MAJOR ADDRESSES (p.4) W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. "Flexible Bricks--Building for Change." Fourth North American "Medicine and Humanism.' Commencement Address, Albany Medical "Human Biology and Humanism." Ministers Conference, New York "Impact of Federal Money on Functions of a Medical Center." "Basic Minimal Requirements for the Medical Student in Otorhino- Dedication Address, Mt. Holyoke College Library, South Hadley, "Dust." Minnesota State Pastors' Conference, St. Paul, Minn., "Implications for Licensure of Curriculum Changes in Medical "What Is Needed and What May Be Consumed." Conference on National Where Do We Go From Here?" Michigan State Medical Society "Medical Schools--National as Well as Local Resources." "Science Basic to What?" Meeting of Program Directors of "Curriculum Changes." Annual Meeting of the Association of MAJOR ADDRESSES (p.5) W. N. Hubbard, Jr., M.D. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. "Compassion and Competence." Honors Convocation Address, "Compassion and Competence." Honors Convocation Address, "National Goals in the Education and Training of Physicians." - "A Look Into the Crystal Ball The Future of the Drug Industry." "Paradox of Useful Knowledge." Keynote address 75th Annual Meeting "The Institutionalized Physician." Commencement Address, University Senator KENNEDY. Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about your interest in the Board and what you hope to achieve. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM N. HUBBARD JR., M.D., TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES F. BROWN, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AND THEODORE W. WIRTHS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PROGRAMS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Dr. HUBBARD. Let me first thank you for this opportunity to be with you. Recognizing your own interest, not only in the National Science Board, but in broad matters of the application of science, I think it is important that we have this opportunity. My concern is with interfaces, Senator, the interface between the acquisition of knowledge, which is called basic research, and its development in utilizable forms, which is technology; and then the final social requirement that these should be for the public benefit. The interface between these three realms is one of high tension, as you well know. The problem is whether we can adequately serve each of these without destroying the vitality of the others. In my view, there is no simple choice between the essential values of basic research on the one hand, and the essential ultimate goal of serving public benefit. There is no natural relationship between the two. There is nothing in basic research as such which necessarily serves the public benefit except that it be in terms of natural philosophy and general increased understanding, and the very broad and indeterminate kinds of benefit that brings. So we look first for a linkage between basic research and utility. The RANN program of the Foundation is one in which I am very much interested, because it is designed to take basic knowledge and apply it to national needs. Then there is the question of public benefit. I do not think I have to elaborate on the problems of validating scientific technology and its innovations as being synonomous with public benefit. There is today, as we all know, a great question as to whether scientific technology, which represents feasibility, does in fact serve the public benefit. That interface is one where I think the Foundation has a very important role of interchange with the Congress and with the executive branch, so that, of all the possible technological advances that might be undertaken, a common choice is made of the ones that will most likely serve the public benefit. That is a very general background. As to why I think I have anything to contribute. I have had an opportunity to work with each of these areas, starting off with basic science, working in medicine, which is utilization of science for human purpose par excellence, and now working with another kind of institution, but still one whose future depends ultimately on benefiting the public. I feel that I have had an opportunity to have direct experience in each of these interfaces, and would share that experience within the Board, hopefully advantageously. That remains to be seen. Senator KENNEDY. You wrote an article in 1965 in Public Health Reports concerning Federal grant management. At that time you were dean of the medical school and professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, and you were commenting at that time about the loyalty of scientists to their own professions. I believe you indicated that you felt usually those loyalties exceeded loyalty to the Department or to the university. How should we view now your own view and attitude as you take on a position on the Board? Where do your loyalties lie? Dr. HUBBARD. With the public interest as I serve the Board. I do not consider myself, Senator, in any way a representative either of the company I work for or the industry as I serve the Board; let me say, however, specifically the pharmaceutical industry. It does have an unusual opportunity for experience in taking theoretical knowledge and finally developing it into a technology, usually a medicinal one that serves a need. So it practices the communication between these interfaces to which I referred. In doing so, I think it has an opportunity to share an experience with other groups that are trying in general terms to manage this same adjustment of interfaces. The comments in 1965 referred more to disciplinary loyalty than to problems of academic commitment. Senator KENNEDY. Have you given some thought to various applications that may in any way present conflict of interest problemsyou might be asked to express your view on a proposal that might, to some extent, be of interest, or consequence, or importance to your company. Can you tell us a little bit about what your criteria will be in making any decisions, as to whether you would excuse yourself from participation on any grant application? Dr. HUBBARD. If I could relate at all a possible benefit either to the company, or I say to the industry in my case, then I would absent myself. I have asked myself about this. The only program that the Foundation has now that is likely to be a frequent event is one of faculty research support where faculty members or graduate students may go to the laboratories of the pharmaceutical companies for thesis work or advanced work in an area that is advantageous to them. In this case, the grants are made to the companies. I would absent myself from the decision when any company might be involved. Other than that, the only relationship that I am aware of would be on contracts that might be negotiated between the Foundation and a commercial laboratory. If the Board were to be involved in such an effort, then I would not participate in any matter affecting my company. Other than this, I am not aware-but, of course, I have not been on the Board Senator KENNEDY. Surely. Dr. HUBBARD [continuing]. Of actions on the Board that would represent potential conflicts. Senator KENNEDY. What about Upjohn making grants to universities for certain research, and then other grant applications coming before the Board from such universities? How closely related would those grants or requests have to be before you would feel that you would excuse yourself? Dr. HUBBARD. Let me take a specific example, if I may. I think this is public information now, or soon will be. The company has made a significant grant to Brown University to endow a faculty position in clinical pharmacology in its medical school. If a proposal were to come forward from that department involving that individual, I think I would not consider that a conflict of interest because the company has no continuing relationship with it. On the other hand, I sit as a member of the advisory committee to the medical school at Brown, and I would not participate. Similarly, when I was at the University of Michigan, the company made a capital gift to build laboratories when I was there, that were named for the company. Once again, since the company has no continuing relationship at all with those laboratories, on that basis I would not see a conflict; but having spent so long a time at the University of Michigan, I think I would not ever feel I could act objectively if that university were concerned. Senator KENNEDY. Šay rather than just a grant program over a period of time that the company was supporting research at a university, and then the requests came in for grants from those universities at the same time that the company was involved in grants or other research programs. Would you see any potential area here for conflict? Dr. HUBBARD. I think if the company's name were involved, I would simply, as a matter of discretion, not associate myself with it. That is an operational answer. A direct answer is that probably there would not be a conflict, because the likelihood of a given investigator asking for support for exactly the same piece of work from a company and from somebody else would be remote. At the same time, it is true almost without exception that an investigator, being supported by a company which has already established its reputation through grant support in a field, that would not be supported exclusively from a company grant. Senator KENNEDY. How many universities does the Upjohn Co. contract with for any purpose? Dr. HUBBARD. I do not have the figure, but it would be a large number. It would be perhaps 40 or 50. I do not know, but it would be a large number. Senator KENNEDY. Those arrangements vary as to dollar volume, from what to what, just generally? You may amend this. Dr. HUBBARD. Oh, they would range from very small grants of $1,000 or rarely even less to large ones extending over several years that would be in the order of a small number of hundreds of thousands of dollars. These would all be specific in Federal Government language, they would have the characteristics of contracts, rather than grants, with rare exceptions. We also make grants, but that is a different thing. Senator KENNEDY. In the case of institutions which receive substantial grants from Upjohn and grants or contracts for them come before the Board. Given the fact that Upjohn had either a grant or a contract of a sizable amount of money invested in the institution, do you see any potential area of conflict? Dr. HUBBARD. Not in fact but, again operationally if I may take a specific example, we have a large undertaking with the department of obstetrics both at Harvard and at North Carolina. |