University trustees relation to university research and the potential of conflict of interest

1
University trustees relation to university
research and the potential of conflict of interest

• Charles Mathies
• Sheila Slaughter

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
Introduction

• Others argue that the more alike the corporations
  represented on a universitys 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

6
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

7
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?

8
Data

• AAU Private Institutions (N26)
• 2 Time points 1997 2005
• Data
• Board members corporations
• Slaughter, Feldman, Thomas NIH grant
• Research expenditures
• Mathies, NSF Grant NSF RD expenditures at
  college university survey
• Crosswalk NAICS ? CIP

9
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

10
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

11
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
12
Findings Corporate connections

• Majority of institutions experienced a decline in
  the number of corporate connections from 1997 to
  2005 (t 5.5, plt.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

13
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, pgt.63)
  (L t-.663, pgt.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

14
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 gt .62 L, T -.979, pgt.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

15
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)

16
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)

17
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 lt .001)
• Mean proportion of 1 research field of total
  research expenditures
• 1997 59
• 2005 64
• 22 of 26 institutions (85) experienced an
  increase

18
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,
  pgt.20)
• Liberal
• Mean increase from 58 in 1997 to 76 in 2005,
  was statistically significant (T -2.531,
  plt.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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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?)

23
The End