Buying and Selling Constraints on Academic Freedom and Integrity: The Case of BP

I just finished reading the short opinion article, "BP and Academic Freedom," published a few days ago in Inside Higher Ed. While the article has nothing directly to do with philosophy of religion (and while I'm pretty sure BP won't be knocking on my door offering me an opportunity to sell my academic soul in exchange for gobs of money), it chilled me enough that I wanted to share it here.

In brief, the article notes a recent trend on the part of BP to seek out researchers who are doing or may do work related to the oil spew in the Gulf of Mexico, and to offer them lucrative contracts--in exchange for agreeing to relinquish control of research findings and their dissemination to BP. As Cary Nelson, the author of the article, puts it:

...the work these scientists do will essentially belong to BP, which will be free to suppress it or characterize it in any way it chooses. Faculty members under contract to BP, meanwhile, would be unable to testify against the company in court and would be available to testify on the company’s behalf. Several faculty members in the area have confirmed to the American Association of University Professors that they have been offered contracts by BP in exchange for restrictive confidentiality clauses. A notably chilling provision directs contracted scientists to communicate through BP’s lawyers, thus raising the possibility that research findings will be constrained by lawyer-client privilege.

Contracts of this sort directly violate AAUP standards for corporate funding of research, which hold that no contract should restrict the free and open dissemination of research findings. Nevertheless, there are some who might say that no one is strong-arming researchers into accepting such contracts, and that if they choose to accept them they have voluntarily agreed to the contract's terms. As such, the contract terms do not violate Academic Freedom.

Is this right? I think not. Academic researchers are under enormous pressures to secure corporate funding for their research. Often, their careers depend upon it. More often than that, their ability to do the kind of research they want to do depends on it (because other forms of funding are limited). If corporations are free to put restrictive clauses into research contracts, the ultimate effect may be that the careers of university researchers will depend on those researchers giving away their academic freedom. That is, they will be forced to choose between not having jobs or the resources to do their research, and having those jobs and resources but lacking the freedom to share their findings in the environment of open and unbiased communication essential for effective science.

To avoid this outcome, the scientific community and universities must make it clear to corporations that they are not free to put such restrictive clauses into research contracts. Were universities in general to adopt clear policies prohibiting faculty from entering into such contracts, corporations that wanted to impose these kinds of restrictions would thereby be denied access to the intellectual resources universities can provide. This would likely be the most effective way to ensure that research moneys do not come with strings (and chains, and gags) attached. In this case as in others, policies that put constraints on what people can agree to actually serve the function of protecting freedom. They do so by ensuring that people don't find themselves with no real alternative but to accept a restrictive agreement.

Exclusive Interview with BP CEO Tony Hayward

Over the weekend, BP chief executive Tony Hayward took some well-deserved time off from watching oil pour into the Gulf of Mexico to enjoy a yacht race around the Isle of Wight—a race in which his personal 52-fooy yacht, “Bob,” participated.

Our hard-hitting faux interviewer for The Piety that Lies Between caught up with Hayward through the magic of teleconferencing as he was celebrating Bob’s fourth-place finish with a pint of Guinness at his nearest bungalo.

TPTLB: Many people are wondering how, in good conscience, you can enjoy this kind of luxury indulgence—a yacht race in unsullied British waters—while countless people, animals, and ecosystems in the gulf region suffer the grim consequences of the ongoing oil spew. What do you say in response?

Hayward: The truth is that these people’s lives are going to be devastated whether or not I enjoy myself, so I might as well enjoy myself. And while these events are tragic, no one should be forced to give up living their lives because of it.

TPTLB: Umm...People are being forced to do just that--by the great plumes of oil fountaining into the Gulf. Why shouldn't you be one of them?

Hayward: Because I'm rich, so I can afford to go where the water is pristine. No, wait. I take that back. What I mean is...it wasn't my fault.

TPTLB: But there’s mounting evidence that BP has pursued a company-wide policy of prioritizing cost savings over safety issues. In the last three years, BP oil refineries have accounted for 97% of the “egregious willful violations” uncovered by OSHA inspectors, even though they only account for a small fraction of the refineries in the US. Internal documents reveal that BP chose the cheaper and less safe of two designs for the Deepwater Horizon rig, and that BP also rejected Halliburton’s recommendation to use 21 centralizers to make sure the well bore remained in the center of the casing—choosing instead to go with just 6. And CNN interviews of survivors of the rig explosion describe decisions made leading up to the disaster that clearly prioritized profits over safety. CNN’s summary of these interviews runs as follows: “(T)he workers described a corporate culture of cutting staff and ignoring warning signs ahead of the blast. They said BP routinely cut corners and pushed ahead despite concerns about safety.” How do you respond to all of these allegations?

Hayward: I had nothing to do with any of that. I was out of the loop.

TPTLB: But doesn't all of this point to an overarching corporate culture, one that systematically prioritizes profits over workers’ lives and environmental protection? If the CEO isn’t responsible for shaping corporate culture, who is?

Hayward (smiling sheepishly, fishing in his briefcase, and extracting a laminated poster featuring BP’s logo): Just look at this logo. It’s kind of like a cross between a green sun and a flower. Very environmental. And our new brand name is Beyond Petroleum. What other corporation in the industry has done so much to shape its public image so as to convey a love of nature and a commitment to alternative energy? We’re on the cutting edge of green PR. I don't think that kind of accomplishment should be belittled.

TPTLB: Just out of curiosity, how many years might someone live off what it cost to buy Bob, your yacht?

Hayward: What kind of living wage are we talking about? $5,000,000? Bob is worth only $700,000—so I suppose that would keep you going for about a month or two.

TPTLB: No, I was thinking of a living wage more on the order of what a Louisiana fisherman would make—about $30,000.

Hayward: Uhhh…fishermen actually live off of that?

TPTLB: Well, not anymore. The bleeding wound your policy of greedy negligence has punched into the ocean floor has pretty much put those fishermen out of work. According to my math, the price of that yacht of yours could pay a fisherman’s salary for more than 20 years. You think maybe you should sell the thing and donate the money to some of the folks put out of work by your company’s practice of “egregious and willful” disregard for safety concerns? Maybe, while you’re at it, you could sell all your real estate, move into the kind of suburban three-bedroom house that most people who have far more money than they need typically live in, and then give the rest to help mitigate the effects of this disaster. Would you consider doing that?

Hayward: No.

TPTLB: Why not?

Hayward: It’d just be a drop in the bucket. I mean, the costs of this disaster are huge. Billions won't be enough to deal with a catastrophe of this magnitude. I could sell everything, move to skid row, and it would hardly make a dent in the problem. Besides, I already gave up my bonus this year.

TPTLB: Your multi-billion-dollar bonus?

Hayward: Yes. Along with all the other top BP executives. We all care so much about this problem that we felt we should tighten our belts.

TPTLB: And by "tighten your belt," you mean live on a bit less than you're used to but still more than most people will ever dream of seeing even if they pooled their lifetime income with the lifetime incomes of everyone in their village or neighborhood?

Hayward: Uhh...

TPTLB: You are absolutely right that selling your yacht and giving the income to the victims of this oil spew won't make much of dent in the problem. But it would be something. Maybe you could serve as an example to other CEO's. Don't you think you should do everything you can to help assuage the effects of this catastrophe, even if it means a radical change in your lifestyle, and even if it isn't enough? Especially since you bear at least some of the responsibility for what happened?

Hayward (huffing with frustration): Listen, you want me to be honest with you? The truth is that I like the life of luxury that I’ve been enjoying, and this whole disaster is an enormous distraction from it. I’d like my life back. I don’t want to have to give it up just because of my company’s role in the biggest manmade environmental catastrophe in history. I mean, do you think I really care about that, deep down? No! Of course not! At least not enough to give up my way of life over it. I just want to live the life I've come to enjoy.

TPTLB: As do we all, Tony. As do we all.

(The interview had to be cut short at this point because the interviewer needed to fill up gas in his brand new 2010 minivan, drive across town to pick up his daughter from a day camp, and then meet the rest of his family for lunch at a restaurant with enormous portion sizes.)