Use of The Name - April 23, 2006

Rather than dwell on the specifics of this relationship, I would like to ask readers to step back and consider what the guidelines should be for determining when the institution should enter into a relationship with for-profit corporations in any industry. And when, in particular, should we allow companies to cite Hopkins in any of their promotional literature?

This particular relationship made headline news. But there are other companies that have touted relationships with Hopkins—and it isn’t clear if in all these situations our name was used in a way that was officially sanctioned by us. Nor can we expect to exert control in all situations. Even when the University doesn’t allow the use of its name, many of our faculty may nevertheless have consulting relationships with companies. Occasionally a company will cite the Hopkins faculty member's participation as a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, even though our participation is neither a seal of approval nor an endorsement of any kind.

There are serious issues here worthy of discussion and debate within the Hopkins community. First among them is how to deal with institutional conflicts of interest. We have developed a pretty effective system to identify and work through conflicts of interest that involve individuals. But, as I wrote in a previous column, mechanisms for identifying and resolving conflicts that involve the University in a relationship with an outside entity are still poorly defined.

In what situations is it proper to allow outside groups to use the Hopkins brand? While this might seem easily decided, closer examination reveals that short of a 100 percent prohibition, any other approach involves a lot of subtleties. If our faculty members conduct a study sponsored by the NIH and report findings in a peer-reviewed journal, a pharmaceutical company is free to cite the report (and the Hopkins connection) without any prior approval from the University. On the other hand, if the research is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, in what circumstances would we allow the company to cite the research, even if the results themselves are not published?

If you lived in the greater Boston area, you may have signed up for care with the Harvard Community Health Plan. While this managed care organization was, as I understand it, initiated by Harvard Medical School faculty physicians, many of the doctors, nurses and staff providing the care and administrative support were not Harvard faculty or employees of the university. Was that an appropriate use of the Harvard name?

We had the same discussion when the Johns Hopkins Health Plan, which was providing care in East Baltimore, was sold to an insurance company that retained the name. Would patients expect that they were being treated by Johns Hopkins faculty physicians?

Derek Bok, in his book Universities in the Marketplace, describes the increasing trend toward commercialization of university activities, from Nike endorsements for athletic teams to technology licensing. He believes that the shift in emphasis calls into question the essential purpose of the university and wonders if our historic mission of education, research and service is likely to be compromised by the newer focus on commercial relationships. Having recently attended the NCAA Final Four in Indianapolis, I can attest to how significantly commercial interests have altered the face of Division I basketball.

Over the next few months, the board of trustees and I will be discussing commercialization, institutional conflicts and the use of the Johns Hopkins name. If you have thoughts about any of these important issues, I would appreciate hearing from you.