some relevant links below this story
---

http://www.agribiz.com/test/News/ Knight Ridder/Tribune
Greg Kline , The News-Gazette, Champaign-Urbana, Ill. February 03, 2001

URBANA, Ill.--At the University of California, the center for "classical biological control," which studied using methods such as introducing natural predators to battle crop pests, is gone, Michael Hansen says.

In its place is a new biotechnology center one-third funded by a big agricultural products corporation, which gets in return first dibs on a third of the center's developments.

To Hansen, the reason for the switch is obvious.

Sell a couple rounds of good bugs to fight the bad bugs and pretty soon the good bugs start breeding on their own and nobody needs to buy them anymore, says the researcher for the Consumer Policy Institute, a division of the Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer reports.

"That's a product that destroys its own market," Hansen said in a talk at the University of Illinois on Wednesday.

And private corporations aren't inclined to invest in products that destroy their own markets, even if they may be in the public interest, said Hansen, who's largely responsible for Consumers Union positions on safety, labeling and testing of genetically modified foods.

The scientist, who also serves on the U.S. Agriculture Department advisory committee on agricultural technology, spoke at the UI as part of a lecture series on the changes confronting academic researchers.

One of those changes is the infusion of corporate funding into university research, particularly in the areas of information technology and biotechnology where developments can be worth millions of dollars, said UI Professor William Greenough, who introduced Hansen.

Greenough is director of the UI's Center for Advanced Study, chief sponsor of the lecture series titled, "Defining Values for Research and Technology: The University's Changing Role."

Hansen said corporate funding for university research has been growing nearly 8 percent a year nationwide since 1980 and had reached $1.9 billion by 1998, when the most recent study was done.

Likewise, the number of patents filed as a result of academic research had grown from 250 in 1980 to 4,800 in 1998, he said.

Hansen traced the trend to two federal laws. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act permitted patenting of federally funded research for the first time. The 1985 Technology Transfer Act allowed researchers receiving federal money to fashion cooperative development agreements with private companies.

Hansen cited several studies that indicate some research results are influenced by the corporate money -- and not positively.

For example, he noted a study of academic studies on the health effects of second-hand cigarette smoke, which showed scientists who received tobacco company funding were "far more likely to find that passive smoke is not a problem."

Other studies showed a fifth of the university researchers surveyed had delayed releasing findings for proprietary reasons, and about 9 percent had refused to share information with colleagues.

That's contrary to the academic tradition Greenough described of freely sharing results and collaborating to make scientific advances.

Moreover, many researchers -- including some who advise key government regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public -- refuse even to disclose financial interests they hold in companies whose products, such as new drugs, they're reviewing, Hansen said.

"At a minimum, there needs to be absolute disclosure," he said.
---

* evidence of aggressive corporate deception involving government, researchers and the media http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000409.html http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,156849,00.html

* evidence of widespread industry pressure on scientists to tailor their research findings and advice to suit sponsors http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/fix.htm

* evidence of the falsification of data to suit commercial objectives http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,194211,00.html

* evidence that even indirect industry-linked funding can critically distort researchers' findings and published opinions on issues relevant to public safety http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0338/0002/0101.asp http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/fix.htm

* evidence of misrepresentation of research to the public and the media to suit commercial objectives http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/sugar-beet-paper-commentary. htm
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/pb.htm

* evidence of pressure to suppress publication of unfavourable research evidence http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/rs.htm

* evidence of heavy corporate influence over research funding, research agendas, and top-level appointments http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/scigag.htm

* evidence of the use of silencing agreements to gag scientists http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/scigag.htm

* evidence of scientists' self-censorship and of the direct suppression of dissenting scientists http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html

* evidence that patents and other financial interests may be influencing researchers' behaviour in ways which could place the public at risk http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-12/31/141l-123199-idx.h tml

* evidence of suppression of unfavourable research evidence into product safety http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1527/text4.html

* evidence that the withholding of unfavourable research evidence into product performance may have led to thousands of deaths http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/1999/10/01/timnwsnws01005.html?99 9