But a faculty member active in the outside world can pose risks besides a loss of time with students. Dean Rosovsky talks, for example, about "conflict of commitment": and even if a professor is spending his time at the office, he may be thinking about his outside work during those hours and may actually refuse to speak with students if he is concentrating on business commitment. This problem becomes serious especially when a professor is doing research in a field not related to his academic research. Albert recalls one extreme case concerning a chemistry professor who wrote the financial books for a coal company.

Most professors would argue that this problem is not so serious because people tend to do research in their areas of study. But Zeckhauser sees the danger that consulting opportunities may actually determine where a professor devotes his academic time, especially in lucrative and open fields such as genetic engineering. Another potential risk is that professors might abuse University resources. Because the Faculty has no pay scale for graduate students, professors could compete for the best and the brightest, giving an advantage to the faculty member with the accessibility to the most funds.

Despite the risks, real or imagined, extensive or miniscule, Eckstein and others believe that a University that allows its professors to consult will ultimately profit. "Suppose Harvard took a different approach and didn't allow any research," he says. You would not have people on the frontier of the sciences." Griliches concurs, noting. "You could say, 'Too bad, you have to stay home.' But would you be better replacing people in high demand by people without opportunity?"

The alternative to banning outside activity is to limit it by establishing guidelines. Since 1966, the University has had both an unwritten rule under which no professor could spend more than 20 per cent of his time consulting and written guideline stating that professors who believe that their outside research conflicts with their university work should report to the dean of the Faculty. Such a system of self-monitoring has not led to an accurate assessment of professors' activities. John T. Dunlop, who served as dean of the Faculty from 1969 to 1973 cannot recall any cases coming before him. And Rosovsky says he remembers only a couple of cases. In the wake of the increased interest in the whole issue, the Faculty's Committee on Research Policy (CRP) has been working on revisions to the 1966 statement. The proposed set of rules, postponed for approval after three Faculty Council debates, would specify certain circumstances under which a faculty member must report his activities to the dean. The "Statement of Policy on Conflicts of Interest for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences" would require that a professor taking on executive responsibility in a corporation, using unpublished information for profit, or conducting research elswhere, file such a report. The revisions were proposed mainly to "raise the conciousness" of the Faculty, Edward L. Pattullo, director of the center for behavioral studies and a CRP member, says. Calling the changes "marginal," he acknowledges, "I don't think anyone can really work out rules."

Currently, the responsibility for insuring that cases of conflict of interest or commitment do not arise lies mainly with the faculty. Carnesale says that most members feel compelled to comply. "It surprised me pleasantly that the professors took it seriously." But others think the Faculty will eventually have to monitor the situation. Rosovsky says he has rejected the policy of requiring professors to report their outside activities because "I'm not anxious to become a policeman." But both the Kennedy School and the Business School ask for written reports from their faculty, as does MIT. Even under the system that would require reporting to a dean or a department chairman, specific details and even the name of the company receiving the services are kept secret as "part of the confidentiality associated with the relationship," James L. Heskett, professor of Business Logistics explains.

Galbraith insists that even these details should be reported and publicized because "people ought to know if the professor is speaking for himself or for the corporation." Zeckhauser says the problem with current University policy is that for being a "good citizen," one who spends a lot of time serving on committees. Instead of setting rules, he argues. Harvard should adopt a system that would reward professors for spending more time at the University and that would increase the option of half-time for those who want to spend a lot of time advising.

In the future, the amount of outside consulting is likely to increase. Harvey Brooks, Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy, who worked on the 1966 guidelines, says that in the future more professors may be driven to earn money on the side. Faculty salaries have decreased by 25 to 30 per cent in real terms, and that squeeze has a cumulative effect: The higher that percentage goes, the more people may be driven to consulting