[asia-apec 880] URGENT sign on letter on the UCBerkeley/Novartis deal- PLEASE DISTRIBUTE

[Anuradha Mittal]

URGENT/PLEASE SIGN-ON BY MONDAY NOV 16 5 PM

Peter Rosset, exec. dir. of Food First, and Monica Moore, prog. dir. of the
Pesticide Action Network-North America (PAN), have written this URGENT
letter on the UCB/Novartis deal.  The deal IS TO BE SIGNED ON NOV 19, SO WE
MUST ACT NOW.  This letter urges the chancellor to freeze the deal, and to
have a meeting with us/you.  Please sign on by Monday at 5 PM, and e-mail
to Peter at rosset at socrates.berkeley.edu
Peter will send it to the Chancellor with all the group's/people's names
attached

Thanks!

____ we will sign -- use the following organization title

                ________________________

____ I will sign -- use my name: _______________________ and title at my
                    my organization: ___________________




*********************************************
Chancellor Robert Berdahl
200 California Hall
University of California at Berkeley CA  94720-1500


Dear Chancellor Berdahl:

        We the undersigned represent public interest organizations here in
the San Francisco Bay Area, and we write to urge you to delay signing the
agreement between Novartis and the College of Natural Resources until
adequate public debate and scrutiny has taken place, including
consultations with representatives of sustainable agriculture,
environmental and community-based organizations.

        The proposed "strategic alliance" raises serious questions about
the nature of public institutions, the directions of research on natural
resources and agriculture, and regulatory science for the coming century.
These questions demand public scrutiny for many reasons, of which the most
important is the fact that the University of California at Berkeley is a
public institution mandated to serve the people of California, whose core
funding is appropriated by the state Legislature, and whose governing body
is appointed by the Governor. We are deeple concerned that based on the
decisions of a very small group of individuals within the University, for a
one-time
investment, the College of Natural Resources may be "joined at the hip" to
one of the world's largest biotechnology and agrochemical companies,
allowing public goods to be appropriated for private profit.

        Public ownership, funding and oversight of university affairs require
transparent management, yet this deal was negotiated in secrecy and public
debate of it actively discouraged. The office of the Dean of Natural
Resources sent a memo to all college faculty urging them not to speak to
the press and instead direct all inquiries to a public relations person,
which has has had the effect of stifling the public expression of
disagreement by faculty members. The details and background about the deal
that were shared with faculty and students were presented as accomplished
fact, without opportunity for influencing decision outcomes.

        We understand that under this partnership Novartis employees would
sit on internal college committees, raising serious questions about
impartiality and scientific rigor.  We further understand that Novartis
would receive first negotiating rights to a substantial proportion of
patentable research discoveries, allowing the company to in effect "skim
off the cream" of the public's investment for private profit.

        Effective regulation of biotechnology in the coming century will
require disinterested science.  The central theme of regulatory science in
the 20th century was the impact of chemicals discharged into the
environment.  In the 21st century it will certainly be the impact of
biologically altered organisms.  This agreement would disqualify a leading
intellectual center from the ranks of institutions able to provide the kind
of research -- free from vested interest -- that could form the basis for
sound regulatory policy. We also cannot ignore the implications for
academic freedom in a college beholden to corporate interests. Will
professors be encouraged to researchpotentially negative environmental and
food safety impacts of Novartis' technologies?

        According to its web page, the College of Natural Resources is
committed to sustainability, the environment and food safety. We have
serious concerns about the impact of genetically engineered organisms in
all three of these areas.  Should genetic engineering be allowed to
dominate the the focus of a college of publically funded 'natural
resources'?

        Public research institutions should provide the kind of "public good"
research which the private sector cannot be expected to fund. For
agriculture, the public reasonably expects this to mean investigation into
areas such as sustainable agriculture and biological pest control. Yet
these are precisely the areas where funding has been slashed in the College, as
university resources have followed the money toward proprietary
biotechnologies.  We urge you to look into the history of the now-defunct
Division of Biological Control for an example of how research priorities
have shifted in ways we believe are against the public's interest in
agriculture and the environment.

        The proposed UCB/Novarts alliance would further tip the scale in favor
of private profits over public good research. This is clearly a business
deal, not a normal corporate gift, endowment or research grant. As we
understand it, this was an auction in which other biotech companies made
bids that were turned down, and the college was essentially sold off to
Novartis, who will a    semi-exclusive relationship.

        Sadly, the same college rushing headlong into this questionable
private-sector partnership has rejected partnerships with community
organizations working to help urban farmers.  As an example of this, we
urge you to investigate the case of the Bay Area Coalition for Urban
Agriculture (BACUA), a coalition of Bay Area community groups which has
repeatedly proposed just such a partnership to Dean Gordon Rausser and
repeatedly received a cold shoulder.

        We urge you to freeze this deal until the questions we have raised here
can be addressed in public, with adequate attention devoted to all of the
concerns.  This marks a major change in the way a major public university
will operate in the future -- a shift about which the public must have some
say.

        We request that you meet with our representatives to discuss this deal
before it is signed.  As this is an urgent matter, we appreciate your
serious attentions to this request, and look forward to your expedited
replay.

        Sincerely,


PAN, Food First, .... ?

Anuradha Mittal
Policy Director
Institute for Food and Development Policy - Food First
398 60th Street, Oakland, CA 94618
Phone: (510) 654-4400  Fax: (510) 654-4551
http://www.foodfirst.org