Money talks

03.08.2009

When it comes to biotechnology, money talks.

Dr Don Lotter has concerns about the safety of genetically engineered crops. He writes about the close and questionable relationship between big business, especially biotechnology companies and research.

The central problem he argues has been the move away from publicly funded science. The aim of such science is to promote the common good. The goal of corporately funded science is to maximise profits for their shareholders. According to Lotter, the consequences of this change, especially, in regard to genetically modified organisms GMOs, has been worrying.

• The scientific community tolerates bias against, and mistreatment of non-compliant scientists, whose work results in negative finds for transgenics.
• Pro-industry scientists with vested interests in transgenics monopolise the make-up of expert scientific bodies on transgenics.
• There are deficient scientific protocols and possible fraud in industry-sponsored and industry-controlled safety testing of transgenic food.
• Politicians and personnel from the biotech industry of federal regulatory bodies manipulate science increasingly. For example, the Food and Drug  
  Administration (FDA).

This shift away from publicly funded science has been described as "academic capitalism." It contrasts with the traditional understanding of the role of scientific research within the university community.  Scientists were expected to be so detached from the results of their research that they would readily encourage others to test and verify their results. Taking a commercial interest in the results of one's research was frowned on, since it could easily lead to a serious conflict of interest. 

Lotter pinpoints the shift in emphasis to the Bayh-Dole Act in the U.S. in 1980. This promoted closer ties between Universities and Business by allowing the Universities to retain the intellectual property rights of research even when funded by the Federal government. The universities themselves were aware that they were on a slippery slope.

Lotter refers to a report commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It stated that: If the ties to industry encourage secrecy, divert the faculty away from university-centred research and education, bring external controls to the direction of research, and allow profit motives to enter the discussions about hiring and promotion, then such ties may indeed erode what is left of the image of the university as a detached institution able to provide relatively impartial, independent, and therefore credible expertise.

Other keen commentators foresaw the dangers involved in mixing commerce with education. Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard University, warned that universities could be seduced away from their proper role by increased commercial ties. Initially, the benefits in the way of funding seem important while the risk to academic freedom seem manageable. According to him "the problems come so gradually and silently that their link to commercialisation may not even be perceived.

Lotter points out that those who have raised genuine scientific questions about GM food have been subjected to all kinds of personal insults and lost their source of employment. He goes on to charge that agencies such as the National Academy of Science in the U.S. have been stacked with pro-industry scientists.

A 2006 survey carried out on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S. found out that among one thousand scientists who had worked for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that 61% knew of cases in which political appointees 'inappropriately interjected themselves into the FDA determinations or actions.

None of these serious concerns surfaced at the Pontifical Academy of Science's Study Week in May 2009, but it too was stacked with pro-biotech speakers.

Fr Sean McDonagh is a researcher on justice and peace issues and more recently ecological challenge.