EDITORIAL: It’s a Dealbreaker

Nine months have passed since the $500 million BP-UC Berkeley partnership was first announced. This week, the two parties officially cemented the deal by signing a contract—a vastly different contract from the original proposal that threatens the integrity of the Energy Biosciences Institute.

There’s no denying that having the Energy Biosciences Institute will provide many benefits to UC Berkeley. Not only does the BP deal provide at least $350 million to open research, the establishment will further boost UC Berkeley’s reputation as a leader in new technologies, especially in a field that has the potential to tackle serious environmental issues.

Unfortunately, the new contract signed between UC Berkeley and BP diminishes the value of the institution, and instead only confirms the suspicions of those critical of the deal from the very start. In the initial proposal the Governance Board, the main oversight body, was supposed to be composed of five members: two from BP and the rest from UC Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The new contract stipulates instead that an eight-person board will feature four members from BP with the remaining spots divided among the three other institutions.

If BP insisted on the new structure, then it’s an ominous indication of how future proceedings will play out. As half the voting board, BP has more power than previously granted to force matters its liking.

This new development is especially alarming since the contract also allows for another questionable feature. At least 50 BP scientists will be able to conduct “proprietary” research at UC Berkeley and the University of Illinois. According to the agreement, these investigations, “operated under the sole control and discretion of BP,” can remain secret and thus free from scrutiny.

One of the major criticisms against the BP deal focused on the need for transparency. Forming a partnership with the energy giant opens a lot of possibilities, but it also brings many other thorny issues, including intellectual property rights and academic freedom. Transparency and how the university can ensure this feature has been of great concerns to many members of the school community, and allowing for “secret” research disregards the campus constituency.

Throughout the summer, UC Berkeley officials met with several student representatives, including ASUC officials and graduate students. By agreeing to the exchange the officials appeared to be genuinely interested in addressing campus concerns; the contract unfortunately demonstrates that none of the trepidations were truly addressed.

Another oft-mentioned criticism of the BP deal revolves around the company’s controversial history. Many feel that UC Berkeley should not engage in a partnership with a company that has been indicted in numerous environmental violations and illegal business practices. Just recently BP and its subsidiaries shelled out $373 million to settle dozens of legal cases, including one featuring the leaking of crude oil pipelines in Alaska.

However, though BP’s past may not be very angelic, the main focus of protests to the deal should have revolved around preserving academic integrity. This is UC Berkeley’s first major partnership with a corporation, and there are still untested waters yet to come. It was more important to fight for the guarantee that UC Berkeley researchers would not be hindered by patent issues and that transparency would be maintained through all proceedings.

It must be difficult for the university to argue with a powerful entity that has promised half a billion dollars—it doesn’t leave much bargaining leverage on UC Berkeley’s part. However, these new terms do not bode well for the future of the Energy Biosciences Institute. The university has the option to decide in the next 180 days whether or not the agreement aligns with its core principles. Hopefully within this period the school will recognize the reality that this is not the fair partnership as first promised.

Tags: