university trustees relation to university research and the potential of conflict of interest...
TRANSCRIPT
University trustees relation to university research and the potential of
conflict of interest
Charles MathiesSheila Slaughter
Acknowledgements NIH - “University trustees and conflict of interest”
(Georgia Trustee Database) Slaughter, Feldman and Thomas 2005-2007
AERA – “Research Hierarchy” Mathies 2006-2009; "AERA Grants Program" from the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics of the Institute of Education Sciences, and the National Science Foundation under NSF Grant #REC-0634035.
Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agencies
Introduction Conflict of Interest (COI): when an institution, any
of its senior management or trustees, or sub-unit has an external relationship or financial interest in a research project … the existence (or appearance) of such conflicts can lead to actual bias, or suspicion about possible bias, in the review or conduct of research at the university (AAU)
Increased attention to COI issues within higher education Most attention & policies directed at faculty, not
necessarily at administration or board
Introduction One of the policy functions of a board is
overseeing business strategy, specifically the allocation of resources to key functional activities (Westphal, Seidel, Stewart, 2001)
Some argue trustees’ with professional knowledge base creates synergy – leads to more effective leadership
Introduction Others argue that the more alike the
corporations represented on a university’s board and the disciplines in which it conducts research become, the more potential for COI Trustees set strategic policy for both, yet have
differing interests, incentives & priorities
Introduction Definitions:
Corporate/University Connection: individual sits on board of both university and a publicly traded company
Top 3 Science Corporate Connections: The 3 most represented science disciplines (defined by NSF) of corporate connections
#1 Field of Research: The university science discipline (defined by NSF) which had the highest amount of research expenditures ($)
Crosswalk: Corporate NAICS classification code matched to CIP Classification of academic programs
Research Questions Do the disciplines in which a university
conducts research align with the types of corporations represented on its board of trustees?
Does this change over time?
Data AAU Private Institutions (N=26) 2 Time points: 1997 & 2005 Data
Board members & corporations: Slaughter, Feldman, & Thomas NIH grant
Research expenditures Mathies, NSF Grant: NSF R&D expenditures at college
& university survey
Crosswalk: NAICS CIP
NAICS CIP Crosswalk 2 Approaches
Conservative: Type of organization/corporation (what does the corporation do?)
Liberal: Field of operation for organization/corporation (what field does the corporation operate in?)
Example: Pfizer NAICS: # 325412 – Pharmaceutical preparation
manufacturing Conservative CIP: #14 Engineering Liberal CIP: #26 Biological & biomedical sciences
Findings – Summary No change in the number of trustees Significantly fewer number of connections between
corporate boards & university boards No difference in the proportion of connections to
corporations in science fields Increased alignment between disciplines in which
university conducts research and the disciplines of corporations universities are connected
Increase in the proportion of research expenditures from disciplines connected to corporations
Findings – Trustees & Connections
1997 2005
# of Trustees 1193 1189
Mean # of Trustees 46 46
# of Corporate Connections 1342 881
Mean Corporate Connections 51.6 33.9
Findings – Corporate connections Majority of institutions experienced a decline
in the number of corporate connections from 1997 to 2005 (t = 5.5, p<.001) 23 of 26 institutions experienced a decline (88%)
1997 – mean # of connections 51.6 2005 – mean # of connections 33.9
Mean decline 33%; largest decline 61% Largest increase was 4 connections, representing
a 27% increase
Findings – Proportion of connections to science corporations No significant difference in the proportion of connections to
corporations in science disciplines from 1997 to 2005 (C; t=-.487, p>.63) (L; t=-.663, p>.51) Slight increase in the mean proportion of .01 for both the
conservative and liberal perspective Conservative:
13 of 26 (50%) universities experienced a decrease; mean decrease was .09 with the largest being .19
13 of 26 (50%) universities experienced an increase; mean increase was .12 with the largest being .25
Liberal: 9 of 26 (35%) universities experienced a decrease, mean decrease
was .13, with largest being .27 17 of 26 (65%) universities experienced an increase, mean increase
was .09, with largest being .34
Findings – Proportion of connections to science corporations
Based only on the top 3 science disciplines of universities’ connections to corporations
Similar result – T-Test, accept null hypothesis: There is no significant difference (C, T = -.489, p > .62; L, T = -.979, p>.33)
Increase in the mean proportion was .01 (C) and .02 (L) respectively
Conservative 13 universities (50%) experienced a decrease 13 universities (50%) experienced an increase
Liberal 10 universities (38%) experienced a decrease 16 universities (62%) experienced an increase
Findings – Alignment top disciplines Weak alignment between # 1 discipline of research
(expenditures) & # 1 science discipline of corporate connections Conservative:
1997 – 2 of 26 institutions (8%) 2005 – 2 of 26 institutions (8%)
Liberal: 1997 – 3 of 26 institutions (12%) 2005 – 6 of 26 institutions (23%)
Findings – Alignment top disciplines Increase in the alignment between # 1 discipline of
research (expenditures) & one of the top 3 science disciplines of corporate connections Conservative:
1997 – 13 of 26 institutions (50%) 2005 – 17 of 26 institutions (65%)
Liberal: 1997 – 17 of 26 institutions (65%) 2005 – 23 of 26 institutions (89%)
Findings - #1 discipline of research The proportion of universities’ # 1 discipline
of research of total research expenditures increased from 1997 to 2005 (t = -5.031, p < .001) Mean proportion of # 1 research field of total
research expenditures 1997 – 59% 2005 – 64%
22 of 26 institutions (85%) experienced an increase
Findings – Research Expenditures Increase in universities’ research expenditures
within the top 3 science disciplines represented through corporate connections
Conservative: Mean increase from 47% in 1997 to 55% in 2005, was not
statistically significant (T = -1.290, p>.20) Liberal:
Mean increase from 58% in 1997 to 76% in 2005, was statistically significant (T = -2.531, p<.019)
Possible explanation: large growth between 1997 and 2005 nationally in RE from Federal sources came in life sciences & engineering
Life Sciences & engineering were the most common disciplines represented in top 3 – all in sample had 1 or both in top 3
Conclusions Same # of trustees, fewer connections to
publicly traded corporations Overall there are fewer connections to
corporations in sciences disciplines – however, the proportion of connections remained stable
Increasing alignment between the disciplines in which a university conducts research & the science disciplines of the corporations represented on university boards Particularly from Liberal perspective; growth at both the
#1 to #1 and the #1 to Top 3 Strong alignment (89% L, 65% C) between the fields of
the #1 discipline of research of university and the top 3 science disciplines of corporate connections
Conclusions Increase in the proportion of total research
expenditures coming from the #1 discipline of research Proportion grew 5% (59% to 64%) University research becoming more narrowly focused?
Increase in the proportion of total research expenditures from the top 3 science disciplines of corporate connections of total research expenditures Significant from Liberal perspective – growth was 18%
from 58% to 76% Growth from Conservative was 8% from 47% to 55%
Conclusions The more the profiles of universities and the
boards become the same, the more chance for a conflict of interest
Scenarios: Investment for university infrastructure – might go where
research $ is located, not necessarily where students are Trustees using university research for corporate scheme
(direct use, first user advantages, etc.) Trustees steering corporate investment in start-ups,
increasing $ in a specific area of research
Limitations & Future Research Limitations
Date drawn only from AAU privates Crosswalk between NAICS – SIC – SOC – CIP Both 1997 & 2005 Corporations NAICS classifications
based on 2007 data Impact of mergers & acquisitions
Future Research Day jobs of university trustees Seats on private corporations for university trustees Institutional foundation trustees (publics?)