Academic Leadership in Vet Med: Public Service or Private Profit? (#335)

In an era when public trust in institutions is eroding, the lines between service and self-interest grow increasingly difficult to distinguish.

Universities, long regarded as bastions of intellectual independence and public good, are not immune to this trend.

As the academic leaders of major academic institutions accept seats on corporate boards or become entangled with political power structures, a deeper question emerges:

Whose interests are they really serving?

Consider the parallels between conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment in academia and the revolving door dynamics of politics and industry.

How do university leaders, entrusted with shaping the next generation and stewarding public resources, maintain integrity when straddling two competing worlds - one of scholarship, the other of influence.

This situation challenges us to consider the costs - moral, institutional, and societal - when that balancing act fails.

Revolving Doors: Government & Industry

• Much like university academic leaders joining corporate boards, politicians and regulators frequently rotate between public office and lucrative private sector roles.

• Example: A former FDA commissioner joined the board of a pharmaceutical company shortly after leaving office.

• Parallel: Just as a veterinary dean might steer research or policy toward a corporate partner, a former politician-turned-lobbyist might influence legislation to benefit their new employer.

• Implication: Public trust erodes when decision-makers appear to serve future corporate interests while still holding public responsibility.

The Captive Regulator Problem

• In political theory, this refers to the capture of regulatory agencies by the very industries they’re supposed to regulate.

• In Academia: Deans or chancellors with deep industry ties may influence curriculum, research grants, or hiring in ways that benefit their outside affiliations.

• In Politics: Lawmakers who receive massive campaign donations from fossil fuel or defense contractors are expected to remain impartial when voting on climate or military policy.

• Conflict of interest becomes structural, not incidental.

Citizens United & Academic Independence

• A 2010 The Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) allowed unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns and was criticized for turning public governance into a bidding war. A similar critique is now emerging in higher education.

• Are academic priorities being auctioned to the highest bidder?

• Is intellectual freedom under threat when research follows corporate funding rather than public good?

The Double Standard: Elites vs. Everyone Else

• Politically, there’s a growing sense that rules apply differently to the powerful.

• Faculty vs. Deans: Junior faculty are scrutinized for side gigs, while top administrators sit on multimillion-dollar boards.

• Citizens vs. Politicians: The average citizen pays taxes and follows laws, while the elite exploit legal loopholes to accumulate power and wealth.

• These issues foster resentment and distrust - both in academia and in the voting public.

Democracy and the Perception of Fairness

• In both academia and politics, perception is everything. If the public (or student body) believes that leaders are compromised or co-opted, legitimacy collapses, even if technically “no rules were broken.”

• This speaks to the moral authority of academic leadership, just as political leaders are expected to lead not only legally, but ethically.

Rick’s Commentary

A university dean on the board of a pharmaceutical giant is like a senator drafting health policy while accepting campaign donations from Big Pharma.

Both may be legal. But both damage the credibility of institutions meant to serve the public good, not private gain.

When academic leaders trade chalkboards for board rooms or tether their public roles to private or political gain, they risk more than just bad optics. They risk the soul of the institution they serve.

The university is meant to be a sanctuary for inquiry, a place where truth is pursued without fear or favor. But when the pursuit of influence or income pulls leadership into the gravitational field of power, be it corporate or political, the very integrity of that mission is threatened.

It’s not just a conflict of interest or commitment. It’s a conflict of identity.

If we expect our students to act ethically, our researchers to report findings honestly, and our faculty to serve without fear or bias, then we must hold leadership to that same (and perhaps an even higher) standard.

The stakes are too high for ambiguity.

The path forward requires more than disclosure. It requires discernment, accountability, and the courage to ask:

Is this in service of the public, or in service of “self”?

When the answer is unclear, perhaps the decision isn’t worth the price of admission.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond