UC Berkeley needs to set clear restrictions on the power corporations have in any joint venture. There are important conflicts between serving the corporate interest and serving the public interest. There can also be conflicts between the corporate interest and the freedom of the researcher. It is vital to identify such points of conflict, and put in place safeguards to ensure that the public interest takes priority in all funding deals. Our broad principles for these safeguards are:

We believe ownership of research patents should be governed by clear, openly decided rules.

We believe state taxpayer funds should not support research primarily in the interest of corporate profit.

We believe education at UC Berkeley should not be significantly altered by corporate partners, by company employees teaching classes, advising students, or affecting hiring and admissions.

We believe faculty should have the academic freedom to conduct research that may be fundamentally opposed to any corporation's interests, and still receive promotions, tenure, and funding. We believe the proportion of corporate funding in public research must be carefully limited, to prevent the over-development of specific areas of research at the expense of others.

The proposal UCB submitted to BP lacks safeguards to ensure that research is done first and foremost in the public interest, and that the freedom of academic inquiry will be protected:

1. The BP proposal has two labs devoted to expanding fossil fuel production, including one to produce more oil from existing wells (EBI proposal, pages 49-50). While this is clearly in the interest of BP, it is in direct contradiction of the public interest in sustainable, renewable energy.
2. The proposed governance structure indicates that BP will have at least as much control over the entire research agenda as UCB (EBI proposal, pages 7-12). Further, according to the proposal, the institute director will receive confidential communications from BP on the company's business plan. (EBI proposal, page 27) This implies that BP's business agenda will be centrally incorporated into the research agenda.
3. In a building funded by state resources, BP will house up to 50 of its own scientists in proprietary facilities. There will be no public access or oversight regarding what goes on in this facility. Yet, like ExxonMobil in its deal with Stanford, BP would be able to brand Berkeley's name on any research it does in this facility.
4. The proposed deal will hire 7 new Full Time Equivalent (FTE) faculty whose primary focus is in biofuel research. Many professors have raised concerns that this major increase in faculty could seriously narrow and limit interest and research in other alternative energy sources.
5. BP scientists from the proprietary side will get to teach courses, advise graduate and undergraduates, and participate in K-12 outreach through UCB (EBI proposal, page 59). This intense focus on a narrow topic could greatly skew the range and focus of course options on alternative energy and sustainability.
6. The property rights provisions in the proposal are extremely vague, ignoring the recommendations of investigations into past corporate deals, and setting the stage for future legal struggles. These provisions are being established without any open review by students, faculty, and the community.
7. There are many potential financial conflicts of interest in this deal, as some Berkeley faculty have pointed out. In particular, one of the primary UC Berkeley researchers owns a company specializing in producing a particular form of genetically-modified grass. This grass has been written into the proposed BP deal, potentially greatly increasing demand for the grass, and the researcher's company's profits.

Sign our petition to the chancellor. Write a letter.

Email us to get involved!