Richard Doll: Supping with the Devil?
The Guardian and Today programmes' revelations that Richard Doll was
paid to do research for the chemicals industry (Friday 8th December)
are the latest in a series of media exposes of scientists' links with
industry. Investigative journalists have shocked many with the news
that a string of supposedly independent scientists advising us on some
of the hottest topics of the day are in the pay of industry and by
implication not to be trusted.
In the last few years, media reports have written off the entire
scientific advisory panel on GM crops because some members had ties to
industry; launched an attack on a highly respected MMR expert because
she happened to be on the same side as vaccine manufacturers in a
legal challenge and accused one of Europe's leading nutritionists of
attacking the Atkins Diet because her institution once received a
small grant from the Flour Advisory Bureau.
The apparently ever increasing links between science and industry are
definitely a subject worthy of investigation and if anything there are
too few journalists with the time to pursue potential conflicts of
interest in this area. But the problem with the Richard Doll story and
many other similar 'exposes' is that the journalists don't feel the
need to come up with the hard proof that a link with industry has
corrupted the independent scientist and his or her research findings.
Instead these articles often end up relying on the public's suspicion
of industry to get away with guilt by association rather than proving
that guilt through intrepid investigation.
For the scientists who contact the Science Media Centre after these
kinds of stories the criticisms are bewildering, appearing to combine
an attack on their integrity with a naivety about the way science is
done in the UK. It's a fact of life that there is more research
needing to be done than public money to fund it and a lot of science
would simply not be done without some collaboration between industry
and independent scientists. Universities now have to find substantial
sums from the private sector if they are to unlock Government funds
for research and even the Research Councils, who are on the more
blue-skies end of scientific research, are being encouraged to forge
closer links with industry. According to Colin Blakemore, Chief
Executive of the Medical Research Council, the whole concept of an
independent scientist is a misnomer:
"Although the public repeatedly tell us that they trust independent
scientists more than those in industry, the reality is that as a
species the truly independent scientist is becoming extinct. But the
idea that because a scientist has some links with industry they are
automatically tainted and evil is just ridiculous."
Professor Adam Finn, a leading expert in childhood vaccines from
Bristol University, points out that it's not possible for scientists
like him to be involved in developing life saving vaccines without
working alongside the vaccine manufacturing companies who pay for the
all the clinical trials. Finn believes that the public and media need
to have more of an insight into the way things work in science and
medicine: "throughout the world this is how societies have opted to do
it - through a collaboration between academia and industry."
And there are other relevant facts that fail to show up in the
exposes, like the introduction of written agreements which allow the
scientists to publish irrespective of the results and the fact that
most of the top journals now require scientists to declare any
conflict of interest. And then there's the small matter of 'peer
review', described by one scientist as "the best bullshit detector
ever invented", which ensures that research doesn't get published
unless it passes a number of quality control tests applied by
independent experts.
Of course many journalists will argue that irrespective of any hard
evidence it goes without saying that individuals and institutions
benefiting from industry funding will not be keen to bite the hand
that feeds them. Yet however counter-intuitive it may seem to
journalists, whose default mode is rightly to be sceptical and
questioning about motives, the charge still requires proof. For the
Science Media Centre, the impulse to earn the trust of news journalist
and build a reputation as an independent source far, far outweighs any
desire to be popular with sponsors (and that includes our media
sponsors!). Similarly for scientists who have spent 30 years building
a track record of research to simply sell their science to the highest
bidder is extremely unlikely and would bring a rapid end to a
scientific career.
Of course the media's role is to expose corruption and bias in science
and if and when the media find evidence that scientists have allowed
commercial pressures to influence their research it should be headline
news. Indeed there are many fine examples of that kind of
investigation - not least in exposing the role of the tobacco
industry's dodgy dealings in the past. But sadly investigations like
these now seem to be outnumbered by the variety that opt for guilt by
association.
Ironically there are other issues in this area that are crying out for
investigation but have been largely ignored by the media. These
include the concerns raised by a number of leading scientists like
Nobel prize winner John Sulston and fertility expert Robert Winston,
that the commercial collaborations with our Universities may be having
a long-term impact on academic freedom and blue skies research. Or
whether the rush to create spin out companies is turning innovative
scientists into businessmen with more of an eye on the share prices
than the public good. But these topics demand serious journalistic
investigation - a thing in short supply in our fast moving 24 hour
news environment.
However, having spent most of this article casting aspersions on this
aspect of journalism I suspect that, as is often the case, the answer
lies amongst the scientific community ourselves. After all the Science
Media Centre philosophy is "we can get the media to 'do' science
better by getting the scientists to 'do' media better". The truth is
that these kinds of stories will continue to be popular with editors
as long as the public are largely blissfully unaware of the fact that
much UK science is a product of a collaboration between academia and
industry and are therefore shocked to hear 'revelations' about the
close links between the two.
The fact that - to paraphrase Blakemore - the truly independent
scientist no longer exists would I suspect come as a shock to the
public and commentators. Christina Odone in her passionate defence of
Richard Doll in this week's Observer argued that these days scientists
steer well clear of big business. In fact the opposite is the case -
but I suspect Ms Odone is not the only journalist out there who is not
up to date with the realities of how research takes place today -
something for which we surely have to take responsibility. With some
notable exceptions many scientists still prefer to stay in the lab
than address public concerns about the more controversial issues in
science. At least with the attack on Richard Doll the scientific
community fought back with a brilliant open letter to the media
defending his integrity - but previous attacks have been met with
complete silence from scientists and even press officers taking the
'if we stay quiet this will hopefully go away' approach.
And Government should be questioning their role here too. Anyone who
has heard Dave King or Lord Sainsbury or indeed Tony Blair's recent
science speech will know that these people are immensely proud of the
new ways that industry and academia are collaborating. Whether or not
this closer collaboration is a good idea is not for this column but my
point is this - have the enthusiasts for this policy actually come up
with a way of making the case to the public? Where is the much loved
government 'communications strategy'? Either it's non existent or
ineffective - either way it needs urgent attention. All the public
opinion polls on who we trust show that independent scientists come
out with a high trust rating, government scientists less so and
industry scientists are right down there at the bottom (although
perhaps reassuringly still above the media!). For me it's blindingly
obvious that if you want to move towards ever closer links between
independent and industry science, you need to go out there and explain
why it's a good thing and why it doesn't inevitably lead to the kinds
of compromising of good science implied in the Doll story.
I suppose the really big question is why it matters. So what if a few
scientists are suffering from bruised egos - surely it's the price
they pay for supping with the corporate devil? Well, yes, I think it
matters hugely. Media attacks on the independence and integrity of
scientists working with industry threaten to undermine the kind of
expertise that is absolutely crucial to public debate around
controversial issues like childhood vaccination, the safety of GM
No comments:
Post a Comment