Tech transfer
What is the proper role for today's research university?
President David Skorton's column "Today's Ideas, Tomorrow's Jobs" (July/August 2009) is deeply disturbing. Yes, universities in general and land-grant universities in particular have obligations to society (for which, regrettably, universities often read "corporations"). Yes, job creation is important. Yes, "we must find ways to accelerate the translation of basic research into new products and processes." But none of this is what, ultimately, a university is about: research in all fields, including those with little if any economic impact, and teaching, teaching, teaching—preferably by real, live, and tenured senior faculty members. Moreover, "translation" of basic research (presumably in science) into technologies that make money may often occur, if at all, many years after much of the research itself has been done. That this "translation" may never occur does not by itself reduce the intellectual value of a piece of research.
The whole thrust of the grotesquely named Task Force on Diversifying the New York State Economy Through Industry-Higher Education Partnerships looks like an attempt to erase the distinction between research undertaken by industries in labs they own and whose work is geared toward making profits and research driven by curiosity and undertaken by academics in a putatively nonprofit university. These two can legitimately come together only under carefully defined and controlled conditions. Similarly, licensing of technology developed by faculty to beginning companies for profit-making purposes requires well-crafted restrictions. And in all these matters, transparency and openness are essential. The president's column shows no interest in these controls and conditions.
Donald Mintz '49, PhD '60
Trumansburg, New York
President Skorton replies: In general, I agree with Dr. Mintz that "tech transfer" is most commonly a serendipitous result of scholarly attention to the main matters of academia: education and inquiry into fundamental questions—but not always. I think a strong argument can and should be made that universities supported by substantial public funding, such as Cornell, have a special obligation to help local and state economies when we can.
Separate But Equal?
I've just returned from my 40th Reunion, where I had a wonderful time seeing old friends and making new ones. I noticed, however, that there were no black alumni among us. I have since learned that black alumni generally don't participate in their respective class reunions but instead spend the entire weekend with other black alumni under the auspices of the Cornell Black Alumni Association (CBAA). The CBAA 2009 Reunion was organized such that black alumni lived in separate housing, ate separately, and partied separately from the rest of the alumni. At the events orchestrated by CBAA, race was the common theme.
At what point does separation start to smell like segregation? Isn't part of the reason that we chose to attend a university such as Cornell that we would have a chance to learn from people who are different from us—people of different colors, faiths, nationalities, cultures, belief systems, and experiences? Such separation represents a loss to both the black and non-black alumni. It is disappointing that this separation is, in fact, apparently supported by the University. As long as people choose to do things primarily on the basis of race, racism is with us.
John Rees '69,
MCE '70 Portland, Oregon
Frankly Speaking
Robert Frank's ideas in "Saving Grace" (July/August 2009) are thought-provoking and worthy of consideration, if we're going to proceed with the Obama Administration's ambitious plans to transform our country. I do, however, have a question about the consumption tax he proposed. In the example he gave, the family makes $50,000, saves $5,000, and has taxable consumption of $15,000, triggering a tax of only $1,500. I think that there is a simple way to defeat the purpose of this approach: if they wanted to spend an extra $5,000, why not wait until next year and take it out of savings? Would they be compelled to add their withdrawals to their income for that tax year? If not, what's to keep them from doing all their consumption with their savings account?
Dave Bridgeman '65
San Jacinto, California
Robert Frank replies: Taxable consumption is reckoned as income minus savings minus the standard deduction. In the example cited, the family's savings the following year would be a negative number: -$5,000. If all else were the same, its taxable consumption would be $50,000 -(-$5,000) – $30,000 = $25,000. So the family would-n't be escaping any tax by waiting.
As experienced business people, we found Robert Frank's "Saving Grace" quite disturbing. It has been a long time since we have read an article with more false assumptions, lack of reality, and lack of common sense. The concept that the overblown public sector—with its guaranteed employment, short working hours, excessive benefits, and huge pensions—is more efficient than the private sector is preposterous. Frank's lack of understanding that our government is the largest individual creator of pollution while it exempts itself from environmental responsibility is also remarkable. His comment that he (or some government bureaucrat) will know better how to spend another person's money supports the type of abusive and excessive governmental interference in our lives that would ultimately destroy any semblance of greatness in America.
Simply put, virtually every economic study that we have seen supports the fact that the primary reason people buy things is because they want them, not because they are trying to keep up with the Joneses. It is only in socialism and Frank's mind that the primary desire of Americans is to level the playing field by taking away from those who have resources.
Steve Einhorn '64 &
Nancy Lore Einhorn '64
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
I was impressed by the silky-smooth, well-reasoned article by Robert Frank, which suggested a way to get rid of our impossibly complicated tax code and institute a less cumbersome method that would also reshape our economic system. It seems as easy as falling off a log. Unfortunately, this plan has the familiar shortcoming of trying to dictate individual behavior based upon a "learned and all-knowing" person's concept of what he/she thinks is best for the individual, the country, or the world.
Frank's proposition, reduced to the bare bones, is to make everyone poorer, thereby reducing the choices an individual can make to pursue that person's concept of happiness. The only financial winner is the government, which will have copious new funds to grow large bureaucracies that will further dictate what is in the individual's best interest. At this juncture in our history, "progressives" like Frank seem to be heading toward a system of the few trying to find new ways to oppress the many. If their plans succeed, the government, its employees, and those depending on government largess will grow so large that a tyrannical many will be able to oppress the remaining few free citizens. Perhaps it would be best to allow us human beings to have our successes and failures, learn from them, and adapt to changing situations as free people, without others telling us how to live our lives.
Philip Palmer '63, BChem'64, MEng '66
Newark, Delaware
Here's Johnny
The article on the removal of the Johnny's Big Red Grill sign (Cornelliana, July/ August 2009) brought back both nostalgia and the memory of an amusing anecdote. My wife and I were visiting our son Joshua Raff '07, planning to take him to dinner in Collegetown. Traveling down College Ave., I spotted the Johnny's sign and suggested dinner there. We entered but found no Johnny's. "Excuse me," I inquired, "Where is Johnny's?" "Johnny's?" a student answered with bewilderment. "I think they closed down." "When was that?" I asked. "Probably about twenty years ago," another student said. We had a good laugh over that.
The mere presence of the sign, for me, linked the current Collegetown to the era I recalled from thirty-plus years before. Despite the new buildings and businesses, that sign indicated that yes, this was truly Collegetown. I hope that whoever buys it puts it back where it belongs. Let it confuse another generation of alumni into thinking that Johnny's is still serving food, drink, and conviviality and salving the wounds from tough exams and finals, as it did for so many years.
Barry Raff '74
Haverford, Pennsylvania
All Wet
I am disappointed that you gave press to Michael Waldman ("When it Rains," Currents, July/August 2009). Regarding his "research" linking autism with rain and TV watching, I can't see why Cornell continues to promote this garbage. It has been three years now, and he has yet to show any scientific link between the two. He relies on a statistically insignificant causal relationship.
My wife, Katie Bilik Sweeney, MBA '89, and I have an autistic eleven-year-old son. There are few answers today, and Waldman does nothing but divert real research dollars away from the problem at hand.
Michael Sweeney, MBA '89
New York, New York
Obscene?
I wrote to notify you of the publication of my tenth book, Bobby & Jackie: A Love Story (Atria Books/Simon & Schuster). I noted in my letter that I hadn't received CAM in a number of years. Someone responded by thanking me for the book information and apprising me that alumni had to subscribe to the magazine and pay a subscription fee. Frankly, I was under the impression that having paid four years of tuition (plus room and board), as well as having made a number of contributions since my graduation, that I'd already paid for a subscription. I have never heard of a university demanding that its alumni pay to receive copies of the alumni magazine. I find it obnoxious, offensive, even obscene.
C. David Heymann '66
New York, New York
Ed. Note: Because CAM is owned and published by the Cornell Alumni Federation and editorially independent of Cornell University, it depends upon paid subscriptions—purchased with class dues or directly—to support its operation.