| Encouragement
for Mizzou and CAFNR to be more actively engaged in economic development
is everywhere. It’s widely recognized as one of the primary
motivations behind recent Missouri General Assembly sympathy for
higher education and the life sciences. President Floyd has called
it our "fourth mission." I have even dedicated more
than one of these monthly columns on the idea [see Mizzou
and Economic Development at: aes.missouri.edu/synthesis/0304/index.html,
Entraprenuers and the University at: aes.missouri.edu/synthesis/0305/].
Let’s
go no further before candidly discussing a key issue we all must
confront before becoming the university we all aspire to be –
conflicts of interest.
For all the
admirable reasons for closer relationships with the private sector,
it comes with the risk of potential conflicts between our roles
as trusted public servants and crafty entrepreneurs. How do we
maintain our credibility through it all? Why would we even
tempt public opinion and the local press?
To me, negotiating
the public/private interface is perhaps the most urgent task of
our land-grant universities. It is the hallmark of the nation’s
great institutions. Actively participating in entrepreneurial
endeavors demonstrates an institution's relevance to society while
creating the most innovative faculty and students.
Our steps
to improving CAFNR's move in this direction must first include
taking on the task of administrative, faculty, and staff education
on the issues.
Secondly,
we’ll know we’re making progress if the outcome is
a transformation of our institutional culture. When faculty begin
working through the system, rather than around it, in moving innovations
to the private sector – we’ll know we’ve made
it.
All this
is happening today. Steve Lehmkuhle is leading a system-wide working
group that is examining our current conflict of interest policy.
Comprised of people from across the four MU campuses, we are taking
careful stock of our own policies and looking at other institutions
across the country.
In short,
we are moving away from a policy of avoiding conflicts of interest
and towards a culture of open acknowledgement and management of
conflicts of interest. Peter Wilden, who has taken on the task
of leading the working group, is posting the group’s progress,
references, and background information.
At their core, potential conflicts of interest occur in three
spheres:
Financial
Does the entrepreneurial activity proposed by the faculty/staff
present a manageable fiscal relationship between the public and
private sector roles? Is there a means of providing transparency
and oversight? Is the business aimed at being spun off entirely
into the private sector after succeeding? These and other helpful
guidelines are being examined by the working group.
Commitment
Does the time spent starting up or operating the business cut
unduly into the time required by the university? Our current policy
states up to 30 days per year can be spent doing ‘consulting’
work; are accurate records kept? Are annual disclosures filed?
Should an alternative university appointment be considered to
be fair to both the university and the business?
Facilities/Equipment
Is the university space being used to ‘incubate’ the
business competing with the needs of other faculty? Is a fair
and proper lease arrangement being used, with oversight provided
by the appropriate department chair and unit leader? When is the
appropriate time to move off-campus into privately leased space?
These and
other guidelines and principles will be discussed by the working
group and will lead Mizzou into a new era of engagement with the
citizens and state we serve. If done openly and honestly, I’m
convinced we’ll all be better off.
Regards,
John
|
