Members of the committee said the University's policies differed from their own recommendations--which may fail to insure against the sort of problems they hoped to head off.

* The Corporation's policy allows equity to be accepted on the basis of consultation with the "deans or their designees."

The committee's report says that the "separation of investment deci- sions from academic management is of central importance." The committee notes that a dean might face a dilemma in decisions on recruitment, retention and space and teaching allocations if the school had a financial interest in a company with which a faculty member was involved.

"I would have hoped that it would have been as separated as possible from officers involved in academic decisions," said committee member and Professor of Medicine Edgar Haber, who said he had not seen the relevant University policies. "I guess that hasn't happened."

In one illustration of the breakdown in communication, Joyce M. Brinton, the director of the University's Office for Technology and Trademark Licensing, said the conflict-of-interest issue--the guiding principle of the committee's report--hadn't been considered policy makers when addressing the equity issue.

"It's an interesting question," Brinton said. "I don't think anybody's looked at it from that point of view."

As a member of Green's committee, Brinton offered technical advice on licensing and patents.

Despite an apparent failure to communicate the goals or process of their decision, University officers defend their policy, warning that keeping deans in the dark about what faculty members are doing would be harmful.

* The Science Policy Committee recommended against putting cash into start-up companies whose equity the University holds. It also recommended that the University not participate in second-round financing of the often-fledgling companies, which are frequently starved for cash.

The Corporation decision leaves the door open for such investments, saying they will not be made "[i]n general," and allowing them after a "special review."

Green criticized that decision.

"We need a set of principles and a policy to stand by," Green said. "If the policy does not work well, it can be changed. To weaken it from the outset is to get Harvard off to a bad start in this area."

Brinton defended the policy, saying that the University wanted to keep its options open.

"I don't think anybody has any circumstances in mind when [the University would make a second investment]," she said. "It's just that until a situation occurs, you can't really make an absolute judgment.... Nobody has enough experience at this point to rule out something absolutely."

No Consensus

Green blasted the University's policies, saying they are ambiguous and lack the research needed to understand the complex issues involved.