Public Office, Private Interests: A quiet reckoning in veterinary medicine (#332)

The evolving relationship between veterinary schools and corporate animal health companies raises important questions about integrity, leadership, and public trust.

As corporate influence grows in veterinary medicine, it’s time the profession talked honestly about the ethical boundaries of academic leadership.

This post explores the ethical gray zones facing veterinary academia today - particularly around outside corporate appointments.

Read, reflect, and join the conversation. If you’ve wrestled with these issues, or seen their effects, state your thoughts and opinions here.

Academic veterinary medicine is built on trust.

But what happens when public service and private enterprise overlap?

I invite your thoughts, especially from those navigating these roles firsthand. Transparency starts with honest conversation.

This article is not about finger-pointing.

It’s about protecting the mission of veterinary education.

In veterinary academia, the integrity of education, research, and clinical care depends on public trust. But that trust can fray when university leaders take on roles in the corporate world, particularly when those roles involve companies whose interests intersect directly with their institutions.

Increasingly, deans and senior faculty in veterinary schools are being invited to serve on boards of major animal health corporations.

These appointments are often praised for bringing real-world insight into the academic sphere. But they also raise crucial questions:

When does outside service become a distraction?

When does it become a conflict?

Two Types of Conflicts

The issues fall into two major categories - conflict of interest and conflict of commitment.

• A conflict of interest occurs when a university leader has a financial relationship that could influence their decision-making, such as sitting on the board of a company whose products are used or promoted within the institution.

• A conflict of commitment arises when external responsibilities interfere with their ability to fulfill their primary academic duties, whether in teaching, administration, or mentorship.

Both types of conflict may erode public confidence, diminish transparency, and call into question whether institutional decisions are truly independent.

From the Classroom to the Boardroom

In several recent cases, full-time university leaders in veterinary medicine have simultaneously held highly paid positions on corporate boards. Compensation in these roles often included six-figure stock awards and annual retainers.

While university policies may technically allow such arrangements, often with disclosure and pre-approval, they still raise critical questions:

• Can a dean be objective in evaluating products, partnerships, or faculty research tied to the corporation they advise?

• Does the prestige of a university lend undeserved credibility to a private firm’s agenda?

• Even if disclosed, do such roles create perceived bias that undermines public trust?

Historical Precedents and Ethical Gray Zones

In earlier decades, some academic leaders transitioned directly from university roles into corporate executive positions at pharmaceutical companies. Though these moves were seen as natural progressions at the time, they set a precedent that blurred the line between public service and private enterprise.

In other, more troubling instances, faculty members engaged in extensive external consulting, failing to disclose outside income, or improperly retaining funds meant to be shared with the university. These actions have, in some cases, led to internal lawsuits, reputational damage, and even federal convictions for tax evasion.

The Bigger Picture: Corporate Expansion in Veterinary Medicine

These personal decisions unfold against a larger backdrop: the accelerating corporate influence in veterinary education and practice.

Private equity firms now own thousands of clinics worldwide. Pharmaceutical giants shape curricula through research sponsorships.

Universities partner with industry to develop new products, sometimes with limited transparency.

In this context, the presence of academic leaders on corporate boards becomes more than a matter of individual ethics. It represents a structural shift where the boundaries between public and private, teaching and selling, education and marketing, become dangerously porous.

Why It Matters

Veterinary schools are not merely training grounds for future clinicians. They are public institutions entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining objectivity, fostering independent research, and prioritizing the welfare of animals and the communities they serve.

When academic leaders occupy dual roles, it becomes more difficult to trust the independence of institutional decisions about funding, partnerships, or curriculum.

Even if every action is technically above board, perception matters. And in a world of increasing skepticism toward institutions, appearances can carry as much weight as facts.

What Should Be Done?

Universities must take these concerns seriously. This means more than simply requiring disclosure forms. It means:

• Establishing clear limits on outside board participation for full-time academic administrators.

• Requiring independent oversight for decisions involving corporate partners.

• Recusal policies for any institutional matter involving companies where personal compensation is involved.

• A public registry of compensated board or consulting roles for all senior university leadership that includes details of compensation.

Reaffirming Academic Integrity

This conversation is not about demonizing industry. Collaboration between academia and the private sector can yield powerful innovations. But when the roles of educator and executive begin to overlap, the potential for misalignment grows.

Veterinary medicine needs leadership grounded in ethical clarity, institutional loyalty, and public transparency.

It’s time we asked not just what is allowed, but what is right.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond