The Business Behind Academic Research

Academia is in business.  The public has been sold out.

Below are two well-written articles describing how academia has left its mission toward the public's good, and instead has developed into academic-industrial complex. 



Doctor Who? By Neil Munro

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.munro.html

The Kept University
by Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/03/press.htm

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/The-Kept-UniversityMar00.htm

Professor Joseph LaDou Rightly Takes On ACOEM For Alleged Fraud

ACOEM is the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.  It is tied to controversy in that this professional organization appears to unfairly promote and protect industry financial stature instead of fairly representing public health and safety standards.  Professor Joseph LaDou, an expert of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at UCSF takes ACOEM to task in an article in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.  Below is an excerpt.

"The American College of Occupational and Environmental (ACOEM) is a professional association that represents the interests of its company employed physician members. Fifty years ago the ACOEM began to assert itself in the legislative arena as an advocate of limited regulation and enforcement of occupational health and safety standards and laws, and environmental protection. Today the ACOEM provides a legitimizing professional organization for company doctors, and continues to provide a vehicle to advance the agendas of their corporate sponsors. Company doctors in ACOEM recently blocked attempts to have the organization take a stand on global warming. Company doctors employed by the petrochemical industry even blocked the ACOEM from taking a position on particulate air pollution. Industry money and influence pervade every aspect of occupational and environmental medicine. The controlling influence of industry over the ACOEM physicians should cease. The conflict of interests inherent in the practice of occupational and environmental medicine is not resolved by the ineffectual efforts of the ACOEM to establish a pretentious code of conduct. The conflicted interests within the ACOEM have become too deeply embedded to be resolved by merely a self-governing code of conduct. The specialty practice of occupational and environmental medicine has the opportunity and obligation to join the public health movement. If it does, the ACOEM will have no further purpose as it exists, and specialists in occupational and environmental medicine will meet with and be represented by public health associations. This paper chronicles the history of occupational medicine and industry physicians as influenced and even controlled by corporate leaders."

Commercialization of the Human Genome_Issues of Privacy and Protection

Last week, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) instructed UC Berkeley to modify its “Bring Your Genes to Cal” program. From the beginning, UCB’s controversial plan to test the DNA of incoming freshman for three genes, brought into bold relief many of the complex questions that engulf emerging biotechnologies, for example: how best to protect privacy rights; informed consent; the integrity of medical testing and research; and how to identify and reduce conflicts of interest?

Mark Schlissel, UC Berkeley’s dean of biological sciences, underscored another issue likely to be the subject of ongoing consideration: academic freedom. Defending the UCB program against the CDPH’s interpretation of relevant law, Schlissel declared that, "We have taken every precaution and are committed to following the letter of the law…, but we believe this is a flawed reading of the statute that raises questions about who has control over teaching at the university…" How expansively we view academic freedom depends, in part, on recognizing the conflicts of interest that exist on the part of those doing the “teaching.”

Deep structural conflicts of interest exist when science-entrepreneurs, who may stand to benefit downstream from emerging biotechnologies, use their positions as university academics to normalize the commercialization of those technologies. UCB’s press release describes the lead professor associated with the program, Jasper Rine, as a “genetics professor.” Yet he, like many of his academic colleagues, has strong commercial ties to the industry developing genetic technologies. Rine has served on the advisory boards of a number of biotech companies and has co-founded several California biotech companies, including his own genetics testing company. UCB’s implicit endorsement of genetic testing as consumerism is especially audacious given the serious criticism that this type of testing has come under. Testifying at last week’s California Assembly Committee on Higher Education oversight hearing, Council for Responsible Genetics President, Jeremy Gruber, related that federal sources had dubbed such testing “snake oil,” and “not ready for prime time.”

From the 1940's to the 1960's, Princeton, Yale, Wellesley, and many other elite universities required incoming freshman to participate in medical anthropology/eugenic research by posing nude for photographs designed to document posture and body type, seeking correlations between physique and temperament. Since then, in the clear-sightedness of another era, many such photos have been destroyed. But many yet remain. How much humiliation and trauma could have been prevented if more disinterested authority could have prevailed? Those incoming freshmen who laid bare their DNA revealed the most intimate biological information not only of themselves but of those related to them. They chose to do so without prior opportunity to discuss the ramifications of their decision, without full disclosure of the scope of the conflicts of interest involved, and without clarity as to when or how the information would ultimately be disposed. They, and those who come after them, need protection from the overzealous interests and conflicts of interest of the institutions in which they arrive, trusting, to learn.

M. L. Tina Stevens, PhD
Director, Alliance for Humane Biotechnology
Visit AHB online

Problems with American Science?

Is the way America manages science going in the wrong direction?

J. Marvin Herdon thinks so and provides what he believes are problems in the scientific system and some solutions. Below is an excerpt from an article by him entitled "J. Marvin Herndon's American Science Decline: the Cause and Cure.

"Science is an important component for the strength of America and for the well being of her people. Science is the mother that gives birth to the technology that makes our economy robust and our military strong. Science improves our health and enables us to see our world in ways never before envisioned, uplifting spirits and boosting national prestige. But for the past four decades, despite ever-increasing science budgets, American science has continued to decline toward third-world status. Why? Because fundamental mistakes underlie the methodology by which the U.S. Government supports science.

Before World War II there was very little government funding of science, but that changed because of war-time necessities. In 1951, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) was established to provide support for post-World War II scientific research. The methodology for administrating science-funding, invented in the early 1950s by NSF, has been adopted essentially unchanged by virtually all subsequent U.S. Government funding agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The problem is this: That methodology is flawed and those flaws have been gradually undermining, corrupting, and trivializing American science for decades. Here I disclose the principal flaws and point the way for the President of the United States to correct them."

For the entire article click this link: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Anerican%20Science%20Decline.html

Sparks on Pfizer_Repercussions of Losing Eminent Domain Battle

Bulldozed in New London: The Latest on Kelo and Eminent Domain
By Dr. John A. Sparks on Jan 18, 2010
article from link: http://catholicexchange.com/2010/01/18/126175/

Pfizer, the huge drug company, has announced that it will be leaving a large research complex in New London, Connecticut and moving several hundred jobs to nearby Groton. Such belt-tightening in tough economic times would normally draw little criticism. In this case, however, it should.
Recall that Pfizer played a central role in getting New London to seize the homes of local residents who lived adjacent to the Pfizer site. Pfizer, according to accounts, wanted that mixed residential area, called the Ft. Trumbull section, to be leveled and replaced with an upscale development that would include a five-star luxury hotel, top-tier condos, and private office space for Pfizer’s suppliers, workers, and visitors. Now Pfizer is leaving New London “high and dry.” How did this happen?
A little less than a decade ago, New London and Pfizer wanted to “redevelop” a portion of that old coastal city, spurred on by a large state grant. What they did not predict was the local outcry against this “revitalization” when Ft. Trumbull residents learned that their homes would be taken by the process known as “eminent domain.” Among the residents was the kind but spunky Susette Kelo, who, with the help of an outside legal advocacy organization, the Institute for Justice, and the institute’s lead attorney, Mr. Scott Bullock, took her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It became known as the “Kelo case.”
Kelo’s contention was that when the government takes property by eminent domain, the seizure must be for a “public use.” This is the language of the U.S. Constitution, where it says in the Fifth Amendment that private property shall not be taken except for a public use, and then only with just compensation from the government. New London was offering to pay Ms. Kelo for her property, but her contention was that in taking her property, and giving it to another private party for development-in the way the New London Development Corporation and Pfizer desired-was no longer a public use.
New London officials argued that greater tax revenues would be produced by the revitalization and, therefore, some public good was done by the restructuring of the Fort Trumbull area. Kelo and the Institute for Justice pointed to such a contention as ominous for all homeowners, since local governments could almost always imagine a “higher use” to which individual residential properties could be put.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court found in favor of New London and against Kelo, but the case produced a firestorm of protest across the country, leading over 40 states to more tightly control eminent-domain abuse.
What about Pfizer? Well, a firm that should have been devoted to liberty and private property was in effect complicit with New London in ushering Ms. Kelo and others out of homes they had chosen and purchased. Pfizer even received special tax treatment, paying only one-fifth of the usual property taxes for the first 10 years of occupancy of its research site.
What thanks did New London receive from Pfizer for putting its own citizens out of their homes? That brings us to the latest development: Pfizer is moving the research jobs elsewhere.
The city probably will not “get back” its tax forgiveness. State tax monies from Connecticut used to entice New London to revitalize have been expended. Local businesses that depended upon Pfizer and the development for patronage are now looking at financial decline. What remains is a barren undeveloped site where homeowners once kept their homes with pride.
It is a sad story of local governments drawn into projects by the promise of large state grants. The grant then allowed them to accede to the special demands of large enterprises like Pfizer for tax breaks and special treatment. What is even sadder is that in their rush to redevelop, these same local governments bulldozed the fundamental rights of their own constituents and, then, their “business partner,” Pfizer, cast them aside whenever it chose to do so. Ms. Kelo has a perfect right to say “I told you so.”

Leadership, Power and Women

Leadership, Power and Women
Becky A. McClain
November 21, 2009

I find it ironic that in a crowded room full of women who had been lured to a talk entitled “Stepping into Power: How to Get it and How to Use It”, the lone person dozing off at the event was the only man in attendance.

Sponsored by a professional women networking group called the Lower Connecticut Valley Branch of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), the public event last Wednesday held in Old Saybrook’s Acton Library featured Dr. Nancy Hutson, a 25 year career Pfizer executive who had retired in 2006.

Hutson’s talk was advertized to discuss the subject of POWER – getting it and how to use it in the context of her experience as a woman during her career climb from a bench scientist to Senior Vice President in the male-dominated pharmaceutical organization at Pfizer Inc.

I was intrigued, not only because of the topic of power and how it relates to working women, but also, because of the past history of Pfizer and their use of power.

You see, Pfizer has not displayed the best reputation for getting and using power. In fact, Pfizer’s reputation has become seriously tarnished this past decade both locally and internationally. Their role in the imminent domain take over of New London homes, and subsequently bugging out of New London after their 10 year tax incentive deal expired, their role in public health and safety violations accompanied with research building explosions causing serious injuries, their role in unethical clinical trials resulting in deaths of Nigerian children, and finally, their egregious behavior in criminal fraud against the government for promotion of off-labeled use of their drugs are some of Pfizer’s most recent notorious acts, costing the company billions of dollars in criminal fines and settlements.

So how was Hutson going to deliver her topic on the use of power in light of what some could allege was a grand collection of abuse of power from Pfizer during her tenure?

But Hutson was slick to avoid such topics, as any savvy executive would.

And in the end her talk was disappointingly empty. Not only in her uncanny assertion that Pfizer’s bad reputation resulted from healthcare reform, baby boomers and bad economy, but also for her bland subject matter relating to power, women and her workplace experiences.

One would think that a woman who has climbed the corporate ladder of success at Pfizer from bench scientist to Senior Vice President in charge of 4500 Groton scientists would have SOME gripping stories to share, stories containing her trials and tribulations of being a woman within the highly charged political terrain of a male dominated pharmaceutical industry.

But Hutson’s worst experience shared with us was the time her supervisor performed email tasks while she was trying to have a discussion with him. Apparently her supervisor was not being completely “present” with her, making her feel discounted.

It was then when I turned to my side and noticed my husband beginning to nod off. And as I dug my elbow into his side to make him “be present”, I realized that Hutson did not even bother to tell us how she resolved the dilemma of having such a multi-tasking un-present supervisor.

Matter a fact, Hutson gave us very little insights about the true struggles women face in the workplace, like harassment, discrimination, glass ceilings, managing work and family, and unequal pay scales.

Instead she gave us an ordinary package of self-help steps to leadership, wrapped in jargon, ringing of mundane familiarity, …“Develop relationships”, “be present”, “manage your energy”, “practice leadership”, “have defined purpose, mission and goals”. Abracadabra. You’ve got power.

And of course, not a whisper of ethics. Hutson’s experience with ethics at Pfizer apparently had little connection in defining her steps in how to get power and use it.

Despite Hutson’s cookbook and carefully constructed talk, what was apparent, however, was at the conclusion of her presentation, you could not help but like Nancy Hutson.

And that’s because Hutson fits the part.

Nancy Hutson fits the part of our present day executives, people who look and act intelligent, self assured, but down to earth, and who have the ability to develop relationships because of their knack for the art of massaging communication. They are the type of person you seemingly could trust with any personal issue, a person that one would love to share a cup of coffee and perhaps become friends.

But in reality, many corporate execs who have “stepped into power” have often watched unethical practices unfold in their businesses. And while “practicing leadership”, standing composed and smiling, and carefully managing their energy and their speech, they do nothing, as well as, say nothing about these unethical practices.

You see, good executives deliver for their corporations, reporting to the bottom line. And that is exactly what Hutson told us on Wednesday. One of her opening statements was that her career role shifted from bench science to politics and the bottom line. Hutson went on to say that those who deliver for corporations are rewarded by power, title and money.

Hutson surely delivered for corporate America at the AAUW meeting. She was intelligent, articulate and friendly. She gave a well structured non-controversial talk, avoiding the tough issues women face in the workplace and avoiding Pfizer’s history of ethical troubles.

But a discussion about leadership and power, without involving ethics, sells cheap. It holds no real substance for the majority of professional women of Connecticut who want to succeed while making the world a better place.

And ironically, it put the only man attending such a discussion, right to sleep.

Dr. David Michaels Speaks about Scientific Propaganda

Dr. David Michaels, speaks about scientific propaganda in his book, "Doubt Is Their Product". He tells us of personal stories as a top level advisor in Public Health and how our scientific leadership has lost integrity, many of which have sold out to the highest bidder in industry. He speaks about the conflicts of interest between government, academia and private industry, causing a great chasm in public health and safety. He speaks about how science is misused to shape public policy. Michaels speaks the truth. He understands the driving forces working within the scientific community that influence and degrade public health and safety.

View his video talking about his book here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4taQxZ1zg8

Jonathan Leo...HERO

Dr. Jonathan Leo a physician and professor of neuro-anatomy (Boy, he looks like he is only 16 years old!) should be seen as a hero within the medical community. With all the political pressures and backlashing within the medical profession today, this one physician had the courage to report conflict of interest in a study that was published in JAMA.

We need more honest and courageous physicians to stand up for what is right. But we also need laws to protect them for doing so. Many physicians get blacklisted or fired for speaking or doing what is right.

Cheers for Jonathan Leo!

For more see WSJ blog.