Universal Journal of Education and General Studies Vol. 1(2) pp. 028-032, February, 2012 Available online http://www.universalresearchjournals.

org/ujegs Copyright 2012 Universal Research Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Academia-industry collaboration is not necessarily a conflict of interest in the context of public health education and research
Rajan R Patil
Division of Epdiemiology,School of Public Health,SRM University, PotheriKattankulathur-603203,Chennai, India. Email : rajanpatil@yahoo.com, Tel; 9445811610
Accepted 2 January, 2012

Academia-Industry collaboration need not necessarily be a conflict of Interest. Quality education/research comes at cost, it requires significant amount of money, government does not have enough money or lacks the will to provide it. All the universities are encouraged to generate funds to support their research activities, so they turn towards industry to provide funding. Industry-Academia feed into each other and benefit out of each other. That explains why most of the academic bodies are beginning to have corporate Chief Executives Officers (CEOs) as board members. Most of the criticisms against academia-industry collaboration is embedded in leftist ideological base. In the larger perspective industrialists and academicians joining hands together for various collaborations is in align with larger policy that encourages academic institutions to court industry. Industry benefits from Research and Development (R and D) of academia and in turn universities/research Institutions get funds- extra mural funding in that way they are in symbiotic relationship Key words: Collaboration, Industry funding, Conflict of Interest INTRODUCTION Relationships between academia and industry are increasingly intimate and commercial. While opportunities are created for each partner, there are also important conflict of interest issues. Particularly challenging is ensuring that universities maintain their traditional role in public science while partnering with a commercial entity with a tradition of proprietary science (Carpenter, 2004). Public Health Foundation of India [PHFI] was launched by the prime minister Dr. Manmohan singh on march 28, 2006 in new Delhi. It was established as an academic body to strengthen public health workforce in India by offering quality public health education and enhancing pool of professionals available to teach public health in India. PHFI was formed as publicprivate partnership model which was evolved collaboratively through consultation with multiple constituencies including government of India at both central and state level, Indian and international academia, bilateral and multilateral agencies and civil society organization. PHFI has a fully empowered , independent governing council with eminent person from academia and industries (PHFI, 2012). A cursory look at list of governing board members of PHFI show that its academic body is overwhelmingly dominated by corporate CEOs. PHFI has been criticized by left inclined commentators for being coopted by Industry lobby and have questioned their intent to be on the high profile board. To be fair to PHFI, it has made conscious attempt to attract many intellectuals of global repute who are well known for their academic expertise and more importantly for their integrity. The 30 board members board would have looked all the same if not for the presence of people with high integrity like Dr.Ravi Narayan, Prof. Amarthya Sen, Dr. Mashelkar and now Mr.Narayan Murthy. It is a good sign for they have begun to occupy the space which otherwise would have been occupied by another set of CEOs whose credentials or the intent would have been a suspect. The left inclined commentators are criticizing senior scientists and academicians like Mashelkar, Amarthya sen and Ravi naryan for lending

Patil 029

their reputation to PHFI and for being aligned with profit making corporate. Motives and morality is being questioned of all the people who are choosing to be part of PHFI governing body. Most of these criticisms are embedded in leftist ideological base, wherein PHFI is largely seen as private supported corporate initiative in India. In the larger perspective industrialists and academicians joining hands together for various collaborations is in align with larger policy that encourages academic institutions to court industry. Industry benefits from R and D of academia and in turn universities/research Institutions get funds- extra mural funding in that way they are in symbiotic relationship. There is little justification in criticism of PHFI for presence of corporate CEOs on their academic governing board or because it has significant corporate presence. It would be equally myopic to denigrate academic institutions that have significant industry support. It important to engage rather than avoid corporate sector in the field of education just as we engage government not withstanding all the corruption charges against it. Yet most of academicians choose to engage it, they choose to be in their committees so that their voice is represented and they could influence its activities and policies positively. The same principle need to be applied while engaging corporate sector in the field of education. DISCUSSION Quality education/research comes at cost, it requires significant amount of money. Government does not have enough money or lacks the will to provide it. All the universities are encouraged to generate funds to support their research activities, so they turn towards industry to provide funding. Industry-Academic feed into each other and benefit out of each other. That explains why most of academic bodies are beginning to have corporate CEOs as board members. An increasing number of academicians are emphasizing the importance of having external organizations provide support for research projects, acquiring a great proportion of research costs from private or public institutions and transferring knowledge to the industrial sphere. For example, in the USA, an average of 2025% of academic projects is financed by industry. On the other hand, the exchange of scientific knowledge with industrial organizations has given universities access to a significant amount of funding. Projects carried out in collaboration with industry not only provide finance but also have a positive effect on the performance of academicians in academic publications and in the number of patents granted (Kaymaz and Eryigit, 2011)

Academic Perspective The goal of research in academic institutions can be considered as the activity of creating new knowledge. Academicians have a very strong ability to abstract from the problem and conceptualize and then solve it in the conceptual domain. This is an expertise that is woefully lacking in the industry, which is faced with down-to-earth problems day-in and day-out, often not letting the conceptualization skill to develop and without proper conceptualization, there can really be no research, as research always tries to address a general problem, academician can lend the conceptualization and generalization skills and the industry can provide the practical reality in which the conceptualization can be rooted (Jalote). The other benefit to academia is that projects carried out in collaboration with industry not only provide finance but also have a positive effect on the performance of academicians in academic publications and in the number of patents granted (Kaymaz and Eryigit, 2011) Industry collaborations is one of the parameter to measure the credibility of academic institutions. They are evaluated on degree of self reliance achieved based on quantum of funds generated for their academic research projects from outside their parent Institution. A spin off of industry collaboration is that it create opportunities for placements for their students. University/Research institutions credibility also depend upon the market up take of their trained students. Evaluation measurements of successful AcademicIndustry collaborations have been well laid out. The performance measurements are; i) an increase in the amount of funding provided by industry for academic research development projects; ii) an increase in joint scientific articles by researchers from both the university and industry; iii) an increase in licensing agreements made by the university; iv) an increase in income from licensing agreements obtained by the university; v) an increase in new patents resulting from university industry collaborations (Kaymaz and Eryigit, 2011). Industry tends to have greater faith on a researcher coming from a university as he/she is regarded as somebody who is seeking pure knowledge as compared to researcher from a consultancy firm. Even if he or she is charging a lot of money for the services it will most likely not change the perception of the researcher as somebody telling the truth and is neutral. The consultants, on the other hand, earn money directly on knowledge and skill, and are believed to use that knowledge advantage. The knowledge is regarded as instrument to earning money (Victoria u.d).

030. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.

Industry Perspective In Industry, the knowledge is mainly being regarded as instrumental and that is not something that generates new knowledge. Industry companies are not seeing themselves as being participating in a knowledge creating process, but rather a knowledge consuming process. Knowledge is thus regarded as an asset comparable to other necessary assets, like machinery and buildings so the main goals for the participants in collaboration projects is thus to collect suitable knowledge from the source (university) and bring it back so the company can improve the competitiveness. Knowledge happens, unfortunately for the industry, to be encapsulated in people and not purchasable in packages from a supplier (Victoreia u.d). Research in industry is typically not a business or a profit center but a long term investment, which helps a company generate more revenue and profits. In India, till recently there was no need for research in most companies the knowledge that existed in the public domain was sufficient for the business the company was engaged in. But that seems to be changing now technology player whose business depends on pushing technology advances needs research simply to develop new technologies that it can then use to bring out newer products in the market (Jalote u.d) Impact Of Industry Collaboration On Academics Faculty contributing to knowledge and technology believe that industry collaboration complements their own academic research by securing funds for graduate students and lab equipment, and by providing them with ideas for their own research. Financial rewards have a positive impact on the production of basic research because basic and applied research efforts might be complementary or because they might induce a selection of riskier research programmes. Industry has a positive impact on publications output. The number of publications in peer-reviewed journals even if not the only measure is the best recorded and the most accepted measure for research output as publications are essential in gaining scientific reputation and for career advancements. There appears to be two countervailing effects in the impact of Collaborative research on academic research output. Researchers with no industry involvement are predicted to publish less than those with a small degree of collaboration. Nevertheless, higher levels of industry involvement negatively affect research productivity. Therefore, the existence of industry partners is positive but the intensity of industry collaboration is negative. The predicted publication rate of an academic with an average level of collaboration is higher than that of an academic with no collaborative funding. But, for higher

levels of collaboration, the predicted number of publications turns out to be lower, and can even be lower than for those with no funding at all (BanalEstanol, 2010). Conflict of Interest In order to prevent conflicts of interest from arising in relationships between industry and academia, there are a few principles to consider. From a financial standpoint all arrangements should be transparent, there should be clear demarcation of the contributions and rewards, and there should be clear audit trails and independent verification of the arrangements. From the standpoint of personal integrity, there should be adherence to sound scientific and ethical principles, respect for intellectual property, and fair and appropriate allocation of effort as well as distribution of credit. Adhering to these principles would contribute greatly to maintaining a healthy relationship between academia and industry. Its important to understand that Conflict of interest in the medical context has a clear meaning. Specifically, it occurs when practitioners accept personal rewards (such as fees, grants, awards, or recognition) in return for actions that could violate their professional obligations. In essence, to accuse a researcher of conflict of interest would require empirical proof that, in return for a reward, an action was taken that resulted in diminished care or even harm to patients. It is a should be appreciated that mere association with industry is does not lead to conflict of industry per se. It is well known that many medical societies, particularly small specialty organizations, depend on industry support. The operating costs of societies, as well as the cost of meetings, publications, patient education and other professional activities cannot be fully funded by member subscriptions. Support from industry is often essential and comes in the form of corporate memberships, sponsorship of CME or other activities at scientific meetings, exhibit fees, and journal advertising etc all of which have potential for conflict of interest, but one need to prove it empirically (Weber, 2009). Steps to avoid conflict of interest There are many thorny issues affecting the academiaindustry relationship. They fall into four categories: integrity of research, ownership of data, publication and disclosure, and conflicts of interest. It is worthwhile to consider each carefully. First and foremost, there must be an assurance that there will be no inappropriate influence on data selection or interpretation. Secondly, there should be assurance of technical compliance and quality control; clearly the studies must apply valid experimental methods. Lastly, there should be full

Patil 031

access to data and participation in its analysis and presentation. Following these principles will keep academic-industry collaborations on the highest plane. The ownership of data collected in industry-sponsored clinical trials has been the subject of substantial debate. Investigators who engage in clinical research understandably feel that the data they collect are rightfully owned by them for use toward an academic purpose. Major scientific problems occasionally arise when investigators wish to analyze and publish the results obtained from a subset of a data pool, as for example from one site or country in a multi-center international clinical trial, the results of which may differ from the results of the complete trial (Yamada, 2005). Ensuring Sanctity of Industry collaboration Research in Academic-

occasions the author has pulled up Industry for their wrongdoings in defense of Peoples health and gone ahead and published [Patil 2003,2002, 2011, 2010). The authors anti-Industry crusade is not necessarily restricted research and publications. He along with his colleagues just recently won a law suit in supreme court of India in a case against pesticide industry after seven year long battle on their stand against unscrupulous ways in which pesticide industry was harming farmers in India. The details of authors case and the Supreme Court judgment on our victory against the industry are available on public domain (Prajapati and Shah, 2010). CONCLUSION

1. Conflict of interest stems from selfish motive/ intent that

are converted into action for personal gain and not by simple association. As long as one is being fair and The following items require special consideration in upright in his or her conduct-, conflict of interest does planning the business and legal details to govern the not come into play- in spite of potentially having conflict collaboration: (Yamada, 2005) of interest a-priori. 2. Academicians do have ability to handle conflict of 1. Public science with right to publish Interest. Lets start trusting them. They do know where 2. Investigator-initiated science to draw line, where and when to keep their academic 3. Project work in areas of mutual scientific interest freedom intact. IITs are fine example of exercise of this without obligating faculty to work outside discretion by researchers while very well engaging their own self-defined scientific plan industry. 4. Flexibility, which permits rapid change in response to evolving scientific opportunities 5. No restriction on academic collaborations or REFERENCE Federal government- and foundation-supported Banal-Estanol A, Jofre-Bonet M, Meissner C (2010). The Impact of Science Industry Collaboration on esearch: Evidence from Engineering 6. A research and financial plan that would increase Academics in the UK. Available at productivity in scientific areas selected by http://www.econ.upf.edu/~albertbanal/Impact%20of%20Industry.pd f The participating investigators Carpenter T Jr, Koenig JI, Bilbe Q, et al(2004). A Model for 7. Freedom to access the most promising Academic/Industry Collaborationby William. Schizophrenia Bulletin compounds for the scientific purpose of each project . 30(4):998-1004 8. No restriction on pursuing the best opportunities in Jalote P (u.d). Challenges in Industry-Academia Collaboration., Dept of CSE, IIT Kanpur. Available at clinical trials, regardless of source of http://www.iiitd.edu.in/~jalote/GenArticles/IndAcadCollab.pdf Compounds or research support Kaymaz K, Eryigit KY (2011) . Determining Factors Hindering 9. MPRC-wide involvement of scientific faculty 10. University-Industry Collaboration: An Analysis from the Protection of intellectual property rights Perspective of Academicians in the Context of Entrepreneurial Science. Int. J. Soc. Inquiry. 4(1): 185-213 11. Emphasis on attracting and maintaining Federal Patil RR (2002). Suicide deaths among farmers. BMJ (S.Asia ed). research support in each laboratory. Authors personal experience and perspective It is misconception that researchers who engage Industry do not challenge the Industry. Thats wrong perception for which the author presents his personal evidence to this effect. The author is known supporter of Academia-Industry collaboration in principle. But that does not necessarily influence authors objectivity and sanctity in his research findings. On several
18(4):310 Patil RR (2003). Circumstances leading to death of Indian Cotton Farmers. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health. 15 (4): 405-407 Patil RR, Ravi Kumar K (2010). World Bank EMCP Malaria Project In Orissa, India- A Field Reality. Trop Parasitol .1:26 -29. Patil RR (2011). Environmental Health Risk Assessment of National Aluminum Company[NALCO] Orissa. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. (In press). 15:73-5 Prajapati R, Shah T (2010). Supreme Court quashes defamation case on activists by Association of Pesticide Manufacturing Companies. Radical Socialist. Thursday, 05 August 2010. Available at http://www.radicalsocialist.in/articles/environment/211-supreme-courtquashes-defamation-case-on-activists-by-association-of-pesticidemanufacturing-companies.

032. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.

PHFI (2012). Introduction to PHFI: http://www.phfi.org/images/about_us/phfi_story.pdf Viktoria Institutea. Academia, Industry and Consulting firms in Collaboration An value-based analysis of different institutions Martin Brjessonac, Ingela Bruceab, Kerstin Forsbergad. Available at http://www.well.com/user/mb/docs/AICCollaboration.pdf Weber MA (2009) . Academic Physicians Confront a Hostile world:

The Creation of ACRE. J. Clin. Hypertens. (Greenwich). ;11(10):5336. Yamada T (2005). Academia-industry collaboration: A dynamic partnership on behalf of patients. Association of American Physicians Presidential Address. The J. Clin. Investig. 115(10):2944-9