2000
| Novartis spins off ag division, merger: Swiss drug giant Novartis and
Anglo-Swedish AstraZeneca announced plans Thursday to each spin off their agricultural
chemical businesses, then merge them into a company with estimated annual revenue of
nearly $8 billion and a market value of about $12 billion. It is unlear what will become
of NADI and the research alliance.
what happened to CNNfm.com?
|
|
Novartis-Monsanto merger?
Monsanto and Switzerland's Novartis are in
talks that could lead to a full-blown merger of the two pharmaceutical and crop-protection
companies, according to a press report Tuesday.
what happened to CNNfm.com?
|
| March: An excellent cover story in the Atlantic Monthly details the
corporatization of public universities from both within and without, using the
UCB-Novartis alliance as its primary case study. This may be the best summary of the
grander issues! Read it here. |
| PMB Prof. Gruissem resigns: Prof. Wilhelm Gruissem of Berkeley's PMB
Dept. and the PI on the Novartis alliance, has announced that he will resign in July in
order to take a position with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Read a memo he circulated clarifying rumors. |
| Nature article on industry influence on science: He who
pays the piper calls the tunes? by Sara Abdulla. Yet more evidence has emerged that big
business and good science don't necessarily mix. A preliminary study reported in the
Journal of the American Medical Association claims that, when it comes to assessing the
cost-effectiveness of drugs, studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are nearly
eight times less likely to report unfavorable conclusions than studies paid for by
non-profit-making concerns. Full
text. |
| New Food First paper: "Ten reasons why
biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in
the developing world" by Miguel A. Altieri (University of California, Berkeley) and
Peter Rosset (Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy). Summary:
Biotechnology companies often claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) --
specifically genetically altered seeds -- are essential scientific breakthroughs needed to
feed the world, protect the environment, and reduce poverty in developing countries. This
view rests on two critical assumptions, both of which we question. The first is that
hunger is due to a gap between food production and human population density or growth
rate. The second is that genetic engineering is the only or best way to increase
agricultural production and thus meet future food needs. We challenge the notion of
biotechnology as a magic bullet solution to agriculture's ills, by clarifying
misconceptions concerning these underlying assumptions. Click here for full
text. |
1999
| Cal Monthly exchange continues: Former CNR ExCom chair
Ignacio Chapela and outgoing CNR Dean Gordon Rausser exchanged potential letters to the
editor of California Monthly this summer. Read
them here. |
| May: SRR turned in our recent petition
to alter the CNR-Novartis research alliance, with 215 signatures. We have not heard a
response. |
| May 27: CNR Dean Gordon Rausser sent a memo to all CNR faculty,
students and staff calling for "an initial public forum to discuss whether the NADI
agreement is consistent with our fundamental principles" and to "provide
an opportunity to explain why the University cannot and should not accommodate some of the
petitions requests." This was inspired by "That [SRR] petition and
factually false remarks made at commencement demonstrate that many students still have not
read or understood the workings of the recent NADI agreement." Although we
agree that "a discussion about whether the NADI agreement serves to enhance these
objectives could be enlightening," it makes little sense to hold such a forum after
the alliance has been signed and implemented. Click here for
the complete memo. He has not followed through on this. |
| April 13: After much delay, CNR Executive Committee chair Ignacio
Chapela presented the results of the survey at an April 13 meeting. Click
here for the full results. The survey indicated much division within the college, and
significant opposition to many components of the existing alliance, especially the link
between the research funding and capital improvement, the presence of Novartis employees
on campus, the fact that the alliance is between a single corporation and CNR instead of
with a discrete set of investigators. Furthermore, most faculty expect negative impacts on
academic freedom, shared governance, allocation of space, the exchange of ideas in CNR,
the public image of CNR, and public good research. Also at the presentation of the survey,
faculty discussed but could not agree on whether the alliance was with a select group of
faculty, the PMB department, or with CNR. Also, representatives of Academic Senate
explained their plans to monitor the alliance through an outside sociological study. |
| April 12: Martin Kinney, professor of rural sociology
and author of Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex (1986), spoke on
the Novartis alliance at a April 12 talk. He pointed out several ways in which this
contract is different from past ones:
| UC is responsible for reporting patentable discoveries covered by the contract to
Novartis |
| Novartis picks to attorneys to pursue the patents |
| Novartis can ex post decide that any information provided (verbal or written)
within the last 30 days is proprietary |
| Any employees, explicitly including graduate students, cannot access any proprietary
information without signing on to the agreement |
| The wording giving Novartis the right to edit papers for publication to remove any
references to proprietary information is "strong" |
| UC is responsible for enforcing the secrecy of proprietary information |
| Novartis can remove its name from the publication of research funded by the agreement |
|
| April 1: Daily Cal op-ed piece. |
| March: At a meeting of the graduate student council, UC Berkeley
Chancellor Berdahl commented on the Novartis alliance. He admitted that he though a poor
job was done at informing people earlier in the process about the terms of the
alliance. He said that a review process has been put into place to make sure that
the agreement does not have any unintended consequences. (However, it is not in place
yet.) Furthermore, he said this review team should include one or more gradute students. |
| March 13: UC Berkeley hosted a celebratory conference for the 25th
anniversary of biotechnology. No voices which question the mad rush toward these
potentially dangerous technologies were present. SRR assisted the "Ad Hoc Bay Area
Committee for Biotechnology in the Public Interest" in distributing informative fliers. |
| March: At a meeting of the Student-Dean's Council, Dean Rausser
expressed interest in giving SRR a formal role in oversight of future CNR alliances. We
will be meeting with him soon to pursue this. |
| March: Peter Rosset is executive director of Food First, an Oakland based non-profit which studies
solutions to world hunger. In a March 1999 interview with the Berkeley Voice, he asserted
that "The reason we have hunger is the structure of a food system that puts a
priority on profits rather than people." He is "very concerned" about the
CNR-Novartis alliance. "That company gets to determine the direction of the research
and the results . . . [which] cannot be disclosed, made public, published, or shared
without written permission from Novartis. What this does is it takes public sector money
that funds a public institution to be captured and used for private profit. It also stops
the free flow of information about scientific ideas. . . . How can government agencies,
such as the EPA and the FDA, effectively regulate a technology if there is not good,
objective, disinterested research about its effects and impacts? That's the kind of
research one would expect to come from the leading public sector research institutions
like UC Berkley." He suggests that instead UC should be entering into partnerships
with community organizations "demonstrating to the state and the community that the
university gives something back for the taxes that fund it." |
| On Feb 8., historian David Noble spoke on the Berkeley campus. He has a
record of speaking out against the influence of large businesses, and is critical of
university-corporate alliances. He said that the Novartis alliance is the most extreme
example of corporate influence on public research. He argued that the alliance violates
both the state constitution (because the CNR Dean does not have the authority to
essentially sell state property) and the Dole-Bayh amendment (which regulates
university-private research collaborations). Furthermore, he asserted that Sandoz came to
Berkeley seeking a partnership after its proposed alliance with Scripps (UCSD) fell apart.
(Sandoz later merged with Ciba-Geigy to form Novartis.)
| Read an article on the talk in The Berkeleyan
(published by University Relations). |
|
| February: California Monthly is the publication of the
Alumni office. The February issue contains an article by Law Prof. Robert Berring which
questions the Novartis-CNR alliance, and the appropriateness of Dean Rausser's LECG
consulting firm. "We must ask at what point does the university bargain away so much
of itself that it ceases to be the university and becomes a partner of the private sector?
If the private sector begins to play a role in setting research priorities, if it gets
built into the budget, something very fundamental has changed." Photocopies of the
article should be in the SRR news archives in the Mulford Hall lounge. |
| Feb. 1: The research program of the alliance became effective. |
| Jan. 25 Global Issues
in Agriculture article |
1998
| Dec. 10 The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Dean Rausser responded to his article, and in that he
falsely claims that SRR has submitted only 47 signatures. The true number is over 400. |
| On Dec. 8, CNR Dean Rausser announced a Christmas gift from Monsanto. We feel this is
yet another unnecessary link between CNR and biotech corporations that the Dean is
pursuing without consensus in the College. We question the benefits of such strong ties
between a public University and a private company whose products are of questionable
public benefit and who has a notorious record of protecting the public good. The Dean
states "I am pleased to announce another exciting development for the College.
Monsanto, the life sciences giant, has signed a memorandum of understanding to donate to
UC Berkeley an exclusive license, with the right to sub-license, rights that may flow from
Monsanto's pending U.S. patent applications for the agrobacterium method for corn seed
transformation. Following directives from the U.S. Department of Justice to divest of some
of the joint technology owned by Monsanto and DeKalb Genetics, Monsanto chose UC Berkeley
as the recipient of the agrobacterium technology. . . This gift confirms that the College
of Natural Resources is a major institution advancing the scientific foundations for
agricultural discovery. The Department of Justice approved UC Berkeley as the recipient of
this technology because of the College's leadership in agricultural biotechnology and its
role as a pro-competitive force in the industry. " You can read the full text of his
announcement. |
| Dec. 4 Washington Times |
| Dec. 3: The Graduate Student Council adopted a "resolution placing
reservations on industry-university cooperative research programs" that resolved
"Graduate students as a population affected by agreements such as the Novartis
agreement should be consulted in a timely fashion about the advisability of forming any
private and government industrial partnerships which may effect the atmosphere of academic
research at this campus and in their department. A knowledgeable graduate student without
ties to the College of Natural Resources or Novartis should be included in the Advisory
Committee as a voting member of the Novartis Agreement." |
| Dec. 2 The
Berkeleyan |
| Nov. 26: We wrote another letter
to the editor at the SF Chronicle |
| Nov. 24 news: SF
Chronicle, Associated
Press , Daily Cal |
| The full details of the contract became available Nov. 24, the day after the alliance
was signed. |
| Nov. 23 news: Associated
Press , Sacramento Bee |
| On Monday, November 23 the first of two parts of the CNR - Novartis alliance was signed
by CNR Dean Rausser, UCB Chancellor Berdahl, UCB Vice Chancellor for Research Cerny,
President and CEO of Novartis Corporation Douglas Watson, and President of Novartis
Agricultural Discovery Institute Steven Briggs. This first part is a $25 million research
agreement with the Dept. of Plant and Molecular Biology (In CNR). Following the CNR-
Novartis press conference, SRR held an alternative press conference. The second part of
the alliance is a $25 million capital improvement fund for CNR. This will be used to build
/ remodel buildings for research, including the research funded by Novartis. This second
contract is in negotiations. |
| The UC Berkeley Academic Senate, partly inspired by our letter,
sent a letter of concerns to Dean Rausser. Although he claimed these concerns had been
addressed, on the day of the signing of the first contract, Academic Senate issued a
statement stating that their concerns had not been adequately addressed and thus they
could not endorse the agreement. |
| On Thurs. Nov. 19, the press spokesman of the pending alliance offered us a meeting with
Novartis officials on Monday Nov. 23, the day of the signing. The following day, Friday
Nov. 20, he could not confirm the meeting, and said that he would tell us Monday morning
(the day of the meeting and signing) if it was still available. We would not have time to
organize on such short notice. |
| Nov. 19 news: Daily Cal
, East Bay Express |
| A student spoke to the press, described the proposed alliance in negative terms, and was
latter harassed by college administrators. |
| After much delay, the Dean finally sent out a non-binding survey. The faculty received
it on Thursday Nov. 19. Yet the alliance was signed on Monday Nov. 23. The surveys were
originally to be collected by the faculty, and the results to be made public. But then the
surveys were to be sent to the Dean's office instead. Finally, due to a "clerical
error," the surveys were declared invalid, and the process has began anew. |
| Nov. 13: The Dean used the "bully pulpit" of Breakthroughs, the glossy color
publication of the Office of College Relations sent to donors and alumni of the College.
In the issue sent Friday Nov. 13, he announced the Novartis deal as wholly beneficial for
CNR, without opposition, and nearly complete. "We have held several College-wide
forums on the proposed alliance to receive input from faculty, staff, and students and to
provide updates on the evolving discussions. This is simply false! |
| We drafted a letter to the Dean, the Chancellor, the President
of the Academic Senate and the President of the University of California requesting that
they NOT support the alliance. We received no feedback from any of the administrators. |
| Oct. 23 SF
Chronicle op-ed |
| Oct. 19 Daily Cal |
| SRR gathered over 400 signatures on a petition to the UC Board
of Regents and presented the Regents with the petition during the October Board meeting.
We were later chastised by the Dean for going outside of the College. |
| The Dean sent a memo to all CNR faculty, instructing them to not talk to the press, and
to instead refer the press to the new press representative for the CNR-Novartis alliance. |
| Oct. 15 Salon Magazine |
| Oct. 14: We wrote a letter
to the editor at the SF Chronicle |
| Repeated attempts to see the alliance documents failed. In one case a student examining
documents he was handed by the Dean's secretary in the Dean's office had his notes
confiscated. |
| Oct. 9 SF
Chronicle |
| Oct. 6 Daily Cal |
| Oct. 5 Daily Cal |
| The general CNR community discovered of the proposed alliance in October from an Oct. 9 SF
Chronicle newspaper articles. |
|