NOTE: Here's our summary of the important new SGR report on science and commerce, available here: http://sgr.org.uk/SciencePolicy/CorporateInfluence.html

EXTRACT: A 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. This is of particular concern because of the major uncertainties regarding these technologies, including the possibility of detrimental health and environmental impacts which they may produce.

In terms of the scientific response to food security, the influence of the biotechnology industry can lead to unjustified focus on high technology approaches to increasing crop yields rather than investigating lower-cost agricultural options or addressing wider problems of food distribution or poverty.
---
---
Science and the corporate agenda
The detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology
Scientists for Global Responsibility
September 2009
Executive Summary
Further summarized by GMWatch

Links between science, technology and business are numerous... Both governments and business assert that this close relationship is generally positive for science and technology on the one hand and society on the other. However, there is growing evidence that this relationship brings with it a range of detrimental effects.

We investigate these effects in five industrial sectors: pharmaceuticals; tobacco; military/defence; oil and gas; and biotechnology.

Biotechnology is a complex area which raises numerous ethical issues. The biotechnology industry has expanded rapidly in recent years, with the support of major pharmaceutical, chemical and agricultural companies. This has led to a strong focus within agricultural and health R&D on gene-based technologies, including most controversially genetically modified (GM) crops. A close relationship has developed between the industry and academics in the sector, leading to much criticism. Although there is dispute over the scale of the problems in this sector related to commercial involvement, there remains significant evidence of detrimental effects.

There is clear evidence that large-scale, commercial involvement in university-based science, engineering and technology has impacts that can be very detrimental, such as 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. While academic examination of these impacts has so far been limited, there is nevertheless credible evidence of serious problems across all the five sectors examined in this study.

At the level of the individual research study, we found the following problems:

*Direct commercial funding of a research study increases the likelihood that the results will be favourable to the funders. Evidence of this mainly came from academic research in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. One way in which this bias known as sponsorship bias happened in the cases under examination was that funders tended to choose scientists who were already sympathetic to their viewpoint.

*Openness in research can be compromised through the use of commercial confidentiality agreements (including patents) and other intellectual property rights considerations. We found evidence for this in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology areas, but such problems may well be evident at the individual level across other areas in science and technology, which have not been scrutinised as yet.

*Conflicts of interest of scientific researchers (for example, financial interests) have the potential to compromise the research process. There is limited monitoring or policing of the problem, so its true extent is unknown. We found evidence of this problem in the pharmaceutical, tobacco and biotechnology sectors.

At the level of setting the priorities and direction of R&D, we found the following problems:

*Economic criteria are increasingly used by government to decide the overarching priorities for public funding of science and technology, in close consultation with business.

*Universities are being internally reorganised so that they behave more like businesses, while 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. This is a trend especially evident in biotechnology, pharmaceutical, oil and gas, and military partnerships.

*The growing business influence on universities is resulting in a greater focus on intellectual property rights (including patents) in academic work. Hence 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.

*A 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. This is of particular concern because of the major uncertainties regarding these technologies, including the possibility of detrimental health and environmental impacts which they may produce.

In terms of the scientific response to food security, the influence of the biotechnology industry can lead to unjustified focus on high technology approaches to increasing crop yields rather than investigating lower-cost agricultural options or addressing wider problems of food distribution or poverty.

At the level of communication with policy-makers and the public, we found the following problems:

*If threatened by emerging scientific evidence about the health or environmental problems related to their industry, some of the larger companies are willing to fund major public relations campaigns aimed at strongly encouraging policy-makers and the public to support their interpretation of the scientific evidence (even if it is far from that endorsed by most scientists). Tactics uncovered here include funding lobby groups (sometimes covertly) to act on their behalf and presenting industry as being for ‘sound science’ and opponents as ‘antiscience’. Evidence of these practices is especially strong in the tobacco and oil and gas sectors, with some evidence from the biotechnology sector too. Companies more willing/able to diversify from problematic product lines were found to be less likely to take this course of action.

*Some companies can be selective in their reporting of academic findings of efficacy or safety of a newly launched product. This 'marketing bias' was found especially in data from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors.

Main recommendations

Our recommendations specifically focus on reforms that are relevant across the science and technology sector in the UK. They are:

1. Universities should adopt minimum ethical standards for the companies with which they have partnerships. These standards should include social and environmental criteria, as well as academic criteria and should be overseen by a special committee.

2. Universities should openly publish comprehensive data on the nature of their business partnerships.

3. A new independent organisation should be set up to disburse a significant fraction of business funding for scientific research. The aim would be to fund research which has particular public interest (and includes those areas being neglected by mainstream funding sources). The steering committee of the organisation would include representatives from a range of stakeholders.

4. Business and civil society organisations should undertake more joint work on public interest scientific projects. This could be facilitated by the Research Councils.

5. All academic journals should develop and implement rigorous processes for dealing with potential conflicts of interest, including suitable sanctions for non-compliance.

6. An open register of interests should be set up for academics, particularly those working in controversial areas of science and technology.

7. Advocacy groups on all sides of debates in science and technology (including professional institutions) should publicly disclose funding sources, to allow the public to decide potential sources of bias.

8. University ethical policies on partnerships with business should cover openness and accuracy related to any involvement in science communication activities.

9. More academic research needs to be conducted into the potentially detrimental effects of the commercialisation of science and technology, especially within universities.

10. The newly formed Department of Business, Innovation and Skills which has responsibility for both universities and science should be broken up. Public interest science and the universities should be given greater prominence in the government hierarchy.

11. The House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology should investigate the current emphasis on commercialization within science policy, and whether a balance is being achieved between business and the wider public interest.

12. Public involvement in the governance of science and technology should be expanded in a number of ways, drawing on recent experience of policies and activities in this area.

13. Research Councils and other major public funders of scientific research and teaching should have more balanced representations on their boards and committees between business on the one hand and civil society on the other.

14. Steps should be taken to ensure that a balance is struck between the commercialisation of emerging technologies and wider social and environmental impacts. This could include: the setting up of a Commission on Emerging Technologies and Society; the allocation of adequate levels of funding to examine the broad impact of such emerging technologies and make recommendations on their management; and the wider implementation of ethical codes of conduct for researchers.

15. The Sustainable Development Commission should have its remit broadened specifically to cover the role of science and technology in contributing to sustainable development.

16. There needs to be a thorough review of the role of the university in society and the economy perhaps in the form of a Royal Commission. This needs to include issues ranging from the degree of involvement of business and civil society to patenting policy.