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 university’s 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 (N=26)  2 Time points: 1997 & 2005  Data Board members & corporations:  Slaughter, Feldman, & Thomas NIH grant Research expenditures  Mathies, NSF Grant: NSF R&D 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 19972005 # of Trustees11931189 Mean # of Trustees46 # of Corporate Connections1342881 Mean Corporate Connections51.633.9

12. Findings – Corporate connections  Majority of institutions experienced a decline in the number of corporate connections from 1997 to 2005 (t = 5.5, p<.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, p>.63) (L; t=-.663, p>.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 >.62; L, T = -.979, p>.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 <.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, p>.20) Liberal:  Mean increase from 58% in 1997 to 76% in 2005, was statistically significant (T = -2.531, p<.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