U. lacks written ethics policy on research funding

The University has traditionally avoided evaluating the ethical and political stances of research sponsors, but no written policy exists outlining this practice, Vice Provost for Research Barry Cooperman said yesterday. Though the Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators does not prohibit the evaluation of funding sources, Cooperman said the University rarely looks into the backgrounds of these sources. He added that it would be difficult for the University to look into the backgrounds of all organizations in the absence of a specific request for an investigation. In the case of the Pioneer Fund, an alleged racist foundation that has funded research at the University since the early 80s, University President Judith Rodin personally asked Cooperman to investigate the group this summer. Cooperman said his investigation of the foundation's background and the conditions of its 1992 gift to Associate Regional Science Professor Daniel Vining revealed nothing that conflicted with the University's policies. Furthermore, the ethical implications of the foundation's activities and stated goals were considered by University administrators to be irrelevant. A book published earlier this year states that the Pioneer Fund promotes eugenic racism, an idea that the human race can be improved by eliminating its "negative" traits through controlled selective breeding. "I don't think that the issue of ethics has never been posed," Cooperman said. "It's just that, by custom, it's been resolved [that] we don't do it. "I could imagine circumstances in which the president would be justified in not accepting a grant [on ethical grounds]," Cooperman added. "But there are people who would differ with me and say that under no circumstances should you impose an ethical test." Many University faculty members and administrators have expressed the belief that the application of ethical tests would limit academic freedom. Cooperman said an organization must be legal in order to accept grants from it, but the faculty handbook includes no such provision. "It almost never happens that we are approached by illegal organizations," Cooperman added. "From a practical point of view, if you restrict [funding sources] to legal organizations, you are basically not imposing any tests [on the organizations]," he said. The handbook does list guidelines for conducting sponsored research and the administrative review of that research. According to these guidelines, approval of grant proposals by department chairpersons indicates that they have examined the research project and found it to have academic merit. Former Regional Science Chairperson Stephen Gale said he did not evaluate the academic merit of Vining's work because he was never told by the University to do so. "If [the researcher] can publish the results, the research is perfectly legitimate," Gale said. According to Cooperman, the strongest challenge to the University's unwritten policy of not establishing ethical standards came in the 1970s when a Libyan organization sought to fund the research of University professors. Political Science Professor Frederick Frey and Associate Professor of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Thomas Naff were considering a potential grant from a Libyan group to study the Libyan Congress and several government committees. "There was a group of people at Penn who objected to our even talking to the Libyans," Frey said. "We felt that it was too sensitive so we ended up turning down their offer. "The University never told me not to do it [though]," he added. Naff claimed that the proposal he and Frey originally considered was consistent with University guidelines. The problem arose when the Libyan organization wanted the research to be conducted in a specific direction. "In doing research, you have to apply ethical tests," Frey said. "If the research is being done by people who are going to be strongly biased by some ideological orientation, I do think that is inappropriate."