Letter To The Editor

Profs reply: 'U of S corporatization a reality'

To the editor:

We are again indebted to Professor Bernhard Juurlink for his useful contribution to a widening public interest debate on priority setting and innovation at the U of S ("Prof sees no corporate agenda with synchrotron," January 24, 2003, OCN).

Professor Juurlink regards us as irrational because we do not share his views about the synchrotron, and "negate the validity of the CLS as a scholarly tool." Had he read our article more carefully, he would have noticed that "we recognize the beneficial contributions of applied science on campus, where it does not thereby diminish teaching and curiosity-based research at the university by diverting public funds to research investments that serve corporate profit-oriented agendas." A further proviso should be that applied science not be converted to intellectual property that is restricted to private corporate use.

In order to deny the increasing corporatization and its dubious effects on the U of S, Juurlink overlooks the following facts, negating any pretence of following the scientific method:

• The private sector will have access to 25% of research conducted at the CLS - almost double that at other synchrotrons worldwide;
• The capital costs of the CLS amount to $173.5 million, paid for exclusively by the public sector;
• The private sector has contributed a mere $1 million to the CLS;
• Boehringer-Ingelheim's contribution of $500,000 is a tiny fraction of the $6-10 million cost of a beamline, and will be matched by funds from Saskatchewan Economic Development and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research;
• GlaxoSmithKline's funding of a research chair worth $500,000 should be measured against the attempt of its British subsidiary to block the manufacture of generic AIDS drugs, because they would threaten its $billion revenues.

Having ignored these facts, Juurlink falsely accuses us of erecting a "straw man" argument. The basis for his claim is that President Peter MacKinnon has not mentioned a corporate agenda for university research. Even if this were true, it would not follow, and commits Juurlink to a fallacy known as non sequitur.

In fact, MacKinnon has repeatedly promoted the "Innovation Agenda," and he is openly persistent in advancing marketplace imperatives. On September 23, 2002 at a "summit" organized by Industry Canada, he lauded "bringing new goods and services to market" as the "National Dream of the 21st Century" in which "universities must be strong participants." Since "Saskatoon is wonderfully well placed to be a leader in the Innovation Agenda," the goal of the U of S is to ensure its success.

A recent book by Tom Pocklington and Allan Tupper from the University of Alberta, entitled No Place To Learn, states that: "Universities must examine how research partnerships with corporations shape the quality and nature of research ... Partnerships that distort university priorities should, if operative, be abandoned or not proceeded with in the first instance."

Are we mistaken in believing that the CLS and the "Innovation Agenda" will suck publicly funded resources away from other parts of campus and entail higher student fees?