The influence of business over university science has come under fresh scrutiny with the publication of a report by think-tank Demos. In The Public Value of Science: Or how to ensure that science really matters Demos argus that ethical considerations and public engagement should become part of everyday scientific practice – and that close ties between business and university science threaten to stifle the potential for this, as well as to distort research priorities.

‘Collaboration between universities and businesses is important,’ said James Wilsdon, ‘but we need to ask who’s setting the agenda for science.'

Committee response

The report proposes a Commission on Emerging Technologies and Society, which would support public and policy debate about developments in nanotechnology, biotechnology and neuroscience.  It also recommends that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigates the influence of business on academic research.

Phil Willis, the new Chair of the Committee, said it had not yet mapped out a programme of inquiries for the coming year, adding about the Demos research: ‘In a personal capacity I am encouraged, rather than concerned, that business and science are forging ever stronger links. […] I want to see far more research arise out of business thinking and the challenge we have is how to make that a reality when so much research is generated by the current academic institutions.’

He acknowledged that encouraging transparency about research where possible is also important, since the public ‘needs to have faith in science and its inherent societal good’.

Lancaster protest

Such discussions are pertinent to Lancaster University, which has recently seen six of its students prosecuted for protesting at a meeting on campus about the university’s involvement with corporations such as BAE Systems, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell. One of them was quoted as saying: ‘there is an ethical debate to be had about commercialisation and, if we are to build links, we should discuss with whom to do it,’ implying frustration at the current framework for communication about such issues.

Professor Cary Cooper, Pro-Vice Chancellor of the university, emphasised that all universities are encouraged by the government to undertake ‘third mission’ activities (i.e. involving partnerships with industry and the community).

The Campaign for Science and Engineering observed that the protests ‘confused the need to generate economic benefits from research with the importance of ensuring that universities are free to conduct research according to their own priorities.’

‘It would be absurd not to commercialise research with potential applications that might bring economic, social, health or environmental benefits,’ CaSE said. ‘Whether or not universities are independent, and thus free to choose which scientific questions they seek to answer, is another matter.’