‘Universities, Biomedical Research Compromised by Commercialism’ Says McKeever Chair of Moral Theology Professor Lauritzen

The infiltration of commercialism into higher education and biomedical research comes at a high cost, says the Paul E. McKeever Chair of Moral Theology, Professor Paul Lauritzen, from John Carroll University in Cleveland.  Professor Lauritzen gave two lectures recently at St. John’s University:

• The first one challenged the university community to question whether the need to market to students results in pandering to them at the cost of traditional educational values;
• The second one discussed the threat commercial interests pose to the integrity of biomedical research.

Professor Lauritzen, a theology professor who also co-edits the prestigious Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, says he is well aware of the economic realities that have prompted many universities to think of students as “customers” first, and as students, second. “Higher education, especially at a Catholic university, needs to be valued for its role as a social institution with a mission, not just as a business model,” he says. “The problem with allowing quasi-corporate language to creep into academia is that it can lead to changing educational practices. Faculty may believe that students’ desires need to be shaped; administrators may want to please students by offering courses that appeal to popular tastes. It’s a culture in which students dismiss Shakespeare, Freud and Blake as boring and the faculty is up against students’ expectation that they should be entertained.”

Just look at the shift at many universities from awarding honorary degrees to scholars in favor of bestowing them on popular culture icons, says Professor Lauritzen. He questions whether universities that do this are communicating the right values.

Advertisers and sponsors on campus are another area of concern, he adds. “Corporate logos are everywhere, even on student, faculty and staff ID cards at some colleges,” he says. “When we allow marketers so much influence over students, isn’t independent thought compromised?” he asks. “It’s our job to encourage students to question anything that might affect academic integrity.”

Another problem is that colleges are “perilously close to creating a country club environment to attract students. When tuition goes up, it makes it harder to attract students of color and an economically diverse student body. Are we cultivating students who will choose a vocation of service or the pursuit only of crass commercialism?”
 
The Crisis in Biomedical Research 
This reliance and over-emphasis on commercialism has also affected the integrity of biomedical research, Professor Lauritzen, who has addressed the U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics regarding stem cell research, states in his second lecture. This is creating areas of concern: the erosion of the tradition of open science (in which scientists collaborated with one another—without charging fees—for the advancement of scientific research) and the growing shift from publicly sponsored to privately sponsored research.

“When university scientific research is funded by industry and patent-protection is in place, researchers can’t share their findings with their colleagues, Professor Lauritzen points out. “According to a study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 40 percent of researchers at universities studied reported difficulty obtaining patented technology for their research; 58 percent experienced delays in research as a result; 50 percent had to change their research, and 28 percent abandoned the research project.”

“One-third of the researchers at academic institutions have personal financial ties to industry sponsors,” he says, adding that “less federal money for research is driving universities to collaborate with corporations.” When students have to sign confidentiality agreements and can’t share their findings with others, the advancement of science is jeopardized, he concludes.

“Scientists are signing off on research they didn’t conduct because of financial relationships with biomedical corporations,” he charges. “The integrity of scientific research is being tainted!”

Also of concern is the patenting of life forms, he says, which was allowed by a 1980 Supreme Court ruling, Diamond vs. Chakrabarty, in which a scientist was allowed to patent a bacterium that could be used to break down oil slicks. “Which living organisms should be patentable, and which should not be, and could it be patentable to genetically-alter human beings?” Lauritzen asks. “There’s no viable legal distinction [in the patent law] between lower-level and higher-level organisms.”