Editorial: Research strings can be harmful

Wednesday, April 7, 1999 | 11:47 a.m.

Universities can get so swept up in their zeal to obtain research funding from corporations that their consciences get left behind in the chase for cash. A conference on scientific secrecy that met last week in Cambridge, Mass., found a disturbing trend among universities to accept private research money with strings attached that can inhibit in dramatic ways the free flow of information vital for scientific research.

Funding from the private sector itself isn't inherently bad; bankrolling cash-strapped universities to fund important research can benefit society. But scientific researchers are concerned that their independence can be compromised by nondisclosure agreements, which allow patents to be pursued and ensure proprietary information isn't revealed. The catch too often is that universities are entering into contracts that not only strike at the heart of genuine scientific inquiry, they also are at odds with the public interest. The New York Times reported that the conference -- sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- offered several examples of researchers who were blocked from publishing important information.

For instance a Brown University occupational health specialist, Dr. David Kern, told how he was pressured not to release his findings of a potentially fatal occupational lung disease he had discovered among those who worked for a local textile company, which hired him as a consultant. The company pressured his employers, the university and a hospital, to prevent him from telling the public what he knew -- but he published anyway. Kern's employers then shut down his program, Rhode Island's sole occupational health center, and stopped him from treating the textile company's employees.

Then there was the case of a pharmacy professor at the University of California at San Francisco who discovered that generic thyroid drugs were just as effective as similar brand-name drugs. But Dr. Betty Dong signed a confidentiality contract with Boots Pharmaceuticals, which financed her research. It took seven years for the professor's results to be published. It's been estimated that consumers could have saved up to $365 million a year if the less-expensive generic drugs had been used.

Corporations are going to strike the best possible deal they can in getting a return on their investment. At the same time universities shouldn't roll over. If universities don't insist on contract provisions that protect the public interest -- through requirements that findings which would protect the public's health and safety must be disclosed -- then the universities become nothing more than subsidiaries for these corporations.