DO COMMERCIAL pressures have a negative impact on science? This debate has been raging for so long that it usually raises little more than a shrug of indifference.
That is no longer a defensible response. A new report from our organisation, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), exposes problems so serious that we can no longer afford to be indifferent to them.
The report looks at the impact of five commercial sectors on science and technology over the past 20 years. The damaging influence of two of these, pharmaceuticals and tobacco, has been noted before. But we also looked at the oil and gas, defence and biotech sectors, which have been subjected to less scrutiny.
We found a wide range of disturbing commercial influences on science, and evidence that similar problems are occurring across academic disciplines.
Over the past two decades, government policy in the US, UK and elsewhere has fundamentally altered the academic landscape in a drive for profit. Universities have been pushed to adopt a much more commercial mindset, from taking out patents to prioritising research that promises short-term economic gains. The rapid spread of partnerships between businesses and universities has led to some disciplines becoming so intertwined with industry that few academics are able to retain their independence.
Chemical engineering and geology are strongly linked to oil companies, for example, and it is hard to find an engineering department in the UK which does not receive funding from the arms industry. And many life sciences departments have extensive links with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
This creates enormous potential for conflicts of interest. The problem has long been recognised in medical research, and journals are starting to crack down on it, but in other disciplines the problems are rarely even discussed, let alone acted upon.
Such problems are a major concern because they can undermine the quality and reliability of research. This is perhaps best illustrated by "sponsorship bias", where research generates results that suit the funder (The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 290, p 921). Another well-documented problem is the failure to report results unfavourable to the funder.
Research is also undermined by misleading messages put out by industry-funded lobby groups. Again, these tactics are well known from the tobacco and oil industries, with their deliberate questioning of health research and sponsorship of climate sceptics. Less attention has been given to the funding of some patient groups by pharmaceutical companies and the (sometimes covert) use of PR companies by the biotechnology industry in the debate over genetically modified crops. This does not bode well for public discussions on the risks of synthetic biology.
Another cornerstone of science that is being eroded is the freedom to set the public research agenda so that it serves the public interest. Governments are increasingly focused on delivering competitiveness, and business interests are able to exert pressure on funding bodies through representatives on their boards. As a result, environmental and social problems and "blue-sky" research commonly lose out to short-term commercial gain.
For example, genetics now dominates agricultural science, not least because genetic technologies are highly patentable. This not only dominates privately funded research, but also steers publicly funded research away from work that takes a different approach or explores low-tech solutions.
As a result, "low-input" agriculture, which requires minimal use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and is cheaper and more useful to poorer farmers, is largely overlooked. Similarly, research on how to improve food distribution receives inadequate support.
Another example is research on security issues, which is overwhelmingly focused on new military technology. Research into understanding the roots of conflict, or to support negotiation and reconciliation programmes, receives a tiny fraction of the tens of billions of dollars spent globally on developing military hardware. And most of that is public money.
Put bluntly, much publicly funded science is no longer being done in the public interest. Despite this, policy-makers are complacent and argue that any damaging effects of commercial influence are minor.
In contrast, many scientists are noticing the effects and becoming discomfited by them. Some are starting to speak out. For example, staff at the Open University in the UK are pushing for new ethical standards for business partnerships following the university's involvement in a major military contract.
However, these campaigns are few and far between. There is a strong incentive for scientists not to make a fuss if their department receives industry funds. This is strengthened by contractual requirements for secrecy that often come with industry partnerships.
To defend independent science, reform is needed, from the level of government policy down to that of the research study. To this end, SGR is making recommendations. These include: the open publication of all funding arrangements between academia and business; ethical standards for business-university partnerships; proper handling of conflicts of interests by journals; more involvement of the public in setting research priorities; and a change in government policies which prioritise research with short-term commercial priorities above all else.
Scientists must now voice their concerns publicly in order that policy-makers hear them. They could do worse than follow the example set by campaigners at the Open University.
Stuart Parkinson and Chris Langley are authors of the SGR report Science and the Corporate Agenda, which can be downloaded from sgr.org.uk
- Like what you've just read?
- Don't miss out on the latest content from New Scientist.
- Get New Scientist magazine delivered to your door, plus unlimited access to the entire content of New Scientist online.
- Subscribe now and save
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
I find it very funny that this article came up after my recents posts today.
Obama has to come to a desition, he recently gained access to new documents and information he havent been able to get his hands on because it was not in the hands of the goverment.
Hopefully he has made up his mind very soon and will tag along amongst the european countrys who has opened up theyr hidden files...
Science is a way of doing things.
It is not controlled by Obama or any other government. You, me, industry and the Catholic Church can all do science if they choose.
There is a problem with the intermediaries who control research monies taken from the general population. These folks seem to have a big streak of the tax thief in them. They feather their own nests as illustrated in Britain recently.
Unfortunately our so called democracies seem prone to unacceptable influences.
I dare say if we trimmed the resources that fell through the hands of the tax thieves we might find enough individuals (and others) who would invest some of their increased resources for research. (I wouldn't depend on it though!)
It's not a great system. If you want to change it you probably can make some impact.
The real issue here is that universities have no business conducting anything other than basic research. The only reason they are given is because they exploit a massive number of unpaid skilled laborers in the form of students.
Research should be done in research institutes like Fraunhofer. Academic research is inefficient, prone to faking results in favor of funding and violates basic labour laws. It's a flawed system that is failing.
I have given up trying to make coherent sense of what you are saying; it is just a set of unsubstantiated postulates.
Just to clarify my own position: I think all scientific research must be independent of private funding; business interests can not be allowed to distort science, it is far too important for that.
I'm sorry you're unable to grasp basic concepts.
There's no way to make it any simpler than this:
Academic research is an abomination that uses slave labour.
Do you disagree?
its not slave labor if the laborers get something in return
sure the students don't get paid money but they learn important skills that are much more difficult to teach in a classroom. These students are learning to be scientists, scientists do experiments, therefore the students need to learn how to preform experiments either by A) doing experiments or B) sit in a classroom as some guy explains how to do an experiment.
Also, to be employed as anything other than a high school science teacher, it is important for any scientist to publish. Doing experiments like these allow students to get their names out in the field and hopefully land a decent job.
So if you have a better means to educate scientists id love to hear it, but frankly this method is the most effective one i've seen
Too many PhDs (*and* academics) overate themselves. Just because one is a sponge of knowledge, application of that knowledge may be beyond them. Face it, some people are better off not doing PhDs and should get a job.
What tends to happen is that these PhDs become disgruntled librarians or similar ever carping about their pay grade not being as high as some teenager.
In organisations I've come across these type of people drag it down and depress everyone.
"Educated beyond their ability".
Exactly why research should be handed over to professionals.
Its true, I was one of them. Got a PhD, but thats just a paper! ...got kids now but no house...
Im sorry but I have to disagree... It is not slave labour! I get a damned decent stipend (4k above the national average) and I am doing Molecular Genetics. PhD students will one day become professionals in their own right but until that day they are strictly moderated by a PI.
So how do these scientists think they should get funded? By forcing the populous to fund their lifestyle and lifestyle pursuits? Next the Arts will insist they are important and want more, then the Sport brigade, then this, then that.
Mankind has been able to move itself out of the primordial swamp by free-thinking people utilizing the free-market to decide what they want to spend their own money on.
Perhaps these state slush funded scientists should have a commercial bent and then use THEIR OWN MONEY as a legacy to a university or research institute instead of lobbying and then stultifying progress with the monopolistic state funded system.
It is not obscene that 10billion has been wasted on just ONE particle accelerator to tell us that the universe is made of string? Or 100s billion on nuclear power since the early 50s and no clean solution in sight (ie fusion).
What of the Burt Rutans of this world who are only now just being able to muscle in on big science once investors have seen all the stagnation and waste that a state monopolized system (like NASA) has caused.
The free market = multiple sources of investment, competition and tearing down of elitist Ivy League cliques that hog all the funding money.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
And how would you know finding out now the universe is made of strings isn't going to get us the clean solution for nuclear energy in the future?
Science doesn't work that easy, you can't just make progress in the fields wich are economic the most interesting, while you neglect related topics from which no profit is to be made on a short term. Thinking like that would only slow down science, or even stop it.
Wrong assumption. You're assuming there would be no clear-sky type of research or basic research if there wasn't an incompetent organization of criminals at the top that expropriated part of your income to spend it however it feels like.
This criminal gang forces the general public(at the point of a gun if sufficiently resisted) to fund among other things environmentally destructive and imoral corn ethanol. Useless wind turbines. Pointless wars in far off countries fought for ever-shifting reasons and against ever-shifting adversaries. Culture. bank bail-outs. Housing and tech bubbles. A broken patent system that stiffles innovation and infringes on the property rights of those afflicted by it(e.g. you're telling me what kinds of programs I may code using my computer, whether or not I have any prior knowledge of the patent, many of which are frivolous like digital waveguide synthesis or one-click online shopping). Farm subsidies. Cartellization of industries through deceptive use of unnescessary environmental and safety regulation.
If you got rid of all this junk people would have more wealth to spend as they please and more importantly they would face the fact that they are in control and they will have to fund the science they would like to see happen.
Currently most people tend to think of the state as an omniscient, benevolent, god-like creature. This is the wrong mental model of government. The correct model is the Department of Motor Vehicles with some rent-seeking and graft sprinkled on top.
So no profit is to be made in the short term, this does not mean that no one would invest in the long run.
You know what might be more important to people rather than finding out how the universe functions? Material items, cars, etc, and it's their prerogative to choose that over science. Of course this website is dedicated to science because it is awesome, but the article is absolutely biased. It's quite possible someone doesn't feel the need to invest in this research, and they should be allowed that choice. Public money comes from somewhere, and you hurt others by denying them their choice.
If science slows down, so be it. Science is not my personal god that must have everything devoted to it, unlike many
And how do you know that it does?
Shall we turn over 100% of GDP for the whim of the scientists working at universities or use the free-market, due diligence tests and hard commercial reality to fund the people in start-ups?
"So how do these scientists think they should get funded? By forcing the populous to fund their lifestyle and lifestyle pursuits? Next the Arts will insist they are important and want more, then the Sport brigade, then this, then that."
Erm... The Arts generally don't get much, but then again they don't really need much... Paper isn't very expensive. And the "Sport brigade" makes billions of dollars. So what are you talking about, exactly?
"Mankind has been able to move itself out of the primordial swamp by free-thinking people utilizing the free-market to decide what they want to spend their own money on."
Did Einstein utilize the "free-market"? Did Maxwell? Did Beethoven?
Don't be so quick to criticize - you owe these people because they created your modern world. And they didn't do it for profit. Would Einstein have managed to come up with relativity if he were working for some company? Who knows.
Einstein worked in a Patent Office in Geneva.
So what have these state subsidized "professionals" done lately over the "amateur" scientists? Snuffing it the competition with their ivy league arrogance and hogging the funding base.
Oh yes, Beethoven was the first composer not to rely upon Aristocratic patronage - he had to earn his living.
Also - government minister to Michael Faraday "I don't understand this electricity thing" Faraday "Ah yes, but you'll be wanting to tax it one day".
All I heard was "FREE MARKET ADAM SMITH'S MAGIC HAND BLAH BLAH BLAH".
Back in the days, research didn't cost much. But now in physics and biotech, it can be very expensive. With free market, what you get from the pharmaceutical industry is lucrative lifestyle drugs that you take every day for all your life. With public funding, what you would get is vaccines or preventive treatment that cost next to nothing and prevent you from getting the desease in the first place. In economics terms, that's called market failure.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
And the socialist planned economies gave you a miracle pill that you took only once and never needed to eat again?
The reality was food queues, rancid rotted bread and cabbage.
Can you brainwashed Americans get your facts straight for once? Socialism != Communism !!
The majority of the northern European states are socialist democracies, and doing very well thank you very much.
Besides, "free market" theory is just as flawed and unrealistic as communism as a theory.
It's just that what we pretend is "free market" capitalism, but really isn't, kinda works.. most of the time.
Have you forgotten that the populous has been forced to bail-out free-market industries that couldn't balance their own books? Or the populous has now been forced to provide (fund) bonuses to the very people who caused bankrupt institutions? People have "come out of the swamps" not through free market, but through the efforts and ideas of a minority of often brave men and women under many government systems; monarchies, feudal systems, dictatorships, theocracies (one of the least free systems). Gee, drag out a history book. Russia and China have both done in decades what the US took 200 years to accomplish; before you point out the human costs, I may add that the human costs of American imperialism has been enormous..drag out a history book. What is truly obscene is the billions and billions that have been spent destroying people (wars) and economies (war and occupation by agencies such as the IMF). Let us not forget who has stood in the way of clean energy..oil, coal and tobacco industries which are the results of your unregulated free-market stance. The free-market=accumulation of money in the hands of a few at the expense of the many= the wants of the few taking over the needs of the many. State monopoly or big business monopoly? Cuba has one of the best research and development programs in the world. Partcipatory democracy, which I see very little of today, is what makes any democratic system work for the people, by the people and of the people. The problem is not about science, it is about people who give up their democratic powers by being silent about things that matter. It is about not knowing historical data but following dogma, political or religious. It is about oligarchy worship and not knowing that there is no such thing as democracy under a dictatorship and especially if that dictatorship is difficult to recognize in the form of companies, CEO board of directors, and the under 10 families that dictate the economies( and wars) of the world. Silence artists, scientists, intellectuals...you silence everyone..and silence is accomplished in our world, at this moment, by no funding and under-funding.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
your scary lady. The only reason Russia & China took only 20 years to get where the U.S. is is because the U.S. financial system working in cooperation with the U.S government funded the development of both countries so that they could be a part of the developed world. As for Cuba's great research and development, what have they developed?
The bail-out occurred in the states by social engineering: loans were given out to those who couldn't afford it so that politicians could win votes.
Then the credit reference agencies gave AAA ratings to bad financial products.
ALL HAIL MAMMON!
I saw this post comming the moment I read the article's title. Yet another undereducated anonymous American read Atlas Shrugged and is now an expert on everything. Science? All about profit. Human History? All about profit.
It's sad that in these people's minds, doing anything that does not turn a quick profit is 'socialism' and is a terrible boogeyman waiting to destroy us all, despite the success of Eurpoean open-democracy socialism which is starting to eat our lunch. Look at any Scandinavian nation - they are healthier, fitter, happier, more free AND more economically competetive than the good-ole hyper-capitalistic USA that has turned inefficiency, waste and profit into a religion.
Nothing is apparently worthwhile unless it is making some captain of industry enough cash to buy a new yacht.
Truth be told, our forefathers and leaders during our 20th century golden age knew the best system is a blend of socialism and capitalism to allow the benefits of competition and innovation while safeguarding the people from the mindless and soulless greed that would build a new form of medieval tyranny on a mountain of dollars and the backs of the people.
If you were to put down your Self-Serving-Capitalist-Propaganda-Ayn-Rand-Bible (it's true, look up Ayn Rand's motivations in an actual history book), and read "The Wealth of Nations" you would discover capitalism works because of competition. Destroying competition through deregulation which legalizes monopolies is the opposite of the free market Adam Smith envisioned. Using the government to protect 'capitalists' from losses by way of stealing tax dollars from the American people is in no way, shape or form a free market. Our functional capitalist society with its free market is no more, now we live in a Plutocracy where the only motivation of business and government is providing as few goods and services as possible in exchange for stealing the money of the largest portion of the population as possible and gifting it to the people who need it the least. This dysfunctional theft-state is hardly a good model for any kind of progress, let alone science.
Would you rather have a cure for drug resistant TB or Malaria, or would you rather see a more profitable erectile dysfunction drug whose sole purpose is a new patent and billions in profit?
Our system is designed to make the wrong decisions when faced with any decision between human wellbeing and profit.
You people keep crying and whining like we are some nation that spends money protecting and caring for the working people at the expense of the wealthy! We've been doing preciesly the opposite for decades now. America is at the pinnacle of deregulation and wealth concentration now, and as a nation we are at an historic low point by nearly any measurement immaginable outside of corporate profit and stock prices (and even those are down). SHOCKER - you can't spend decades trying to destroy the livelyhoods of your customer base and expect to sell product. Your corporate-pimped half-ideology has now been tested and it has failed. Wake up and smell the suffering.
Nickernacker, I believe we have crossed swords in the past over climate issues, but I totally endorse every word of your comment. A good example is the debate in the USA at the moment over health care. It seems corporate interests have been very successful in persuading the populace to vote in favour of their least best interest. We in the UK sit and watch in amazement as the most outrageous lies are told about our National Health Service, and the gullible audience lap up every word of it
Nickernacker, though meaningless, my concurrence with your post is also complete. I suspect that a point will come when the people who agree with this sentiment will become more active. We may have felt that some small step in that direction was being taken in 2008, judgment reserved, but will it take a 1776- or 1789-like event to evince such a shift? If so, only by force of thinking and reasoning with your opponent can such an accomplish be made.
Yes, the "free-market" got us out of the primordial swamp. Seriously? Another thing that strikes me as completely insane: NASA wastes money, but you don't mention the US military?
What on Earth is the deal with Free Market fanatics? I thought that religion had died along with creationism, but I guess there are always diehard believers that can never let go. After all it took centuries for the geocentric view to go away, the market oriented view will hopefully fade the same way. Creative minds, a must for science, work best if unfettered by pressure to produce a particular result, therefore scientist must be free from market forces. No one knows where a new seemingly useless discovery might lead to. Einstein worked for a patent office, but this was not for love of the free market, he was after all a socialist. He wanted a job that did not demand much of him, a job he could easily ignore and freely think about the things he cared about. Things that were not profitable and uterly "useless" at the time. That was a different world. Today private corporations would be breating down his neck constantly asking; "anything profitable yet?" The essence of the free market is to concentrate on the profit motive only, at the espense of everything else. There is no basic research, or knowledge for the sake of knowledge. There is only profitable research, and knowledge that can be marketed, NOTHING ELSE. If something does not return immediate profit then it is discarded. Having an Einstein half assing through a job in a corporate world? forget about, even if he is about to split the atom
Free-market as in economic theory free market? It's a flawed concept, which is just as unrealistic as communism!
All the companies in your so called "free market" are only interested in making profit, and the only way to make a profit is by controlling a market, which goes against the very principles of capitalism because it destroys competition and raises barriers to entry to the market.
Uncontrolled "free" markets only breed monopolies, which are just as bad as government when it comes to inefficiencies.
Don't forget that it was science which dragged your sorry ass out of the "primordial swamp" into the digital age.
And science almost never goes in a straight line, so non commercial research is -necessary-.
The World Doesn't Owe Me A Living
Tue Nov 10 15:15:44 GMT 2009 by GroovyJ
http://members.shaw.ca/groovyj/
Actually, for the vast majority of history, there was no free market whatsoever. Scientific inquiry was advanced by people who had plenty of free time and resources, and were curious about stuff. The idea of a free market is only a bare few centuries old.
I don't particularly trust the government, it's true. They need to be watched like hawks. The key, though, is that the people have the power, if they choose to exert it, to watch the government like hawks, and to step in and control it if necessary. By contrast, dealing with privately owned businesses the average person has no power at all, no control whatsoever. Private business acts in the narrow, short term interests of a tiny percentage of the population.
Failure by government to advance the interests of the people is the fault of the people. Failure by business to do so is, well, kind of the point. Business is not supposed to advance knowledge, or investigate the mysteries of the universe, or improve the quality of life of human beings. If it does so, it does so purely as a biproduct.
The free market = a tiny (1%-ish) investor class controls everything, and all economic activity exists ultimately to serve their ends, regardless of the costs to everyone else. There is no advantage to replacing ivy league cliques with billionaire cliques. Indeed, it is conceivable that I might, through diligent study, join an ivy league clique. The same can not be said of the ultra-rich clique.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
