This shouldn’t take long, as we all have better things to do. I’ve been poking at AUTM for some time now. It’s not my favorite thing to do, but I don’t see any other discussion of what is going on. In fact, via private communication I get the sense that some AUTM members are afraid to speak openly about things. I find that disturbing. So here goes.
I was a member of AUTM for 15 years or so, contributed in various ways to the development of programs, volunteered to speak and help to organize events, but have never held any positions in the organization. I let my membership lapse at the end of 2008.
Over time, and especially recently, however, AUTM has taken public positions on matters of law and public policy, lobbying federal agencies and the courts. This is where my most immediate problems with AUTM lie, and I’ll lay them out sparsely and be done.
1. AUTM should not be lobbying government and the courts. AUTM is not a lobbyist organization, and it does not represent institutions. It is good at communicating practice and issues among its members. That’s important. Stick to that. No free-lance letters to the Department of Commerce, no amicus briefs to the courts. No op-ed pieces in Business Week railing against proposed ideas.
2. AUTM should not claim to represent its members’ interests without first consulting its members. With the growth of the organization comes greater diligence in understanding the diversity of its membership. The role of AUTM officers is not to lead the membership around with gold rings in their noses. AUTM officers do not suddenly know more about innovation than anyone else. AUTM should respect its membership.
3. When AUTM takes public positions, it should represent all its members, not just a vocal set wanting to mix it up for their advantage. In this business, minority views are important—they may represent emerging practice, or the range of practices available, or specialty situations, or local constraints. Minority views provide the public with a candid representation of the membership.
4. AUTM officers should separate their personal positions from the work of the organization. While AUTM is a volunteer organization with professional management, being an AUTM officer is not a mandate to represent any particular platform. They should do the work of the organization, not use it as a bully pulpit, even for strongly held opinions.
5. AUTM now serves administrators. I dearly love administrators, but it’s a bad habit forming here to serve them rather than to challenge them. Administrators, for the most part, value process, predictable behavior, positive spin, and efficiency. These are not virtues that favor creativity or innovation. Yes, I know there’s a model in which administrators are the heroes of innovation. It is every so often true. But mostly it’s the Knight of the Burning Pestle, but without the mirth and delight.
What can AUTM do?
1. Get out of the lobbying business.
2. Stop signing on to amicus briefs.
3. Provide a forum for reporting and discussion, not spin and conclusions.
4. Consult members on issues before making public statements.
5. Present a range of member viewpoints, not just one preferred by AUTM officers.
Oh, and withdraw the arguments on Bayh-Dole. Even if a court is snookered by the delicate conflation of a poxy contractual interest with an unrecognized change in patent law to invent-for-hire, it’s a bad policy move to be advocating for greater administrative control over university faculty inventive work. Research and innovation run by administrators is not a recipe for innovation. Done. On to other things.