|
ONE in three scientists working for Government quangos
or newly privatised laboratories says he has been asked to adjust his
conclusions to suit his sponsor.
Contracting out and the commercialisation of scientific research are
threatening standards of impartiality, scientists claim. The survey was
conducted by the union representing research scientists, which is
campaigning against further privatisation of public laboratories.
The Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists says that
public safety could be harmed by the Government's plans to bring private
funding into the National Air Traffic Services and the Defence Evaluation
and Research Agency. Privatisations over the last few years have included
the Radio Chemical Centre, now Nycomed Amersham Laboratories, and the
Atomic Energy Authority, which trades as AEA Technology.
Charles Harvey, the institute's spokesman, said an increasing number of
scientists had privately raised concerns with the union so it had decided
to include a question about the influence of sponsors in a survey about pay
and conditions. Thirty per cent of the 500 respondents said they had been
asked to tailor their research conclusions or resulting advice.
The figure included 17 per cent who had been asked to change their
conclusions to suit the customer's preferred outcome, 10 per cent who said
they had been asked to do so to obtain further contracts and three per cent
who claimed they had been asked to make changes to discourage publication.
"Some were working for quangos and some for fully privatised
laboratories," said Mr Harvey. "The piper is calling the tune and
it raises worrying issues. We have seen the BSE crisis, food scares and the
the GMO debacle and the public is losing confidence in Government as an
independent, fair-minded arbiter."
Scientists should be given the right to publish their research instead
of having to get permission from the sponsors, he said. Concern over
pressure brought to bear on medical researchers has prompted the British
Medical Journal to insist that authors declare their source of funding and
whether they have any "competing interests".
They must fill in a form declaring, for example, whether they have been
paid to lecture or attend symposiums by companies connected with their
work, or hold shares in them. Richard Smith, editor of the journal, said
the policy had been formally introduced because of evidence that the
authors of reviews of research evidence were influenced by those who
commissioned them to do the work.
Research into the funding of 10 papers on the alleged blood clotting
risk of the third generation contraceptive pills found those funded by the
pharmaceutical industry had discovered no risk, whereas those with other
sources of funding claimed there was, he said.
Recent American research had also discovered links between studies which
found passive smoking was not dangerous and the tobacco industry.
"These competing interests are very important," said Dr Smith.
"It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive
ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial."
|