Jump to full article: The Australian (au), 2001-08-24
Intro: Ethical problems arise when the research funding piper calls a tune that breaches transparency, independence and critical integrity, when knowledge generated is restricted to the sponsor or when the effort is a naked attempt to detract from ethically obnoxious conduct.
But what of engagement with corporations developing goods and services that sustain and enrich life, and which openly embrace university research ethics standards? Should the undeniable evidence of research corruption and the blunting of independence cruel the development and reputation of all responsible collaborative arrangements between industry and universities? Must willingness to take the corporate research dollar inevitably signify inherently compromised research standards? . .
I have taken the corporate dollar from two industries and in both cases have had to furiously fan the air from the waft of public criticism that assumes anything emanating from it must be dodgy.
Last year pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline offered me and four colleagues $250,000 to fund research into ways of promoting smoking cessation. It wanted research to help it sell more nicotine replacement patches. We wanted to research ways that would help reduce the burden of illness caused by smoking. . .
Accepting the money has produced useful work that would not have been done otherwise. It has not turned us into obsequious lap-dogs gratefully slurping up their dollars. . .
The biggest losers in the corporatisation of research are those fields where commodities, patents or large workforces don't exist. Classics, philosophy, cultural studies, fine arts, social work and branches of medicine such as psychiatry and public health are unlikely to make money for sponsors and they will sink further into penury if affirmative public funding policies do not urgently recognise their importance.
Jump to full article » |