Science and the corporate agenda: drive to commercialise is detrimental, say scientists

“There is clear evidence that large-scale, commercial involvement in university-based science, engineering and technology has impacts that can be very detrimental,” says the report, “Science and the Corporate Agenda: the detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology”. This includes the introduction of significant bias and the marginalisation of work with clear social and environmental benefits.

These impacts occur at different levels, including during individual research studies, the agenda-setting process for R&D, and communication of findings to fellow professionals, policy-makers and the public.

Direct commercial funding of a research study increases the likelihood that the results will be favourable to the funders, according to evidence from academic research in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. One way in which this bias happens is that funders choose scientists who were already sympathetic to their viewpoint. Intentional distortion or suppression of data was much less common, although it did occur, especially in pharmaceutical and the tobacco-funded areas.

At the same time, openness in research can be compromised through the use of commercial confidentiality agreements (including patents) and other intellectual property rights considerations. Conflicts of interest of scientific researchers, for example, financial interests have the potential to compromise the research process and there is limited monitoring or policing of the problem, so its true extent is unknown. The report found evidence of this problem in the pharmaceutical, tobacco and biotechnology sectors.

When setting the priorities and direction of R&D, economic criteria are increasingly used by government to decide what to fund, and decisions are often made in close consultation with business.

As universities are being internally reorganised so that they behave more like businesses, key attributes of the academic ethos such as openness, objectivity and independence are being seriously eroded.

Companies have expanded the number and range of partnerships with universities, focusing on business research priorities and goals. The power and influence of some corporations, and the increased pressure on researchers to bring in funding from business, means that academic departments are increasingly orientating themselves to commercial needs rather than to broader public interest or curiosity-driven goals.

The growing business influence on universities is resulting in a greater focus on intellectual property rights in academic work. As a result, says the report, “Knowledge is increasingly being ‘commodified’ for short-term economic benefit.” This can undermine its application for wider public benefit, and produces a narrow approach to scientific curiosity.

The high degree of business interest in emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology and nanotechnology, leads to decisions about these powerful technologies being taken with little public consultation.

Amongst other measures, the report calls for universities to adopt minimum ethical standards for the companies with which they have partnerships, to openly publish information on the nature of their business partnerships and to open a register of interests should be set up for academics, particularly those working in controversial areas of science and technology.

The report was written by Chris Langley and Stuart Parkinson.

Scientists for Global Responsibility: http://www.sgr.org.uk