In an August 12th blog I wrote about "Seed Concentration and the Future of Public Research."  Sunday's New York Times has an article, "When Academia Puts Profits Ahead of Wonder," that explores the same issue. In the same week we read of Monsanto making investments at Iowa State University and the University of Illinois. It's clear that an analysis of Bayh-Dole, aka  "University Small Business Patent Procedures Act," needs to occur. And soon, before we further sell out America's longstanding history of reputable public research to the highest bidder. In the Monsanto/University of Illinois venture, the 8 doctorate students will work on Monsanto projects. Monsanto pays for their research fellowships, gets access to all the university infrastructure and facilities, and then gets to release the varieties under its patented control (or perhaps a joint patent with the school).

These are tax-payer dollars that will provide major benefit to Monsanto's profits. Public benefit? We cannot assume that the public interests and Monsanto interests are the same thing. Monsanto interests are beholden to their shareholders. Is that the same as public interest? And what if the researchers disagree with their research findings, will they have the ability to say, "I see a problem with our results. We need to do further evaluation." Or will the product development managers at Monsanto veto any such objective concern? Can a public researcher really be considered an independent and objective researcher when their programs' funding is so heavily controlled by one company? Yes, we have a whole slew of problems here that will further erode public confidence in public institutions. The administrators at these universities often claim that they have their hands tied, that federal and state funds have been slashed to the bone and so they depend on private contributions. I think they need to get their spines realigned and go to the Senate, on behalf of their students and the body of public servants who teach and research at the schools, and demand a funding policy that doesn't indenture them to private interests, instead of caving in so cravenly.