Confronting the Privatization and Commercialization of Academic Research: An Analysis of Social Implications at the Local, National, and Global Levels

Introduction

In the current era of capitalist hegemony, the term "globalization" has become synonymous with the global dominance of private market economies. Though concepts of "internationalism" have long been associated with the political Left, the possibilities of a progressive vision of globalization are currently overshadowed by the deepening of private market policies in existing capitalist economies and the expansion of capitalism to former socialist countries and to developing countries throughout the world. This phenomenon has affected all societal institutions through governmental implementation of privatization policies and deregulation; through the power of global financial institutions—such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund—to impose loan conditions that require governments to adopt policies that promote private markets;¹ and through multilateral trade agreements that favor transnational corporations (TNCs) in their pursuit of increased capital mobility and market expansion.²

This article addresses the impact of privatization on universities in the United States, focusing, in particular, on the effects on the university mission and academic research in the life sciences. Both public and private nonprofit universities have been affected by public policies of privatization, leading to increased commercialization of academic research and growing university-industry ties. These changes in practices have been accompanied by a significant weakening of the traditional definition of the university mission of serving the public interest through university teaching and research independent from conflicting interests of either government or business. Tied closely to university independence has been the core value of faculty academic freedom, protecting faculty autonomy over their work and enabling them to ensure the integrity of teaching and research that is independent from conflicting interests.³

The university's mission and the rights of faculty also describe the social role of the university and its faculty. Where the university has a public mission, its social role is defined in terms of promoting the public interest.⁴ Its policies and practices should, therefore, be aimed toward carrying out its public mission. As the university's mission becomes privatized, however, its social role is redefined as well, shifting from the public interest to serving private economic interests. Given the dominant influence of the United States in promoting private market economies globally, the social implications of privatizing the university's mission will extend beyond the national borders as well.

This article begins with a discussion of the traditional definition of the university's public mission and faculty academic freedom, which have formed the core elements of faculty identity in the university. In part II, the discussion moves to legal developments promoting privatization that have had a major impact on these traditional definitions of university mission and faculty rights. The relevant legal developments have taken place at both the national and international levels. At the national level, these changes have been aimed specifically at the university, with the federal Bayh-Dole Act of 1980,⁵ which authorizes and encourages federal fund recipients—including universities—to patent and license federally funded research. As a consequence of the Bayh-Dole Act, universities have expanded their private market activities, leading to a major growth in university-owned patents and licensing of patents to industry. The article explores the impact of increased market activities at three levels: at the local level, on university culture and research; at the national level, on the university's public mission; and at the international level, on the social implications of the university's involvement with expanding intellectual property rights. The article examines the international consequences of this commercialization by examining the World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade agreement known as TRIPS—the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.⁶ The 1994 TRIPS agreement, which requires WTO signatories to enact national laws protecting intellectual property rights, was not created with universities in mind. But with the increase of university-industry exclusive licensing agreements, university intellectual property practices take on global implications, as TNCs rely on TRIPS to reap the global benefits of their monopoly over university-owned patents. Part III of the article further...