Radical
Statistics
Corruption of Scientific Integrity The Commercialisation of Academic Science
(under the auspices of the Council for Academic Autonomy and the Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards)
Wednesday May 2nd 2001 The British Academy
Summary of the meeting by Janet Shapiro
Professor Fergus Millar, F.B.A. Camden Professor of Ancient History, University of Oxford, chaired the morning session of two presentations. (Prof. Millar also circulated an open letter to Tony Blair concerning Government, Universities and Democracy)
'Down what river is academic science being sold?'
Prof John Ziman, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Bristol.
Prof Ziman's talk referred to explicit demands for science to fulfil an 'instrumental role', serving the needs of society and the economy. He went on to distinguish between the 'instrumental' and 'non-instrumental' roles and to examine the implications of committing scientists to one or the other of these roles
The instrumental role for science, essentially being useful and generating applicable principles and new techniques, is a state of slavery or serfdom. It neglects the need to nurture public understanding and critical rationality, to develop scientific attitudes and reliable expertise, to provide enlightened practitioners and independent researchers.
Non-instrumental science has a wider brief for building up world pictures concerned with conceptions of humanity, awareness of public concern and world issues, and with encouraging imaginative curiosity. It also has a duty to be active in public debate, challenging dogmas, testing theories and respecting and defending basic human values. In particular, the expert practitioner is continuously learning, and the conduct of his research is objective, impartial, independent and credible.
The characteristics of the 'non-instrumental and 'instrumental approaches were contrasted:
Non-instrumental | Instrumental |
Public | Proprietary |
Universal | Local |
Imaginative | Prosaic |
Self | Pragmatic |
Disinterested | Partisan |
Academic scientists have traditionally adopted the 'non-instrumental' approach, in that their work is published and judged on its merit. Papers are expected to be original, and subjected to peer-review.
There has been a merging of the two approaches, with Government laboratories needing to develop strategies influenced by both types of science (referred to as mode 1 and mode 2).
In conclusion, now that public funding is granted according to practical utility of science and measurable impact dominated by commerce and bureaucracy, we find that independent university expertise is low.
'Patients' health or company profits? The Toronto story'
Nancy Olivieri
As professor of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Hospital for Sick Children, Dr Olivieri was instrumental in launching trials of a new drug for thalassaemia sponsored by a pharmaceutical firm. When some harmful effects of the drug were evident from her research work, the firm could not be persuaded to warn patients. Her subsequent publication resulted in repeated dismissals from her post. Only determined efforts by herself and colleagues, backed up by an international outcry resulted in her reinstatement.
Dr Olivieri's talk included an explanation of events that affected her as an individual, but focussed on the general problems for scientific independence, in particular the problem of researchers' having to sign a non-disclosure clause. In her case, as a physician, this clause was negated in law by a prior obligation to the patients' interests. She remarked upon the negligence of universities in respect academic standards of conduct when relying upon funding from powerful companies, and how a ruthless strategy of 'Deny, Divide, Delay and then Discredit' may be used against the hapless academic attempting to follow an ethical path.
Some issues relating to the procedures adopted by companies for clinical trials in the US were discussed. It was noted that lobbying had brought about conditions favourable to company profits, without sufficient safeguards for patients.
In question time, it was noted that review of medical papers was not always sufficiently meticulous to prevent false or inaccurate results being published. In some cases reviewers were biased, and some journals omitted to ask for a declaration of author's sponsorship. Several researchers in the audience reported anxieties about taking part in sponsored research work.
The afternoon session was chaired by Prof. Ray Dils, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, University of Reading.
'Problems for Biomedical Research at the Academic/ Industrial Interface'
Sir David Weatherall, FRS, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Director of Molecular Medicine at the University of Oxford, and member of the Dearing Committee.
Sir David began his talk by giving a brief historical background for medical research, pointing out that influential discoveries made in the UK had not been financially beneficial to the UK. A plaque to Sir William Dunn at the Royal Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, was cited as an example.
The life threatening diseases are distinctly different for different parts of the world, infectious diseases, malaria, HIV, etc. for under-developed countries, and heart disease lung cancer etc for well-developed countries. A resumé of medical research would cite major developments as the circulation system in the 17th century, microbiology in the 19th century and physiology, epidemiology, and molecular biology in the 20th century.
The pace of recent work has been very rapid, from the discovery of DNA in 1944, to the Human Genome in 2000. Much understanding has been accumulated about molecular biology. Gene therapy shows promise for curing otherwise incurable diseases.
Biomedical research is at the interface between theoretical research and developing expertise in affecting the basic disease mechanism. The aspects of this are: translational, clinical and community.
Disturbing influences on making smooth progress for beneficial research include: demands for exploitable results, conflicts of interest, secrecy and patents. For instance, the demand for short term results limits research targets. Private ownership of the Human Genome would hold back research. Fortunately Welcome has advertised that the information is open to all. Commerce, such as mail-order genetic diagnosis must be regulated for the sake of a vulnerable and credulous public.
An example of the dangers of wanting rapid results is the premature application of gene theory using a viral vector which resulted in a young man's death. The process could be to target the Germ cell, which could be risky, or a Somatic cell, which is more possible. The general aim is the replacement, insertion, exchange or recombination and reactivation of 'fetal' genes.
The clinical work, when relying on sponsors, can introduce a conflict of interest, bias, contractural pressure, and 'Ghosting'.
Sir David concluded by suggesting that possible safeguards against these dangers are for funding bodies to:
- reduce pressures for 'short-term' gains,
- rationalise patent laws on biological material,
- adjust funding arrangements and protect scientists
- have fair contracts and adopt good practice.
Journals should expect a statement from authors on any conflict of interest. Most importantly there should be External Review system for Industry.
'The Guards of Perception - the corporate take-over of universities'
George Monbiot, Honorary Professor of Politics Keele University, and Prof. of Environmental Science at University of East London.
George Monbiot focussed upon the implications for universities and research of the government's resolve to be 'guardian of economic growth'. He pointed out a series of edicts which linked public funding for academic activity with the needs of industry, which has led to funding now being dependent upon HE being responsive to the needs of Industry.
That governmental funding is supplemented by private sponsorship is evident in the large number of chairs bearing the names of corporate companies. For some institutions their funding may be two thirds from private sponsorship.
Some examples were given of how corporate involvement may distort professional perceptions of independent scrutiny. In some cases the professional experts had, apparently of their own accord, endorsed false claims.
Even the Biological Research Council is heavily influenced by corporate directors, all specialist committee with generous representation of corporate firms, Zeneca being represented on all seven. He claimed that the Foresight panels were largely controlled by business bodies, which could seriously distort the selection of investigations to be supported. Reporting on issues which could damage commercial interests appeared to be restricted to the non-critical. Also it was notable that Friends of the Earth, FOE, had to sponsor from their own funds a study on the transmission of pollen by bees from genetically modified crops to normal crops.
The evidence given in his talk, was that corporate involvement distorted research directions, and the funds available for research were in inverse relation to research needs.
There were a great many questions, but George Monbiot suggested that academic scientists need not accept bad practice and should combine in defence of academic standards and independence.
