printable versionSenate approves revised conflict-of-interest policy
BY RAY DELGADO
The Faculty Senate on Thursday approved a series of modifications to the university's 10-year-old faculty policy on conflict of commitment and interest, even though some senators expressed reservations about the kinds of obligations the revisions would place on faculty.
The senate approved the new policy on a nearly unanimous voice vote after a lively debate that focused on the new threshold for disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and the potential problems for faculty who might unwittingly violate the new rules. The policy revisions were originally debated at a senate meeting last spring but were sent back to the Committee on Research for modifications and clarifications.
The revised document spells out the university's policy and procedures regarding conflict of commitment and conflict of interest as they apply to faculty. The revisions dealt primarily with a section of the policy that deals with ad hoc disclosures and the definition of "significant financial interests."
The university requires faculty members to disclose when they (or anyone in their immediate family) has any employment or consulting relationship, or a significant financial interest—generally gifts or sponsored research—in an entity with which the university enters into an agreement.
The old policy defined "significant financial interests" as a stake amounting to at least 0.5 percent of the company's equity or valued at $100,000 or more.
The new policy lowered the threshold to $10,000 to comply with the standard for significance set by most major research universities and by both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
The policy also redefined the guidelines to require disclosure whenever human subjects are involved in research or the company is privately held, such as a startup.
Regarding procurement, the new policy requires disclosure only in cases involving sole-source procurement and procurement from a privately held company. For all other purchases, the committee encouraged faculty to use common sense to decide whether or not to disclose.
Several professors objected to the decreased threshold, mainly because they felt that it set the bar too low for disclosures and would require faculty to vigilantly monitor their investment portfolios and constantly scrutinize any potential relationships they have with companies that do business with the university.
Business Professor John Roberts, who voted against the new policy as revised, said he was worried that the university would receive gifts above $10,000 from companies that might support him or his students but about which he was unaware.
"In the Business School, for example, we have research centers that are funded by our development people going out and getting gifts against which our salaries are charged," Roberts said. "I, as a center director, may not know when those funds are coming and from whom, nor do those faculty and students being supported."
Roberts said the policy might place burdens on many professors to disclose any kind of consulting arrangements or large investments they have to their deans as a precautionary measure.
Arthur Bienenstock, vice provost and dean of research and graduate policy, said the new revisions were necessary to avoid potential problems in the future.
"I think as an institute it would be really wise for us to ensure that the faculty know the source of funding for their research," Bienenstock said. "The case that I would worry about most is a clinical trial for a company where a faculty member did not know that the drug company involved was a significant supporter of research, and we could end up [where] a study that was done perfectly well and objectively was sullied subsequently because it was revealed the drug company was a major supporter of research at the institution. It would be much safer that the faculty know of their support, and we ought to ensure that."
Biological sciences Professor Robert Simoni, who voted in favor of the policy, said he was concerned about setting the threshold too low for faculty members who might have vast investment portfolios that they might not manage and that might include companies with which they do business.
Engineering Professor Elisabeth Paté-Cornell, the chair of the Committee on Research, said faculty members typically do not have more than a handful of grants from outside sources and should be able to cross-check those income sources against their investments to ensure that there was no conflict of interest. She also emphasized the need for faculty members to check sources of funding that come to them through centers with which they are affiliated. "It was our judgment that it was not that complicated for you to check how much you had in each of the companies from which you receive funds for your research," Paté-Cornell said.
Business Professor Evan Porteus also expressed concerns about inadvertent "technical violations" of the policy but said he thought that it could be observed with a little effort from faculty.
"It still could add a level of burden that one doesn't look forward to, but it's probably doable, and I think one has to assume that the deans' offices will apply this policy with common sense and that we can avoid the onerous burden that no one really intends to have in place," Porteus said. "But it's still a little bit of a concern at that level. I think that $10,000—somebody came up with that 20 years ago and nobody's bothered to change it. I think it's sort of ludicrous, but I understand the rationale."
One other revision to the policy now requires faculty to maintain a significant physical presence on campus throughout each quarter they are on active duty. Paté-Cornell said the addition of the word "physical" was important because the committee felt that face-to-face interaction between students and faculty was an important part of the educational experience.