[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

real universites do not have bias



The statement below states a growing belief that universities should have views on behalf of the their faculty. That view is a primary contradiction of the existence of universities. The term university is based on the concept that all ideas are allowed or a universe of ideas (thus university). Universities must not have views but faculty must be permitted any view. That concept is called academic freedom , which is every faculty members right and obligation. Corporation and government bureaucracies have views but not real universities. A goofy university president tried to restrict my written views but I appealed and was upheld several years ago.Some of the older universities seem to have replaced the traditional university with a corporation of followers of official ideas Members of such universities demand firing of those who publish findings that disagree with or threaten their patented products (of course the Nazi regime and later the Soviet regime under Lysenko imposed genetic theories in universities). Biotechnology with it patents and promises of instant riches seemed to have shut down the right of academic freedom for faculties and the faculties are mainly passive and submissive in accepting corporate views.
AGBIOVIEW Letter from the Chair . . .

"Universities Should Have A Bias ..... Regarding Agricultural
Biotechnology"

- Neal K. Van Alfen NABC Chair, 2002—2003; National Agricultural
Biotechnology Council, NABC News, Fall 2002 no. 25
http://www.cals.cornell.edu/extension/nabc

Prominent on the masthead of this newsletter is the declaration that the
NABC exists to provide "an open forum for exploring issues in agricultural
biotechnology." It can fairly be asked, however, whether we, the members
of NABC, primarily universities involved in agricultural biotechnology,
can be truly open minded about this technology when we stake so much of
our research portfolio on its success. One could argue that we have a bias
in the outcome of the discussion.

Thus, it is important to clarify the role of universities with
agricultural programs—and that of the NABC—in the debate over publichealth
safety and environmental safety of agricultural biotechnology. In many
ways we are similar to private companies in that we protect our
intellectual property, license this property to private companies for
money, and at times seek to develop our intellectual property into
exclusive products.

With declining public funds available to support our research programs,
most of us dream of products that will return to our budgets more than
their research and development costs. In light of this, what distinguishes
us from for-profit companies? The primary distinction is our purpose: we
exist to educate, to serve the public and to advance knowledge. The
protection and use of intellectual property that comes from our research
is merely a sideline issue and should not drive our resource allocation
decisions, unlike private companies that prosper or fail from the new
knowledge that we generate from our research.

Probably the clearest example of how universities differ from private
companies is the, at times vilifying, public debates among faculty members
of our universities over research claims and speculations. Such public
debate by employees of the same company would not be tolerated, but it is
one of the most cherished rights of university faculty. Recently, a
high-profile example of such a public debate by members of the same
college occurred over published claims that pollen drift from putative
unlawfully cultivated transgenic maize resulted in genetic contamination
of locally grown maize cultivars in Mexico. Claims, and counter claims, of
bias were prominent in the debate.

Yes, we are biased, but, as a community of scholars, we represent a wide
range of biases on any subject. The seeming inability of universities to
speak with a single voice at times frustrates our supporters and limits
our role in most public debates. Just as we are biased toward agricultural
biotechnology because of our investment in related research, we can as
easily be accused of bias against agricultural biotechnology because of
our research in support of organic agriculture, which excludes the use of
agricultural biotechnology. Our research interests are so divergent,
including production agriculture, organic farming, rural social issues,
and environmental issues, that no single vision or voice can dominate our
discussions.

I personally feel, however, that universities need to take a position
regarding one aspect of the debate about agricultural biotechnology.
Because we are education and research institutions we have a strong bias
toward pushing back the current boundaries of knowledge with the resultant
development and adoption of new technology. Results from our medical and
engineering research and development programs are aggressively changing
how we live. We actively seek to change nature; we long ago rejected the
notion that infectious and congenital diseases of humans must be
tolerated, and we use our technological capabilities to greatly change the
natural mobility, communication ability, and living space of humans. It is
unnatural for humans to fly, yet air travel has become integral to modern
society. Modern transportation brings with it enormous personal risk,
social change, and a degradation of environmental quality, but few support
a return to transportation based only on our legs.

Likewise, we must encourage the use of the best technology available to
meet the challenges of a continually increasing human population that
needs to extract food, fiber, shelter, transportation, recreation, and
spiritual renewal from the finite resources provided by our planet.
Technology plays an important role in protecting our environment while
also assuring that the needs of an increasing global population are being
met.

Agricultural biotechnology offers considerable promise in meeting these
goals, and so the debate about this technology needs to shift from one
about its intrinsic value to one of risk assessment of its individual
products. Yes, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this
column, universities should have a bias in this open forum regarding
agricultural biotechnology. We exist to educate and to help society
explore the unknown. The question of whether we should use technology to
change old ways of doing things, in general, was answered centuries ago.

.