DID HE GET AN INDIRECT COST RETURN? Universities have encouraged their faculty to seek external funding for their research. Sometimes that funding includes an administrative reassignment referred to in popular parlance as "release time," which translates into more time for research and fewer courses to teach.
There is a line, somewhere, between externally funded pure research and externally funded advocacy. (In the Superintendent's view, the two National Endowments cross that line as a matter of nature, but that's for another day.) A professor at California-Davis is discovering that the location of the line depends on the observer's perspective. He has been accused of
treason, according to
Tyler at Marginal Revolution. Did he take money from the Republican National Committee? Nope. (OK, I'm being acerbic, but that's a feature here.) Was it Hamas money? Nope. Was it a foreign government? Yep. In this case, it's
Brazil's government. (Does that country currently have a socialist government? Curious the effect politics has on commercial policies.)
What did this professor investigate that was so loathsome? Cotton subsidies.
[Agricultural economist Daniel] Sumner said that like many economists at universities, he is not favorably disposed toward farm subsidies in general, because he sees little rationale for protecting farmers from market forces, and he believes that some of the goals subsidies are supposedly aimed at -- preserving rural communities, for example -- could be achieved much more effectively by using other programs.
Right on. It is amusing to hear U.S. trade officials complaining about the dumping behavior of other countries whilst tolerating the export subsidies for grains, sugar, cotton, and tobacco (yes.) I am still waiting for the opportunity to buy a Lands' End button-down made in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq from cotton grown in one of those countries, but my government won't let me.
There is a dimension of the sponsored research that Marginal Revolution has glossed over, that requires further comment. Apparently the agricultural economics faculty at Davis have done some work for U.S. cotton interests. Are those interests upset that their court intellectuals don't stay bought off?
The message has been received loud and clear by Neal Van Alfen, dean of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at UC-Davis, who said the amount of money farm organizations provide for research at the university is "significant."
Van Alfen said Sumner "has the right, and it's an important right" to use his academic expertise as he did by working for the Brazilians, and be paid for it, especially since he was careful to spend only vacation time doing so. But, the dean said, "I question his judgment. It's a matter of, in any organization, if you have close working relationships with a broad group of people, you want to think twice about developing relations with their competitor, and doing it in such a public way."
The problem, dear readers, lies not with the professor's judgement, but with the sponsored research system itself. Research is expensive. Good research is particularly so. With (in some disciplines) a rather elastic supply of teaching labor available at budget rates legislators and others holding the university's purse strings understandably seek to encourage all faculty who wish to do research to seek external funding, in order to boost default teaching loads (both course load and course size.) External funding, however, involves the possibility of the principal investigator doing work that supports the agenda of the sponsor. That's not the same thing as doing research for its own sake.
The administration at Davis has chosen to ride the tiger. Now they must face the consequences. It is for cases like the Sumner case that academic tenure exists. To accuse him of treason for doing his job is to be silly. (Rent seeking makes some people silly, though.)