Opening Remarks from Dr. Martin Jischke, President of Iowa State University

This has long been an important subject in education because education deals not only with knowledge but the wise and moral use of that knowledge. It is becoming increasingly important today, not only because of the impact that we, as educators, have on young people in preparing them for life, but also because of how we, as educators and researchers, are having an impact on our society and our world through our science and its application in technology.

At Iowa State, we not only have this Bioethics program, but we also have a growing emphasis on ethics in engineering education, and the Murray Bacon Center for Ethics in Business, and it¼s great to see the founder of that center, Murray Bacon, with us today.

The field of ethics has come a long way at Iowa State. While ethical questions in any field are serious and interesting, they are particularly interesting in the new science of molecular biology, where we are literally dealing with the fundamental building blocks of life, and where this new science and its technology have potentially significant consequences--consequences not just on a limited local scale, but on a global scale. And if you don¼t believe the public is aware and watching, just rent a copy of the recent hit movie „Outbreak.¾

With that said, again, I express my appreciation to all of you for the active role you are taking in this important area by being a part of the Bioethics Program, and to the Bioethics Program for sponsoring this forum.

To begin my remarks I must say that I am somewhat concerned by the approach that this forum seems to be taking and the question I have been asked to address.

My concern stems, in part, from the title of this forum, which is the „McDonaldization of the university. Has the private sector become the hub of research?"

First, McDonald's sponsors little research at ISU and we do not intend to distribute ISU by franchise. Second, private sector support of our research represents only about ten percent of sponsored research; hardly the HUB of research. It would appear from this title that assumptions are implied that are not necessarily born out by facts.

The question that I have been asked to address is: where is Iowa State University headed?

In some ways, this question surprises me. I believe that our direction and path are clear. They are based on our long-standing mission as Iowa¼s land-grant university, and in the fact that we aspire to become the best land-grant university in the nation. Those are not idle or hollow words, and anyone who has been around Iowa State for any length of time should know this.

The land-grant mission carries with it certain values--important values; values of access, combining practical and liberal education, basic and applied research, and outreach. Our mission as a public land-grant university is designed to further the interests of the people and the state we serve--educationally, economically, culturally, and socially.

This land-grant mission--to advance the state of Iowa--leads directly to Iowa State entering into partnerships; all manner of partnerships, including research and technology transfer partnerships with the private sector. In fact, partnerships are necessary in all aspects of our mission--in our teaching, our research, and our outreach--and they include partnerships with the private sector.

The most significant example is our partnership with agriculture. Farmers are certainly in the private sector, and Iowa State has maintained a very strong partnership with them for all of its 136-year history.

This system of partnerships is one that has worked--and in Iowa¼s case worked very well--for more than a century. The details and specifics change with the times, to be sure, but the message here, I believe, is clear. And that is that our kind of university--a land-grant university--has never been and will never be an ivory tower-- an isolated, insulated kind of institution. Thus, I believe that the values of the land-grant university compel relationships with entities outside the university in both the public and private sectors--including research partnerships with the private sector.

To the extent that one questoins the idea of such partnerships, one questions the values that define land-grant universities. So perhaps what we have here is, in fact, a debate over values. Or, more precisely, who establishes these values of the university?

Whose values are we talking about? I think the answer is very clear. Iowa State is a public university, therefore, our values and our resulting mission are defined by representatives of the people we serve--the people of Iowa.

In this regard, I find some of the arguments put forth in Professor Bowie¼s book disturbing; for example, the „distributed justice¾ argument that there are winners and losers in higher education because of university-business partnerships. By whose measure should we assess the "justice" of the distribution of resources. By the measure of those in the university or by the measure of those whose resources we are given and whom we serve? Practical questions of legislative appropriations, sponsored research, and student enrollments not withstanding, how does this idea of "distributive justice" deal with the changing needs of society? Surely, it can't mean that all new resources, no matter the source, should be spread evenly across all existing disciplines of the university--humanities, sciences, technology, etc., with all being treated alike? What if a particular discipline attracts no students? What if a research field becomes less interesting, less important? What is the mechanism for change?

Clearly, we must have the capacity for change. There is no question that the interests, needs and priorities of those we serve and those who fund our enterprise change over time. To not respond to these forces, these markets, is quite at odds with our land-grant mission and invites, over time, a university of less societal consequence.

I must tell you that I find this argument of "distributive justice" quite unpersuasive and unappealing. That some areas of the university have special opportunities for support does not mean that other areas are being disadvantaged. One rarely makes progress by decrying the success of others. It is an argument unworthy of people committed to excellence. More importantly, this argument ignores the market for research support (and other kinds of funding) and the competitive nature of that support.

Ignoring markets like the one for sponsored research reminds me of a discussion I had in Czechoslovakia a few years ago. I was visiting with the Rector of one of the Czech universities who had served in his position for many years, both before and after the fall of Communism. ISU was working with his university to help bring market economics, especially in agriculture, to a curriculum that was quite out of date. He noted that they had many more students applying in business, management and economics than they could accommodate. I asked him why didn't they use a market approach, that is, charge tuition (with some financial aid discounting) so that they could hire more faculty to teach more students? In this way they could adapt to this increased demand and serve the growing student market. His reply was astonishing. He said that they had studied Western Europe and concluded that educating too many students led to high unemployment and social unrest. To him, expanding education and social progress were antithetical! It was one thing to teach market economics, it was quite another to practice it! This Rector was neither a free marketer nor a democrat. Change was his enemy. He didn't understand why Havel was elected President!

In the absence of mechanisms, like markets, that facilitate change, we invite great risks. "Distributive justice" ignores this fact. Our university is a public university, governed by Iowa citizens who represent that public. And they want a university that is responsive, has the capacity for change, and, in particular, is engaged in research partnerships with the private sector. They want a university that seeks resources, both public and private, to carry out its mission. They do so because they believe it will serve the interests of Iowa--educationally, economically, and in other ways. This is unmistakably clear to me and, I would assume, to you.

It therefore appears to me that the arguments put forth by Professor Bowie are based on the fact that he and others don¼t like some of the decisions that are being made by the public or its elected or appointed representatives.

So perhaps, this forum is really about the question: Whose university is it? Or should it be? Who sets the agenda, determines our mission, articulates our values? It's very clear--to me, and I hope to you, that the people of Iowa own Iowa's state universities, and they govern them through the publicly appointed State Board of Regents. I believe the resulting responsiveness of this system is an important reason why the United States has the best system of higher education in the world.

That we--you and I--can and should have an important influence on setting the institution¼s priorities is also clear--and appropriate; and we do. But we need to realize that the priorities that we put forth for consideration and support must be grounded in our mission as Iowa¼s land-grant university--a mission to serve the needs of the people of Iowa, and that includes research partnerships with the private sector.

We also need to be mindful that the resources necessary to run our university are tied inexorably to fulfilling this mission, and the funding debate is one that comes up regularly--at least once a year in the Iowa Capitol when the governor and legislators discuss a budget that currently allocates nearly 60 percent of total state revenues to education. Don¼t make the mistake of thinking that this level of funding is an automatic thing, an entitlement, at the statehouse each year, despite the fact that Iowa is a state that prides itself on excellence in education.

That there are challenges in fulfilling this mission--and in establishing partnerships and linkages with the various sectors to carry it out--is unmistakable.

And it¼s not just in partnerships with the private sector as the „McDonaldization¾ title implies. In fact, some of our most difficult challenges are with government agencies, as our 18-month-long negotiation with the Department of Energy on the new Ames Laboratory contract attests. However, generalizing that some partnerships are good and others bad simply because one is with the public sector and another is with the private sector--the corporate private sector--is dangerous, and worse yet, it is counterproductive to Iowa State¼s fulfilling its mission as Iowa¼s land-grant university.

Finally, we shouldn¼t underestimate the intelligence of the people of Iowa--especially the leaders of their various sectors, public and private--when it comes to Iowa State maintaining its land-grant character, and its relevance to them.

Land-grant universities came into being because the traditional colleges and universities of the time did not meet the needs of the people of this country. Land-grant universities are America¼s unique contribution to higher education. This system has been so successful that the rest of the world is looking to the United States--and to universities like Iowa State--to emulate it--to do for them in the next century what the land-grant system did for the United States during the past century and a half.

That we have challenges and that we must deal with questions of conflict and balance in our work is clear--more partnerships mean greater complexity and more opportunity for conflict. But these are not reasons to set about on a course that will reverse what has been the most remarkable century and a half of educational progress the world has ever seen, and that was due in part to the role of this new generation of higher education institution--the land-grant university.

I believe the notion that we can¼t or shouldn't have partnerships, including research partnerships with the private sector, is both wrong-headed and dangerous. In today¼s world, more than ever before, in order for our state and our nation to grow and prosper, we must get technology into use, and quickly. At the same time, institutions such as ours need to support the investment being made in the discovery of new science and technology by getting a return on it. That¼s why we have processes and procedures in place to ensure first, access to the technology we discover, and, second, where possible, a fair return to the university for the investment through licensing agreements. Alan Paau will go into these procedures in some detail in the next session, and as you will see, it is a very complicated issue, but one that must be handled correctly if this system of partnerships is to work for the benefit of all.

One of the most important responsibilities of a university administration is to ensure that this system does indeed work well and properly--for the benefit of all the people we serve.

If we, as university administrators and faculty, do not carry out this responsibility effectively, there is a set of checks and balances that will see to it that we do, and that¼s the State Board of Regents and the elected officials of Iowa. The system we have has worked, and worked very effectively for a century and a half, and I believe strongly that it is one key to this nation¼s future economic success.

Iowa State is a land-grant university--and a public university. We serve the people of Iowa. Iowa State is their university.

It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote: „I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.¾ All of us in public employment need to live by these words.

Thank you.