Science, Universities and Money

Nature News has recently reported on university conflicts of interest in both the UK and US. A UK study of universities have found raised questions about the accuracy of government statistics on defence-related research grants. Some universities were receiving as much as 5 million pounds to conduct defence-related research, with the money coming from both government and commercial sources. In the US, many top-level institutions have simply trusted their scientists to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

“It's an honour system,” says Robert Alpern, dean of the Yale School of Medicine. “We rely on the faculty to tell us the truth. And to be honest, up until a few months ago, I think we all thought they were telling us the truth.”

What can universities do to ensure that their researchers are declaring conflicts of interest? If asking them to fill in a form that asks questions about large sums of money doesn't work, then will interviewing them be any better, as Duke University hopes? Does it even matter?

These issues relate to some of societies big issues - weapons and drugs. If governments are turning universities into rats in an arms-race, then they aren't serving other purposes.

[Scientists for Global Responsibility Consultant, Chris] Langley says that ultimately he believes higher education should spend less on improving the UK's weapons technology and more on research of benefit to society: “We have our priorities wrong,” he says.

One easy example of research that benefits society is the development of medicine - cures for cancer, vaccines for HIV. Healing, instead of killing. But conflict of interest can make this kind of research more of a danger to society than a help. Scientists know how to manipulate the conditions of a study to make a useless drug look like more like a miracle. By making the data fit the statistical requirements, or by using less robust methodology or just straight-out lying, an ineffective or even dangerous drug can make it to the market. Not only would it get prescribed, sold and consumed, but it would all happen with complete confidence. Patients would trust their doctors, doctors would trust the imprimatur of a good university. No one would know until it was too late.

Universities are in a constant bind. Corporate funding comes loaded with potential conflicts of interest. Government funding comes loaded with political bondage. Philanthropic funding is as fickle as the wealthy individuals who hand it out and many students are already being turned into an underclass of cheap easy-to-exploit labour with big debts thanks to tuition fees. Add an [un]healthy dose of globalisation and we have a problem that goes beyond who is being honest about where that $4 million came from...