April 4, 2006
Kamloops Daily News


The reputation of universities as a source of impartial
expertise is threatened. Universities and professors are
becoming increasingly influenced by corporations warns
Arthur Schafer, professor of Philosophy at the University of
Manitoba.

It wasn't always that way. In the 1950's and 1960's, it was
governments who funded pure scientific research. Scientists
enjoyed a high degree of freedom without the pressure to
produce short-term commercial results. During this period,
less than five per cent of funding for research came from
private industry.

By the late 1970's, governments were under pressure to
reduce taxes and balance budgets. Cuts to universities were
seen, not only as fiscally responsible, but as part of a
global commercial imperative: Ideas have value only if they
can be bought and sold. What good was research if not to
feed the marketplace?

Changes in political thinking led to the strengthening of
intellectual property rights with the resulting shift of
ideas from the public domain to the private.

By the year 2000, private funding for clinical drug trials
increased to 70 per cent. The so-called "strategic
alliances" between universities and the pharmaceutical
industry flourished. The lines between pure and applied
science became blurred.

"For these reasons, large-scale 'scientific
entrepreneurship' moved, almost in one fell swoop, from
being an oxymoron to becoming the prevailing norm on
university campuses across America," says Schafer.

More than ever, we need impartial expertise to solve urgent
ethical questions posed by science and technology. Should
we to grow genetically modified foods and clone human
beings? Are the pills we take as good as good as the
pharmaceutical industry claims?

We trust that publicly-funded universities will provide
expertise for the public good. Schafer wonders whether is
that confidence is well placed. "These days, however,
relying on so-called impartial expertise of the
professoriate might not be such a wise decision."

When universities stake their futures on partnerships with
industry, who do they serve? What does industry expect in
return? The bottom line is that corporations don't make an
investment without a profit.

"When the great majority of Canadian university plant
biologists are funded by international biotechnology
companies like Monsanto and Bayer, it becomes fiendishly
difficult to find any scientist who would raise critical
safety issues that might alienate corporate sponsors," says
Schafer.

Professors are persuaded by corporations to become "Key
Opinion Leaders." In exchange for favours, these
professionals are expected to give favourable opinions of
corporate products.

Professors who don't understand this new reality learn
quickly. Nancy Olivieri, haematologist at the University of
Toronto, found out who was paying her wages when she
expressed doubts about an experimental drug being tested on
patients. The company that made the drug threatened to sue
her if she went public with her concerns. She refused to
shut up and was subsequently fired.

Later, it was revealed in a private letter to the prime
minister that the president of the University of Toronto had
lobbied on behalf of the drug company. The president asked
the federal government not to make changes to drug patent
regulations which could jeopardize the drug company, changes
that could hurt the company's funding of the university's
new medical research wing.

In another case, if Dr. David Healy had kept his mouth shut
he would still be the head of the University of Toronto's
Mood and Anxiety Disorders Clinic. He had already been
approved for the position when he gave a speech critical of
Prozac. His appointment was withdrawn after he warned that
Prozac might cause agitation and suicidal thoughts in some
patients.

Research has since confirmed Healy's worst fears.
Unfortunately for him, being proven right is not the same
thing as keeping your job. Shortly after Healy was
un-hired, the maker of Prozac, who had donated $1.5 million
to university, opened a new wing to the clinic.

Call the opening of the clinic coincidental, if you want,
but the message to loose-lipped professors was clear - -
don't mess with us if you value your job and our financial
support.

If we want reliable facts about scientific discoveries and
medical products, the integrity of professors must be
protected. The lack of public funding for university
research is responsible for the conflicts of interest that
have compromised honest and frank disclosure of potential
public harm.

Can we afford to pay for vital research at universities?
The real question is: can we afford not to?


David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca

go back to my Columns in the