Science and the corporate agenda

As economic problems continue to grip numerous countries, many governments are pushing the view that greater commercialisation of scientific work is a key way to tackle the malaise. But there is reason to believe that this path is causing more problems than it solves

For many years, medical researchers have highlighted the problems related to the involvement of the powerful pharmaceutical industry within scientific work. Evidence has been gathered demonstrating research bias, undeclared conflicts of interest, unfavourable results left unpublished, and a research agenda increasingly focussed on short-term economic gain at the expense of health benefits. As action is taken to try to deal with the problems within the medical field, further evidence – summarised in a recent report published by Scientists for Global Responsibility – shows that other sectors are experiencing similar difficulties¹.

One of the key problems identified is that of ‘sponsorship bias’. This is where the source of funding for a particular research project influences the results or outcome of the project. It has been documented most thoroughly in projects involving the pharmaceutical or tobacco industries, but evidence is increasingly apparent in other fields. One academic study from 2003 analysed the results of 370 randomised drug trials². It found that trials funded by pharmaceutical companies were more than three times more likely to be positive about the effects of the trial drug than those funded by not-for-profit sources. Other studies have found even more pronounced examples of sponsorship bias. There is little sign that these problems are receding.

It should be emphasised that such bias is not, in general, due to intentional malpractice or a deliberate attempt to deceive – evidence of such behaviour is extremely rare. It is generally an indication of something more subtle. For example, it could be that the researcher is simply carried away by how some results support the desired aim of the funding, overlooking those results that do not¹.

Whatever the cause, the consequences of this problem can be serious. Drugs can be approved which are not as safe or effective as the results indicate.

A related problem is commercial confidentiality restrictions. Recent evidence suggests that at least half of all researchers taking industry funding are required to sign contracts which restrict publication of results without company permission⁵. This can lead to long delays in the publication of results that are unfavourable to the funder. Some results may not be published at all. Delayed or non-publication of results has been a factor in recent drug scandals. One recent example involved GSK’s anti-depressant, Paxil, which had been prescribed to adolescents, but later GSK alerted the public to a possible increase in suicide risk among such people. It was argued in court that data on the increased risk were available to the company 15 years before the public warnings were given⁶. The company denied any deliberate attempt to mislead.

Another problem is undeclared conflicts of interest. Few academic journals are rigorous in ensuring that contributors declare any conflicts of interest when submitting papers for publication. Because of the problem of pharmaceutical industry influence, medical journals such as the BMJ and The Lancet have been much stricter. Even the highly respected journal Nature has been caught out. A study of papers on molecular biology submitted to the journal during the first six months of 2005 discovered that two-thirds of the contributors with potential financial conflicts of interest had not disclosed them⁷. Again the extent of this problem in other scientific disciplines has not been extensively investigated.

Scientific research can and does make a key contribution to tackling problems such as ill-health, insecurity, and environmental pollution. However, the increasing emphasis on commercialisation can distort the priorities set for research – including publicly-funded research. Examples can be found across science and technology, although detailed figures comparing different fields of work can be elusive.

In the security field, the focus is very much on the development and use of military technology, with major ‘defence’ corporations being big players1. In the countries of the OECD (most industrialised countries), public spending on military R&D is huge – approaching $100 billion a year⁸ – with much of it going to industry for development of new technologies. Although research funds are also directed towards understanding the roots of conflict, and contributing towards peace-building and disarmament, the available evidence shows that such programmes are tiny in comparison¹. Even public R&D spending on health and environmental protection combined is much less than the equivalent military budget within the OECD⁸.

In agriculture, R&D on crops is heavily focused on genetically-modified (GM) seeds – which benefits the companies who have patented them – while agro-ecological methods, such as organic farming, attract much less research interest¹. There is little evidence to demonstrate that GM agriculture is or will be more successful than agro-ecology in tackling problems like food insecurity and environmental pollution, yet the strong bias in the research agenda persists. Indeed the influential International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development argued that that there is a need to move away from a research agenda that is so focused on biotechnology⁹.

“Trials funded by pharmaceutical companies were more than three times more likely to be positive about the effects of the trial drug than those funded by not-for-profit sources.”

In the area of health, pharmaceutical companies have a major influence on the publicly-funded research, as well as being a major source of R&D funding themselves. Again this helps to skew the research agenda, with a focus on drug treatments rather than a broader public health-orientated research agenda¹. Perhaps of greatest concern is what is known as the ‘10/90 gap’, where only 10% of the health research resources are used to tackle diseases endemic in low-income countries, where about 90% of the world’s ill-health occurs. Although initiatives to tackle this problem do exist – such as Drugs for Neglected Diseases programme of Medicins Sans Frontiers, and others funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves – these are still small in relation to the scale of the problem.

Perhaps the most insidious problem is the way in which companies involved in scientific work can mislead the public about the available evidence. While companies are obviously entitled to put forward their interpretation of research, the problems become particularly acute when ‘front’ groups are set up with large amounts of industry money, and then claim to be impartial commentators on the science.

Well known are the activities of the tobacco industry and its efforts over more than 50 years to convince the public – via a range of ‘independent’ groups – that smoking and ill-health were not closely related. Less well-known are the activities of some sections of the fossil-fuel industry and its concerted efforts to discredit the science of climate change. Indeed, there is clear evidence that some companies – notably, ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest – have used advisors from the tobacco industry to help shape their own efforts to promote ‘climate sceptic’ views and thus undermine action to reduce carbon emissions10. This is also an issue in other areas of controversy such as some areas of biotechnology¹.

There are a number of ways in which the problems outlined above could be tackled¹. Clearly there would be benefits in having much greater openness about business links with academic researchers and universities. For example, journals need to be much more rigorous about ensuring that authors declare any potential conflicts of interest. Registers of interests for researchers – along the lines of those used in the legal profession – could be set up. Universities could also establish minimum ethical standards for academic-business links, which include consideration of the social and environmental record of the company, and take account of the inappropriate support of ‘front’ groups. More effort could be also made to establish funding mechanisms whereby a single business interest is not the sole funder for a research project.

In terms of broadening the research agenda, the steering groups of publicly-funded research councils and science foundations could include more representations from civil society. There should be more scrutiny from parliamentary bodies with remits covering health, environmental protection, or international development. Bodies like the European Environment Agency could be given a greater role. All these actions could help counter the increasing emphasis on short-term economic goals.

One novel idea is the greater use of science prizes, where a social or environmental goal of research is set – for example, the treatment of a neglected disease or the generation of renewable energy from marine sources – and the reward is funding to develop the technology on a large scale¹¹.

It should be emphasised that commercialisation of scientific work can and does lead to useful benefits for society, but the push in recent years to put science at the heart of the drive for economic growth has numerous pitfalls. It can risk the quality of scientific work and undermine its application in helping to tackle numerous global problems such as ill-health, insecurity and climate change. If we allow this, then we will all be poorer as a result.