GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

2010 articles

Corrupting influence of business of biotech

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 24 November 2010
Created: 24 November 2010
Last Updated: 22 October 2012
Twitter
NOTE: Many embedded links in original article.
---
---
The Corrupting Influence of the Business of Biotech
Pete Shanks
Biopolitical Times, November 23 2010
http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=5476

[image caption: Jay Keasling, looking happy]

This past weekend supplied several different examples of the way that commercial prospects affect important decisions about scientific research. What is perhaps scariest is that in many””perhaps most””cases, this influence is not even recognized by the scientists involved.

The most specific article was published in the Contra Costa Times and titled:

Corporate U: Industry's reach into academia renews fears of undue influence

It focused on reaction to Jennifer Washburn's recent Center for American Progress report, "Big Oil Goes to College." Since the Contra Costa Times is part of the Bay Area News Group, which includes the Oakland Tribune and the San Jose Mercury News, reporter Suzanne Bohan naturally went to scientists from Stanford and UC Berkeley for comment. Unsurprisingly, they were shocked””shocked and hurt; shocked, hurt and disappointed””by the suggestion that they and their research were anything but disinterested. Among the comments included were:

"We're all proposing to do the science exactly how we would want to, without any constraints."

"We get out of the ivory tower and into the real world."

"We spend a lot of time and money on peer review."

"I do think that the university should be the bastion of independent thought. I hold that value and I think everybody here does. I don't see what we're doing here is in any way in conflict with that."

"In the end, the most robust enforcer of academic freedom is the respect of UC Berkeley faculty for the academic tradition itself."

Cynics might snicker at that last one, but it was probably once true. The trouble is that such respect has dissolved so far as to become unrecognizable. Yet another reaction, however, is the personal favorite of this particular child of the sixties:

"We're working to steer entrenched interests into an alternate way of working. I feel this is a kind of activism that's very suitable for Berkeley."

Not to harsh your mellow or anything, dude, but, ah, the Free Speech Movement was better known for this kind of rhetoric (from Mario Savio):

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious””makes you so sick at heart””that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

Not everyone is as willing as Ignacio Chapela to confront the issues of corporate influence in academia directly, but the truly striking part of these scientists' responses is that they do not seem to recognize that there is even an issue. Washburn is no revolutionary: She sees the potential value of corporate money, but she insists that it be accompanied by watertight contracts:

"In virtually any industry, if two industry groups were establishing a 10-year research partnership, you can bet your bottom dollar that those contracts would be loaded with details about the precise nature of the collaboration. Why is it that a flagship public university would not exercise the same rigorous contract standards? It's a good idea to both safeguard the academic mission and also to be much more transparent with the public about the nature of these alliances."

Washburn did have support, in that article. Sheldon Krimsky, the Tufts University expert on science and ethics, warned about "external influence over the research that goes on at the university." Lawrence Busch, who was once hired by UC Berkeley to evaluate a deal with Novartis, and concluded that it "compromised the mission of the university," made the important point that:

"There's a more subtle aspect of this that's harder to get your hands on, but I think is clear."

In Bohan's phrase, the deals "pose a far more nuanced threat to academic freedom than overt pressure on researchers" because they steer the research agenda, and ultimately affect what reaches the marketplace. How? Well, here's a pointer to one possible answer. That same Sunday morning, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article, headlined on the website as:

Jay Keasling hits jackpot with biofuel startup

Keasling apparently netted $17 million from the recent IPO of Amyris. (In print, the article had the differently distressing title "Biofuel guru: Cells do his bidding.") He is quoted in that piece as saying, "I have always wanted not just to do science but to put it to use," and "Scientists are now getting more involved in how we commercialize technology." But he plays down the fact that, while the original idea was to produce an anti-malarial compound (itself controversial), the move into biofuels was inspired by a venture capitalist:

"They weren't thinking of fuels," said [investor Vinod] Khosla.... "I said, 'Why not go after something with a much greater impact on society?'"

And now, Amyris is also in the perfume business. That's basic science in the modern world, just following the siren call of the market.

On the same evening, 60 Minutes featured a long, hagiographic profile of Craig Venter, in which he off-handedly described himself as an "accidental millionaire." Really, he said that:

"I have been lucky," Venter acknowledged. "Sort of the accidental millionaire in terms of people keep giving me money to start companies to exploit the science."

In an outtake from the same program, he also said that "I have been absolutely amazed at the lack of human genome research in this past decade. ... There wasn't a lot of funding for it." He could get money to sequence the genomes of animals. (From a human-medicine point of view, this turned out to be less useful than expected.) So he sequenced "all kinds of animals, all kinds of mammals, lizards, alligators, horses ..."

All in all, one is tempted to quote from the First Epistle to Timothy, but Luke 23:34 seems equally appropriate. And this famous quote from Upton Sinclair:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
  • Prev
  • Next

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design