The commercialization of academic science: Conflict of interest for the faculty consultant

This research examines faculty consulting as a component of Academic-Industry Research Relationships (AIRRS) and uses institutional theory to explain its relationship to both universities and disciplines. This study investigates whether or not actual conflict of interest issues arise for life sciences faculty who report they earn a major source of income above their institutional salary by consulting for non-profit organizations, industry, and government. The data are drawn from a survey administered to 3,169 U.S. faculty across 50 research-intensive universities in 1994--95.; The results generated four primary conclusions presented in this dissertation. First, faculty members who consult with private industry appear to be more productive in research and in disciplinary and university service levels than their nonconsulting colleagues do. The faculty member who consults exclusively with one company spends more time with students, generates greater numbers of publications, and serves both the institutional and disciplinary environment to a greater degree than others in the sample. Second, consultants tend to work in highly ranked academic programs. Third, faculty consultants are more entrepreneurial than non-consultants as measured by overall research budgets, entrepreneurial behavior levels, and supplemental income amounts. Finally, this study shows that faculty who consult do not engage in the conflict of interest behaviors of research bias, prior review, and withholding as developed for this study.