Contact us
:
Sitemap
:
Our benefactors
:
Help
Search
Home
News
Reports and Publications
Science & Public Affairs
SPA Archive
June 2006
SPATalk
Science and Peace in Antarctica
Twin tracks to tackle climate challenge
Budget throws sensitivities into relief
News in Brief
Morality,theology and action on climate change
What are we going to do about the decline in chemistry students?
The psychology of terrorism
Science meets policy
Where did texting come from?
The self-sorting tendency
Physics in the City
Young people and gambling problems
Deaf people and linguistic research
Food labelling in Europe - We need information for the majority
Food labelling in Europe - We want nutrition labelling
Food labelling in Europe - It's a mess
Mobile phones and children - Voluntary Code
Mobile phones and children - Children face risks
Mobile phones and children-UK code of practice
And then there was one
Joys and duties of a scientist
Scientists in the pay of industry
Creationism reviving; science recruitment declining
All hail the new Science Supremo
Scientists in the pay of industry
Scientists in the pay of industry
Lazy journalists jeopardise informed debate, alleges Fiona Fox
A striking aspect of the media’s coverage of science in recent years is the growing trend to ‘uncover’ and ‘expose’ scientists’ links with industry.
Intrepid investigative journalists delight in shocking us with the news that a string of independent scientists advising us on some of the hottest topics of the day are in the pay of industry and, by implication, not to be trusted.
We’ve seen an entire scientific advisory panel on GM crops written off because their members have ties to industry; an attack on a highly respected MMR expert because she happened to be on the same side as vaccine manufacturers in a legal challenge and, most recently, the accusation that almost every leading scientific body involved in the obesity debate is in hock to the food companies.
The problem with these so called ‘exposes’ is that the journalists don’t feel the need to come up with the proof that a link with industry has corrupted the independent scientist, relying instead on the public’s suspicion of industry to get away with guilt by association.
Naïve about science
For scientists the attacks are bewildering, appearing to combine an attack on their integrity with a naivety about the way science is done in the UK. It’s a fact of life that there is more research needing to be done than public money to fund it.
A lot of science would simply not be done without some collaboration between industry and independent scientists. Universities now have to find substantial sums from the private sector if they are to unlock Government funds for research and even the Research Councils, who are on the more blue-skies end of scientific research, are being encouraged to forge closer links with industry.
According to Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, the whole concept of an independent scientist is a misnomer. ‘Although the public repeatedly tell us that they trust independent scientists more than those in industry, the reality is that as a species the truly independent scientist is becoming extinct. But the idea that because a scientist has some links with industry they are automatically tainted and evil is just ridiculous,’ he says.
Hidden facts
There are other relevant facts that fail to show up in the exposes, like the written agreements which allow the scientists to publish irrespective of the results. And the small matter of ‘peer review’, described by one scientist as ‘the best bullshit detector ever invented’, that ensures that research doesn’t get published unless it passes a number of quality control tests applied by independent experts.
Of course the media’s role is to expose corruption and bias in science, and if and when the media find evidence that scientists have allowed commercial pressures to influence their research it should be splashed over the front pages. But proper investigations like this are way outnumbered by the ‘shock-horror’ articles that expose nothing but the laziness of the journalists.
Real topics
Ironically there are other issues in this area that are crying out for investigation but have been largely ignored by the media.
These include the concerns raised by leading scientists like Nobel Prize winner John Sulston and fertility expert Robert Winston, that the commercial collaborations with our universities may be having a long-term impact on academic freedom and blue skies research. Or whether the rush to create spinout companies is turning innovative scientists into businessmen with more of an eye on the share price than the public good.
But these topics demand serious journalistic investigation – a thing in short supply in our fast-moving 24-hour news environment.
Why bother?
I suppose the really big question is why it matters. So what if a few scientists are suffering from bruised egos – surely it’s the price they pay for supping with the corporate devil? I think it matters hugely.
Media attacks on the independence and integrity of scientists working with industry threaten to undermine the kind of expertise that is absolutely crucial to public debate on controversial issues like childhood vaccination and the safety of GM crops. If we cannot hear from the very people who have built up a huge body of knowledge based on painstaking research and enquiry, then we as a society lose the ability to have a truly informed debate.
Fiona Fox is the Director of the Science Media Centre
Ffox@ri.ac.uk