Research universities that accept millions of dollars from oil companies have failed to shield themselves from corporate influence, according to a new study that faults UC Berkeley, UC Davis, Stanford and seven others.

Such cozy relationships give energy companies too much control in deciding what research to fund and what faculty should study, says the report from the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C., think tank headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.

The three California universities named in the report - "Big Oil Goes to College" - strongly disputed its conclusions.

And in fact, the report found no evidence of compromised research in its study of 10 multiyear, multimillion-dollar contracts between universities and corporate sponsors.

But the contracts do tend to give more control to companies that foot the bill than to researchers, argues the report's author, Jennifer Washburn, who has written widely and critically about American higher education.

"We want to see university research translate into commercial technology, but we don't want the research itself to be directed by individual corporations," she told The Chronicle. "They shouldn't turn California's flagship universities into the research arm of a private corporation."

The report urges universities to strengthen contract language and oversight.

UC Berkeley, UC Davis and Stanford all said Washburn failed to look beyond the contracts to better understand whether conflicts of interest really occur.

In drawing her conclusions, Washburn had contract experts examine the agreements for a wide range of corporate bias, from whether the university is permitted to publish its research to who decides what gets funded.

The report found that industry control over research is "poorly defined" in UC Davis' long-term contract with Chevron Technology Ventures. It says industry shares control with faculty at UC Berkeley, and control is fully corporate at Stanford.

The report also says none of the three California contracts "requires peer review when selecting faculty research projects."

"That's just simply wrong," said Sally Benson, director of the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford, a 10-year research alliance begun in 2002 with four corporations: ExxonMobil, General Electric, Toyota and Schlumberger Technology.

Peer review isn't built into the contract, "but the reality is that we use peer review," Benson said. "It's at the heart of how we make good decisions."

She acknowledged that the companies have the final say in what research is funded, but said the process for making recommendations is academically sound.

Faculty members make the initial proposals, she said. They are peer-reviewed, then reviewed again by independent experts. Only then do Benson and her research staff recommend the project for funding.

"We have a tremendous amount of control," Benson said. "Since 2002 (the four companies) have agreed with every one of our recommendations."

Officials at UC Berkeley issued an eight-page rebuttal of the report's findings. The report says the contract between Cal's Energy Biosciences Institute and oil giant BP "blurs traditional boundary lines that have long separated 'academic research' from 'commercial research for hire.' "

The rebuttal emphasizes that research projects are "defined and developed solely by university faculty," but the report criticizes Berkeley for not putting it in writing in the contract, as well as omitting conflict-of-interest protections.

Bob Price, Berkeley associate vice chancellor for research, said the university's conflict-of-interest policies already govern research activities, and they shouldn't be built into a contract because "that would make our policies negotiable with the outside."

The report also looked at contracts in Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Iowa and Georgia.

Report: To see the report, go to links.sfgate.com/ZKLD.