Corporate influence affects public trust and effective dialogue
Do financial interests result in positive results in scientific research? Maybe, according to a new study, but regardless it breeds public mistrust in science and is a roadblock to effective dialogue.
Lack of trust is a key barrier to many technologies being accepted by the community. That distrust, it seems, is often targeted at the pharmaceutical industry and the multinationals involved in the creation of genetically modified crops.
So it doesn’t help science anywhere when a study finds that nearly all (94%) of authors that had favourable views on the safety of an anti-diabetic drug that led to an increased risk of heart attacks were more likely to have a financial conflict of interest with a pharmaceutical company than were authors who had unfavourable views.
Although it certainly raises suspicion, favourable views do not necessarily mean that the research is tainted or not scientifically robust, but this study done by the Mayo clinic also found there was a significant lack of disclosure about any conflict of interest.
Perception is reality
This lack of transparency is another key community concern, at least among the people I talk to. It has come up twice in the last 10 days: first at a workshop for rural women on agricultural biotechnology and this week at a meeting with various representatives from government, research and anti-GM groups to discuss the content of a public attitude survey. In both events the concern came up about the lack of trust of multi-nationals and a lack of transparency about what they or any one else does. Even public-funded research at universities was considered tainted because they thought there was a lack of disclosure about the source of their funding for any research that involved GM crops.
Getting honest dialogue
We all say we want an open and honest discussion this stuff. Will this distrust, justified or not, and an often real lack of transparency form a serious roadblock to any progress toward a functional dialogue on controversial technologies? I suggest it will.
Scientists in the public sphere need to declare openly where there funding comes from, what research they are doing and what the results are. Doing this doesn’t mean they have to give away intellectual property secrets. You can reveal the what, why and potential applications of research easily without coughing up the secrets to commercial success.
In fact, it is our taxes that pay for a lot of this research, so there should be some obligation to let the community know exactly what is happening with their money. We probably should be told regardless of any issue of public distrust, but that is another debate.
As for the Monsanto-types and drug companies, they have an even harder road ahead.