized by many awards and continuous NIH funding. He is still a clinical investigator (ask him about homocysteine), has a sparkling sense of humor and a strong ethical base. Rex, then and now, has been a knowledgeable and sensitive teacher and caring physician, a wonderful role model.
Provost Etchemendy continued, "I'm also delighted to announce that Pam Matson has agreed to serve another term as Dean in the School of Earth Sciences. Pam has not only brought great vision to her leadership of the school, but has been an integral part of the University initiatives as a part of the Stanford Challenge. At the moment, she is giving a lecture to an alumni group elsewhere in the country, so she can't be here today. Nonetheless, in absentia, I hope you will all join me in thanking Pam for what she's already done and for the next five years." There was applause, and Professor Matson would have felt warmed by it.
V. Unfinished BusinessA. Continued discussion on motion regarding the Principles of Research policy and Tobacco Research Funding
This was the first time in five years (or more) that there not only was "unfinished business" but important unfinished business as well. Professor Sheppard began this part of the meeting with the following. "This comes from your April 19th meeting when the Committee on Research brought to the Senate for discussion the Principles Concerning Research policy [Research Policy Handbook 2.1] and a resolution from three faculty members regarding tobacco research funding. During the discussion, senator Hank Greely made a motion, seconded by senator Russell Fernald, to put the resolution on the floor. At the end of the meeting, there was not a quorum of the Senate present. Therefore, no vote was taken on the motion, and it has been carried over to today's meeting. The motion, moved by Senator Greely and seconded by Senator Fernald is:
Stanford University will not enter into sponsored research agreements with companies that make or market tobacco products. In addition, Stanford University will not enter into such research agreements with entities controlled by such companies, where those entities fund research on tobacco-related diseases, alternative causes of such diseases, of the uses and effects of tobacco, tobacco products, or their components.
"Included in your packets was a link to a Web site where a large number of documents related to the Principles Concerning Research tobacco funding ban were posted, including a cover memo from Professor Bernd Girod (chair of C-Res) describing the resolution forwarded by the Committee on Research and the current Principles Concerning Research policy. Because our time today is limited, I am laying out a plan for how to proceed. All senators have had an opportunity to read the excerpt of the minutes from April 19th that were in your packets for today's meeting and to view several documents that are posted on the Web site."
The motion (above) was imaged upon the screen attached to a laptop computer so that, if an amendment was placed on the floor, something that altered but did not destroy the original, the changes (using the Tracking tool) could be visible to all.
"The plan," continued Professor Sheppard, "is to have 30 minutes of discussion, with each participant limited to one minute. Because of the tight time limits, only senators will be recognized to speak today. At the close of the discussion, the possible outcomes are: one, to put the motion to a vote; two, to postpone the motion either indefinitely or to a definite time and place; or third, to table the motion. In any case, we need to close the discussion by 4:10, because we have another event to get to by 4:30, the annual meeting of the Academic Council.
"Invited to hear the discussion today are members of the Committee on Research and several additional guests. Among them are Robert Proctor, Professor of History; Robert Jackler, Professor of Medicine; John Cooke, Professor of cardiovascular Medicine; and Lynn Orr, Professor of Petroleum Engineering and director of the Global Climate and Energy Project."
Points of Order
During the subsequent discussion, several points of order were raised, and can be described in batch form here.
1. Dean Kramer, bothered by the time limitation on speaking, felt that it "…is an insane way to have a conversation, where everybody gets this 60 seconds to, like, squeeze in a couple of points very quickly. It seems to me we should take as much time as we need, and if it takes more than one meeting, so be it!" [He, perhaps, was longing for oratory such as Daniel Webster used in the Dartmouth College case in 1818].
Professor Horowitz followed up on this. "Is there a reason that we have to decide it at this meeting?" Professor Sheppard replied that, "We don't have agenda space on any other Senate meetings this year. We would probably have to schedule a special meeting."
"Given the importance of this debate," asked Professor Fernald, "doesn't it make sense to make room for this in a way that can allow arguments to unfold?"
Professor Hank Greely offered that Senators had prepared 1-minute statements, so going to longer speaking periods seemed unreasonable at this point. With the support of Russell Berman, also on the Steering Committee, Professor Sheppard expressed the conviction that it was more important to have each senator who wished to speak to have that opportunity, that the discussion would proceed as planned unless a motion to postpone or table the resolution was put forth. No one did that in the silence that followed.
2. Professor Horowitz had some concerns about the voting procedure. After accepting the reality that the vote on the resolutions would be determined by a majority of the quorum present, he made the point that if the Senate were to pass a resolution that affected the entire Academic Council, it should at least be by a two-thirds majority. It was agreed that this was a good point, but for it to happen in the Senate it would require a change in the Senate Charter.
3. Professor Bender wanted to support a new motion that Professor Baker had composed. He was reminded that in order to present a new motion, the one on the floor would have to be disposed of in one of the ways mentioned by Professor Sheppard. The alternative was to move an amendment to the present motion, one that would fit with the original intent of the motion. Baker and Bender nodded in acquiescence.
Discussion
Professor Sheppard said, "I think we'll start by asking Dean Arvin whether she has any additional comments from her vantage point as Dean of Research."
Dean Arvin said, "I really would like to emphasize that this proposed resolution represents a major change in our research policy at Stanford. Our existing policy [RPH: Principles Concerning Research] is a critical protection of academic freedom, because faculty in many fields cannot pursue research goals when sources of funding are limited. At the same time, the policy requires that individual faculty accept responsibility for evaluating the sources of their research funding. This proposed resolution on the table today should be recognized as substituting a collective judgment for the trust in individual conscience that we have relied upon since this policy was written in 1971.
"Second, for those who don't do much sponsored research and may not know our procedures, our research contracts explicitly prohibit any interference with independence of the investigator or any use of the Stanford name for promotional purposes. The research agreements that we have had from tobacco foundations support basic open-ended inquiry, consistent with the requirements of the court-imposed Master Settlement agreement of 1998. The work that has been funded through these agreements at Stanford does not support the tobacco industry or its efforts to promote the use of tobacco."
Professor Block rose to "…speak out in favor of the proposal. I wish everybody in the Senate had seen the comedy film 'Thank You for Not Smoking'. The film provides an interesting perspective on this motion. I'd also like to thank Hank Greely for putting something before the Senate that brings senators to the meeting and makes this an exciting time to come to the Senate meetings.
"I must ask these questions: Are there any circumstances under which the University would divest itself of using its funds in support of anything? And are there any circumstances under which the University would not accept funds in return from someone else? The University has already decided 'yes' to the first question. There are circumstances in which we would not spend money, our money, to support another institution and it seems very hypocritical if we're willing to take money from that same institution. That issue of hypocrisy is part of my reason for supporting this measure."
Professor Burchat said, "I'd like to just make two short comments. One is that I think that anyone who has looked into how the tobacco industry can affect outcomes would realize that it's probably impossible for us to overestimate how they can take what we're doing in a positive way and give it a negative spin. One example is the antismoking campaigns that they have devised that have been shown to increase the rate of smoking among youth. Second, on the 'slippery slope' issue, that if other industries are brought forward for us to consider in terms of industrial funding of research, and one of these industries has been shown to be guilty of racketeering under RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 - passed with the intent of prosecuting the Mafia] and have done things that have led to harm of the human population on a mass global scale…then I would support a vigorous discussion of whether we should accept funding from that company."
Professor Fire reported on "a little experiment. I polled colleagues in the Pathology department about their opinions on this. The results confirmed the idea that this is an issue where reasonable people could disagree reasonably, but there was fairly strong support in numbers and also in intensity of response for the ban on tobacco-funded research, primarily because of the reasons brought up just now, which is that, basically, this research is very carefully and very effectively used by the tobacco companies as part of a detailed and very effective way to increase the amount of smoking [There's nothing like doing autopsies for being impressed with the dangers of smoking…]. This whole process demonstrates that a very small amount of disinformation can be very effectively injected into the public debate, particularly for teenagers who are thinking about smoking, to confuse things sufficiently that they will change their view of the scientific evidence, which is very strong."
Professor Rehm wanted to make three points. "First, John Etchemendy brought up the idea that this is politicized. And I think this is only political insofar as one understands the term in a simple way that facilitates one's own disinterest in how it's going to turn out. Second, the model of this is that there is this money out there, and Stanford has an extraordinarily strong filter, so it doesn't matter what the source of the money is [arm stretched to the left] if what comes out the other end [arm stretched to the right] is okay. And I think that the points that have just been raised support the case that this is both naive and arrogant. What can come out the other end is legitimization and 'respectablization' of a corporation and an industry that is spreading death and disease across the globe.
"Third, the 'slippery slope' issue. I want to quote the San Francisco Chronicle editorial about this: 'A great university should choose its partners widely also wisely. Racketeering [referring to the finding of a RICO violation] is simply incompatible with the mission of the University of California.' I would like to think it's incompatible with the mission of Stanford. The slippery slope is not that the University is going to get in the way of research. The slippery slope is that corporations and industries like tobacco companies are going to have an excessive influence over universities and be used in the manner that was just mentioned."
Professor Berman said "I recognize that promotion of our distaste for the tobacco industry is well meaning, but it's ill considered. I think it will hurt Stanford. I'm going to vote against it for these reasons. First, current Stanford policy relies on the conscience of individual researchers, which implies that we trust each other. In contrast, this motion dangerously reduces individual responsibility, and thereby introduces a culture of distrust. Second, this motion will provide grounds for a judiciary system to treat the University as a whole as responsible for the research consequences of individual members. A terrible chilling effect would follow the first litigation. Third, freedom of research, like freedom of speech, means defending the freedom of unpopular opinions.
"We should refrain from acting as a virtuous and tyrannical majority that prohibits minorities we oppose."
Professor Feldman noted that, "… Hank laid out the case very clearly, and it forced me to think about my own graduate experience, where my research in mathematical biology was funded by the Office of Naval Research and by the U.S. Army Mathematics Research Center during the Vietnam War. That was a very unpopular time for the military, and yet the military funded research in mathematical biology that today has spawned the huge industry of computational biology that could not have been born without funding from a very unpopular organization that, in fact, was bringing death and destruction around the world at the same time. That is the reason behind my logic for not supporting the motion."
Provost Etchemendy said, "It is important to remember that what this debate is about is not an objection to the past practices of the tobacco company. Hank Greely delivered a moving speech several weeks ago about his family's tragic loss to tobacco-related illnesses. My own father died from cancer after a lifetime of smoking, my uncle died of emphysema, and my brother has emphysema. Neither Hank nor I have any reason to feel kindly towards the tobacco industry, yet Hank supports the resolution while I oppose the proposed ban. I believe firmly that this funding ban is not about expressing dissatisfaction or disapproval of their tactics, but it is about academic freedom. Ann has made that point fairly clearly.
"I do want to make two additional points. One is that I find this proposed resolution frightening. It's clear that we have colleagues who feel that it would be unethical to accept funding from the tobacco industry, and they would never do it themselves. It's also clear that we have colleagues even in this room who disagree with that. We have colleagues who feel that it would be unethical to do animal research or research on stem cells. And, obviously, we also have faculty who feel that stem cell research should be done. I actually find it chilling to consider legislation dictating that a second group cannot engage in legitimate research, research funded by a legal source, conducted and interpreted with impeccable scientific standards, due to a debatable judgment by the first group….Now, if that's not a curtailment of academic freedom, I don't know what is!"
Professor Greely, chafing mildly under the one minute limitation of talking, said, "The Law School is still on the semester system, which means that two Sundays ago we held our graduation. And my colleague George Fisher gave a beautiful graduation speech in which he eloquently laid out advice to our graduates. He told them that they would have to make decisions in their lives, and that those decisions would be theirs, not the decisions of their role or their office or their position. Prosecutor or defense attorney, corporate or public interest lawyer, the decisions might not be the decisions they would most like to make, but they would have to be decisions for which they would be morally accountable and which they would be willing to and able to live with. The tobacco industry, uniquely, I think, has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause incredible human carnage around the world. Our willingness to enter into these funding agreements with them helps them continue that carnage. We should not help them. We should follow the advice that we give to our graduating students. We should do the right thing. I urge you to vote 'yes' on this resolution."
Professor Hinton said, "The case has been made that the tobacco industry is unique. But the constellation of circumstances that makes the case against tobacco funding in the academy unique is historical, through and through. History is itself, in that sense, a form of slippery slope. Other unique candidates, as we've heard, may come into view. The research policies that rest on principles of academic freedom here should not be historically delimited to the same degree. That at least is my hope. And that is perhaps the main reason why I'm against the motion. I should add, though, that I'm not against making a statement against tobacco in another form."
Professor Baker was "…reluctantly persuaded by the slippery slope argument. I believe that the tobacco companies' behavior has been egregious, but I dislike the idea of making an exception to the policy of research in a particular case. I also think that it is better to broaden the policy than to risk abridging it by introducing exceptions. This means that in my view, we should broaden the research policy statement regarding professional ethics to express the fundamental moral concerns that are at stake in this case. I will make this suggestion available to the Committee on Research for its consideration." [The Provost and Dean of Research and others thought that Baker's suggestion was a good one. It is probable that the Senate 40 will hear more about it from the Committee on Research.]
The floor was given back to Dean Kramer. "So many points to make! First, Professor Rehm, the use of 'racketeering' here should really be done carefully. That's not remotely what it means. The common usage and what it means in that statute are completely different. The tobacco companies have never been found liable in that way. Second, I find really scary the argument which we did slip into very easily which was that we shouldn't take money from the tobacco company to fund research that people would otherwise do, and that perhaps this research shouldn't take place. Since we're not supposed to be saying that and I believe that we are not, then the issue of the use that the tobacco companies might make of the research we're going to do anyway is completely beside the point."
"Third, the 'slippery slope' problem is quite large and bigger than you're all thinking. On the one hand there is the slippery slope argument that tomorrow it will be alcohol and fast food and so forth that should be prohibited. But there's also the larger one. I work in a school where most of my faculty do not do their own fund-raising. I do the fund-raising for them. Many people who disagree with things that faculty in the University might do nonetheless will support the University because of a perception of its neutrality. And so, if we move away from that, our ability to raise funding generally gets much more difficult. We are, my colleagues, living in a world in which the traditional sources of funding are shrinking. Government is pulling out of the arts, pulling out of science, pulling out of medicine. That means there's much more competition to go to these sorts of private resources. And the more we cut ourselves off from that, again, the more we make life throughout the University more difficult in significant ways. We should not endanger the structure of our work just to make a political statement supporting moral responsibility."
Professor Horowitz was recognized to follow up on Dean Kramer's comments. "I'm probably the only senator here who's actually been in a RICO trial. RICO and racketeering doesn't mean what you think it means [see http://www.ricoact.com]. I think RICO is a bad law, because to be convicted by RICO is easier than lots of other things. The second thing is, there are many organizations that twist our research results independent of funding. You talk to people who are, for example, disciples of 'intelligent design'. They have done a superb job of twisting research results. The thought that we could, by not taking funding in one area prevent them or the tobacco company from not misusing our results is just incredibly naïve."
Professor Brauman pointed out that our Research Policy "…has stood us well, in good standing, for a very long time. I think abrogating it leaves us open to dreadful possibilities. It's easy to see people with strong moral convictions who believe that certain things that are going on, like stem cell research, are wrong, and accepting money from organizations that are interested in things of that sort is a bad thing to be doing. At the end of the day, we're opening ourselves up to all kinds of awful possibilities that are very dangerous. I think it would be a terrible precedent to abrogate this principle. Both of my parents died from tobacco-related illness. I'm in the same boat that everybody else here is…. I don't like those folks. But I think this is something we just should not do."
Coming back to support the other view, Professor Fernald argued in favor of the motion on the floor, for several reasons. "First, if you travel now in Africa or the Middle East, you will find the tobacco companies still addicting people, still doing everything that they've done over the years. So they still are very active in trying to increase the damage from tobacco, indirectly, by selling it or giving it away. Second, I think the 'slippery slope' argument basically is wrong, because if we have made a terrible mistake in changing the Research Policy, it won't be hard to reverse it. So it's not as if we're making an irrevocable change. I think it's making an important statement and, making it now is a very important thing. I've talked to colleagues at
other institutions where this has happened. They're extremely glad they've done that and there have not been serious consequences."
Professor Koseff apologized for making a point that has been made a number of times. "It's been stated that this discussion is not about academic freedom because it only limits the kind of funding for research and not the kinds of research that can be done. I speak as someone who funds the vast majority of his research as well as the support of a large number of graduate students over 20 years from many sources. I take the process of identifying potential sponsors very seriously. In choosing them I follow guidelines for research set out by the University and my own moral compass. And in my experience of over 20 years, I can say that the ability to do particular research is strongly linked to the availability of external funding. To suggest that one's freedom to pursue research is not going to be seriously impaired by limiting the source of potential external funds is simply wrong! This is an issue of academic freedom. For that reason, I oppose the motion. I'd also like to state that I would not enter into any sponsored project relationship with the tobacco industry. But I would also not do research with entities not under discussion here today."
Provost Etchemendy, a logician, said, "If I may, I would like to make a point of logic." He persisted, despite laughing cries from the back benches that making a logical statement was out of order in these proceedings. "This argument about twisting research results… if you think through it, the argument is just very, very weak. If you are doing the same research, having the same results, but it's funded by the NIH, anyone including the tobacco companies will still twist the results, and furthermore, their twisted interpretations will be far more persuasive and effective than if the research had been funded by the tobacco companies."
President Hennessy had been saving his voice for the Academic Council meeting as well as wanting to give his colleagues the chance to speak. But, he wanted to reiterate "…that I believe that approving this resolution will undercut the ability of the Provost and me to support and protect your academic freedom. Let me give you some examples. We receive a large amount of money from the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy runs the nuclear weapons labs. Is there a bigger threat to the world than nuclear weapons that are built around the world? Should we divest all of our money from the Department of Energy? We would start by closing SLAC. We would close half of the Physics department and several of the Engineering departments along the way. Similarly, the Department of Defense funds more money in Computer Science than any other funding agency. We'd be out of business in Computer Science."
"Right now, British Petroleum and Exxon together will be funding more projects in alternative energy in universities than the entire amount funded by the U.S. government. They have certainly twisted research periodically with respect to global warming and other environmental issues. Does that mean we shouldn't take that money?"
"I think that passing this resolution will undercut our ability to protect your rights to pursue research. In the end, if you choose to do this, so be it….But you will make it more difficult for the Provost and me to protect what you enshrine as an important academic freedom."
With ten minutes remaining, it was interesting to note that the Senators sat comfortably, as if sated with good food and wine. No more hands were raised for time to comment. It had been an impressive array of thoughtful observations. Almost all appeared content that all points worth making had been made…justifying Professor Sheppard's strategy for short expressions of opinions.
Vote
Therefore, Professor Sheppard was able to call the question. The options were 'yes' to approve the resolution shown above, and 'no' not to approve it. The vote was by hand, counted by the Academic Secretary and Trish Del Pozzo.
Professor Sheppard announced the results:
10 yes, in favor — 21 no, opposed. The resolution was not approved
She added, "I do want to thank Professor Girod and his committee for a lot of work. And many other folks have put an incredible amount of energy and agony into this issue. I think it will spawn more conversations around the relationship between universities and sponsors and the work we do. We're already talking with the Committee on Research, for instance, on how to use their annual meeting on the policy of open research. And I guess this annual meeting is, in general, not very well attended, so that the charter for C-Res may be, with the Senate's approval, revised."
VI. AdjournmentThe motion to adjourn made by Senator Greely was eagerly approved unanimously amidst the requisite call for a second. This happened at 4:10 pm
Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Harris, Jr., M.D. Academic Secretary to the University
Share This Story