The contrast betwen this Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on the Future of Biotechnology report and what has come out of other National Academies of Science is striking, not least in relation to the UK's Royal Society which has shown every sign of being almost entirely in industry's pocket. Consider, for instance, the general sanity and good sense of the following section of the report on 'Increasing Commercialization of University Scientific Research in Biotechnology'.
Download the Full Report as a pdf http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf (775k)
---
Increasing Commercialization of University Scientific Research in Biotechnology
There is growing concern in the public and the scientific community that the increasing focus of government upon the promotion of biotechnology has an adverse impact on the allocation of research funds. As suggested by Varma, there is a growing perception that “Basic science is valued only if it contributes to the creation of products or processes for... industry. The government agencies are more and more supporting research which is geared to help industry” (Varma, 1999). In Canada, an Expert Panel on Commercialization of University Research has recently made strong recommendations to the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology that governments and universities adopt policies encouraging the commercialization of university research with intellectual property potential (Expert Panel on Commercialization, 1999).
There are also numerous specific conflicts which have been associated with the research environment. Though academic science has always been affiliated with the private sector, the application of genetic engineering to food production is progressing at a time when universities and university researchers are building unprecedented ties with industry partners (Schultz, 1996; Angell, 2000; DeAngelis, 2000). Researchers, such as David Blumenthal, have noted that these commercial alliances can have a profound impact on the choice of research topics (Blumenthal, 1992). They also help to create an atmosphere of secrecy among researchers (Wadman, 1996; Blumenthal, 1997; Caulfield, 1998; Gold, 1999) and jeopardize the trust which the public places in academic science. As noted by Korn: “There is good reason for concern [that the] idealistic image of academic virtue and the public’s willingness to trust in it may be tottering” (Korn, 2000).
The pressures and opportunities for institutional and personal gain from research has a profound impact upon the willingness of researchers to share openly research plans, research results and relevant resources within the research community. This openness is one of the traditional strengths of the scientific enterprise. It is the traditional mechanism by which the potential risks and failures of certain technological designs and directions become widely known within the scientific and technological communities. This is true not just of biotechnology, but of other research disciplines with potential industrial applications as well. Increased secrecy and protection of intellectual property in the research community does not well serve the public interest in reliable scientific research on safety matters.
Academic/industry relationships are extremely widespread.
Blumenthal’s 1997 study found 90% of the US life sciences companies surveyed had a “relationship with academia”. In such a climate, it may become increasingly difficult to find independent academic researchers with the motivation, or even the freedom, to evaluate the claims of industry. As argued by science historian Charles Weiner: “[T]he dual roles played by many leading biologists have begun to impair the credibility of scientists when they provide advice on matters of public concern relating to their research” (Weiner, 1988, at 32?33).
Scientists who concentrate their research efforts on the environmental and health risks of new technologies, and who develop the expertise upon which competent regulation of these technologies must depend, are not likely to be prime candidates for research grants from industry partners.
In addition, academic scientists involved in the advancement of knowledge in the biotechnology area are increasingly enticed by the considerable commercial value of this knowledge, and increasingly involved in the patenting and marketing of new organisms and techniques. This situation is exacerbated by the emerging structures of intellectual property ownership and management by public universities. A university researcher wishing to release the results of his or her work in the interest of the public good may encounter tangible institutional or corporate pressure not to do so in order to capture the potential commercial value through patenting and licensing. In relation to food biotechnology, it is arguable that such a refocusing of the public research agenda makes it more difficult to find funds for research aimed at the critique or evaluation of GMO technology or scientific researchers with the independence and objectivity to carry it out.
This co-opting of biotechnology science by commercial interest contributes to the general erosion of public confidence in the objectivity and independence of the science behind the regulation of food biotechnology. It reduces significantly the scientific resources available to government regulators of the technology and, hence, the reliability of the “science base” of this regulation. This situation is one that goes well beyond the power of government regulatory agencies to remedy on their own. Instead, they suffer the consequences of these dynamics in the society insofar as the knowledge base they depend upon for the evaluation of technological risks is impoverished. The Expert Panel considers this to be a serious public policy issue related to the public funding of independent scientific research in the universities, and can be remedied only by those in government who formulate and implement these public policies.
---
RELEVANT QUOTES (c/o ngin)
"It is a serious thing when democracy no longer has any independent experts..." ." -JEAN-PIERRE BERLAN, Director of Research at the National Agronomic Research Institute (INRA), France, and RICHARD C. LEWONTIN, holder of the Alexander Agassiz chair in zoology and professor of population genetics at Harvard University, USA http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/inside/1998/12/02gen.html
---
"These competing interests are very important. It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial." - Editor of the British Medical Journal http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/fix.htm
---
"...with modern biotechnology the world has discovered a vast new field which is full of potential for creative activity and, for the scientific community at least, patentable and profitable innovations." -Donald J. Johnston, head of the OECD
---
"..an artificial market may have been created by researchers and producers" -from a British Medical Association press release on GM foods
---
“There is a great deal of potential research investment in the UK that could come from food technology industries, and any concerns about the safety of these foods could jeopardise this huge investment. So I can understand why scientists would be very anxious about jeopardising that investment.” -Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet interviewed Channel 4 News, Friday 15 October 1999
---
“The universities are cheering us on, telling us to get closer to industry, encouraging us to consult with big business. The bottom line is to improve the corporate bottom line. It's the way we move up, get strokes... We can't help but be influenced from time to time by our desire to see certain results happen in the lab.”
“All of these companies have a piece of me. I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private interest. It's a very difficult juggling act, and sometimes I don't know how to juggle it all.” -John Benedict, former Texas AW University entomologist http://motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF97/biotech_jump2.html
---
"The problem is that research at public institutions increasingly reflects the interests of private funders... Civil society must demand a response of who the university and other public organizations are to serve and request more research on alternatives to biotechnology." - Miguel A. Altieri, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, Division of Insect Biology, University of California