Corporate-Sponsored Research Untrustworthy

capt.Hij submitted this interesting story about the growing amount of corporate-sponsored research at public universities. The Bayh-Dole Act (see here too), passed in 1980, allowed research performed with public money to be patented by private companies, so we're paying most of the bills, the companies are reaping all the profits and in the process, corrupting the research as well.

Comments

NO!

[Danse]

Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?

If by that you mean they have a right to turn a profit from their investment, the answer is a resounding "NO!"

If I invest in the stock market, do I have a right to see a profit from it? Hell no. I'm taking a risk. As others have pointed out here, the trend is that risk is being socialized (i.e. they pass it on to us) while profit is being privatized (i.e. they keep the profits). If research is done with public funds, in whole or in part, it should not be patentable or copyrightable. It should be made available to the public that paid for it. Sure, corporations contributed to the development too, and they have as much right to the results as the rest of us. They just don't have a right to claim it as their own intellectual property and charge the public for the rights to use it.

Your question answered in numerous ways in article

[FreeUser]

How can you reap profits AND corrupt research? I mean, if you get some students to develop something for you, if their research is bogus, then the product's not going to work, is it?

Well, if you had bothered to read the article the answer would have been obvious. Allow me to recap just one of several ways research is corrupted by corporate influence:

You are selling a drug to consumer that purports to offer some well defined benefit (relieving arthritis pain, for example). Your research, which is funded by the drug manufacturer, conducted in a scientific and unbiased manner, reveals that the drug is completely ineffective (in a double blind study, for example, you find the results to be no different among the test group as among the group given a placebo). By corrupting the results, cooking the data, and making the study confirm the effectiveness of the drug instead, continued sales (and perhaps even a growth in sales) is confirmed. The sponsor makes money, the researcher continues to get grants and "gifts." The only loosers are the public consumers and the scientific community. In other words, all of society with the exception of those perpetrating the fraud.

A more far reaching example is the cooked research funded by oil companies which was designed to undermine arguments against green-house gas emission reductions (also cited by the article you failed to read). I leave the ramifications of treating such corrupted research as scientifically valid, and failing to adjust public policy as a result, as an excersize to the reader (hint: don't by low-lying coastal real estate).

Privatization, Socialization.

[Black Parrot]

Last time the California power crisis came up here, someone quoted an editorial that hit the nail right on the head. Unfortunately I don't remember who wrote the editorial, but I remember well what it said:

Our society is socializing risk and privatizing profit.

This is just another example of the same lamentable phenomenon, and it's a predictable trend in a "democracy" where legislators are bought and paid for by lobbyists.

--

university vs. corporate research experience

[Misha]

i happen to work in corporate research at a big computer company, and while i am still in school, it is certainly NOT true that corporations can ][w]easily patent university research in exchange for funding.

academic research/work belongs to the students and the university, no matter who pays for it. at some universities student rights come first, at others vice versa. But a third party always comes last.

When I worked on a project at school (Cornell) which was supposed to be used by my current employer, they first had to modify our work agreement and run it by their lawyers twice or thrice, before finally seeing that the university copyrights were preserved. the project was funded by both university and corporate sides, btw.

in short, it depends on the university whether the fruits of academic labor will be given up for a few million funding. that much I know. but you can count on both interested parties will try to tear a larger piece of ownership for themselves, so the article, IMHO, is just taking a singular case where Berkeley decided to waste its own funding and forfeit a few of their own patents.

Re:Don't corporations pay taxes too?

[Penrif]

Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?

Sure, they typically get to have some researchers look into a topic they want them to look into. That's all fine and good. They paid some people to think about something. Great. Peachy.

Where we get into trouble is when companys try to pay people to think about a topic in a certain way. Like say you're a researcher and some company pays you to evaluate product X for them. Product X happens to suck, so your evaluation comes out bad. Has the company seen a return on their investment? Probably not. Is that the researcher's fault? Absolutly not, they got what they paid for -- someone to evaluate their product. Just because I may invest in some stock doesn't mean I have a right to a return on it, it could lose all value. But, I got what I paid for, right?

Re:Don't corporations pay taxes too?

[pq]

If Corporation X payes college Y to do research in Z, not only does the college have more funds to spend, the researchers get to do interesting work.

Bingo: you've nailed the problem exactly. The stuff the researchers get to do is selected by the company. Do you think Monsanto is going to select a project demonstrating the dangers of genetically engineered crops? Do you thing Pfizer is going to finance a study to prove that Americans are over-medicated? When you control the questions that can be asked, you've undermined the very basic idea of unfettered inquiry.

Universities Are Research Empires

[jazman_777]

I studied at a well-known eastern U. What the heck, let's name names, Georgia Tech. It's a corporate research empire. Most profs are spending their time writing proposals and trolling for grants from industry and gov't. The profs are paid on a percentage of the grants they pull in. After a coupla years, that is their only income. And the undergrads are always grumbling about not getting good prof time. For the profs that are good at it (i.e., the entrepeneural types), it's a nice cash cow.
--

Re:I don't understand

[meepzorb]

Well (1) The U.S isnt a democracy, it's a Republic and (2) the modern limited-liability corporation as legal construct didnt exist until the mid-1800s: The Founders were mercantilists who tended to be suspicious of any accumlation of power, public or private.

Without ARPAnet (gov't funded research), TCP/IP (gov't funded research), small cheap microprocessors (gov't funded research), or the web, for that matter (Berners-Lee was on a project paid for by supercollider funds... surprise surprise, gov't funded research) there'd be no Slashdot, either.

Corporations are useful constructs for production and the accumulation of wealth. Once they leave that realm and begin interfering with culture, politics, technology and science, they have overstepped their bounds and are an obstacle to progress.

I may need to eat, but I refuse to lick the hand that feeds.

:Michael

Re:At my University

[blakestah]

"If the patents were not in place, the discoveries would not lead to aggressive products in the market, since no one will fund a company based on public domain IP."

False. Many companies make generic drugs based on formerly patented drugs. They even make money that way.

Right. Take prozac as an example. Its patent protection has expired. It has made about a zillion dollars for its company (Pfizer, I think). Knockoffs will come next year, and make a few million.

However, to support my argument, if prozac had never been patented, it would hardly be used now. And no one would be making much money off it. Pfizer marketed the heck out of it to give it the prominent place in the market it has now. And if it were not for that, generic knockoffs would be nearly worthless too.

So, yes, there is some place for public domain products. But if initial intellectual property is not patented, corporations will not aggressively push the products into the marketplace.

Re:At my University

[blakestah]

Once research is published, it establishes prior art. Only the authors may apply for patent coverage, and they must apply within a year. It is often the case that a head scientist will prefer to submit the patent first. Other scientists on the project will be hurt by such a maneuver. Without it, there will be a compromise in the establishment of intellectual property. This intellectual property will make money for the university and for the inventors.

For other issues, there are NEVER patent strings attached to research dollars. If a company funds research that is done at a university, the university will control the patent licensing. Often the university feels it is in their best interests to license exclusively to the corporation that funded the research, but the university chooses to do this because it will generate the most revenue. And patent licensing from universities is all about making money.

It is quite a natural act that public university research leads to discovery that is patentable, even if not intended. If the patents were not in place, the discoveries would not lead to aggressive products in the market, since no one will fund a company based on public domain IP. So, universities choose to allow patentable research, and they profit from it substantially.

Even public grants allow this to occur. NIH has a policy that allows any grant to create patents, provided that the patent application is disclosed to the granting agency. As long as that step is fulfilled, the patent is invented by the researcher, and its licensing is controlled by the university.

It is in the scientists best interests to patent his discoveries. Although he can make money from that, he cannot control how the patent is used. In this way the scientist is dissociated from the revenue generation portion of the patent process. The royalty checks come in, and it is kinda like being paid for something you did a long time ago and rarely think about anymore.

Sad

[DaveWood]

OK - research done with public money can result in patents for private corporations? You've got to be kidding me.

Who signed that one into law?

Don't tell me for a minute the corporations "deserve" it or are "entitled" to it. I even saw a comment by someone who said that because corporations "pay taxes" and "contribute" to public universities, they "deserve" to patent public intellectual work.

What a crock. Taxes buy you a lot, but they do not buy you the right to plop your private toll plaza on the brooklyn bridge. Or at least they didn't used to. Contributions to the institutions of higher education are philanthropy - or at least that's invariably what these large corporations' tax accountants tell us.

Patents are very delicate instrument for encouraging research and thought. They have been greviously abused in the past 50 years - beneficiaries of their protection would of course love to skew their protections much farther towards themselves than was originally intended, and they have succeeded smashingly, so that patents are as often a threat to innovation and scientific development as not.

I say as an executive at a corporation and a scientist, there is absolutely no reason why public research should result in private patents. Public research, _because it results in the free exchange of ideas and results_ is the heart and soul of scientific endeavor. When it doesn't, there is no point in maintaining the farce of calling it public.

You will of course be frightened by people who say stopping this practice will reduce research and hinder science, but this is, of course, bullshit. Good science happened before it, and will happen after it ends. Allowing patents to shut off whole lines of inquiry for the paltry benefit of a corporation's profits is the real, vast danger looming opposite that paper monster.

grr.

[carcass]

Yes, I agree that there are very serious potential conflicts of interest in privately funded research. However, we need to consider the extreme costs involved with much scientific research today. It's not like programming, where you can buy a cheap used pentium box, slap linux on it, and create the next wonder drug or super-nano-wonderplex machine. You need to buy facilities, scientific equipment, feedstocks, raw materials, labor, and a whole bunch of stuff that isn't free.

We as scientists and engineers must ensure that unbiased peer review continues to be the self-policing that we need.

Also, how long is it going to take before people start realizing that companies go into business to make money? Companies need to be able to protect their innovations with patents so that they can make at least some money before the first wave of almost-copies comes out.

I agree that privately patenting ideas that came about through public funding is a little questionable, but we have to allow some of it so that these companies will have some impetus to do the research and development in the first place. How far do we go, is the question: can you imagine every company that got the first money to make its killer product from some small business loans subsequently having to surrender its IP to the public domain? You might as well work for some huge conglomerate with R&D might rather than scramble to start a small company and get nothing in the end.

However, there _are_ serious questions that need to be asked and answered regarding such use of public funds. Also, scientific journals need to have very strict criteria for publication. Peer review and full disclosure of interests may be a good start, but journals must stop short of rejecting all privately funded research or run the risk of censoring some very good research.

Scientists need to solve this problem themselves, since if it's left to the legislators (read: lawyers) the policing of scientific research will become a stifling bureacracy.

carcass

At my University

[vex24]

At my University it seems to be completely true. I know several graduate students who struggle to make deadlines set by their corporate sponsors (not their advisors!) and have trouble getting funded without essentially being paid for results by corporations. Add to that the fact that most of this research is "delayed" in being released to the public until the company can apply for patents, and it makes you wonder how "public" our public universities really are...

Your kidding, right?

[PopeAlien]

Would you be interested in buying some of my Miracle-Oil? It increases sex-appeal by 300 percent, increases cash-flow by 270 percent and makes your teeth shiny white.

This has all been proven by our many scientific lab-tests, and you can benefit from this research for only $19.95 a bottle.

Note: ClemCo's rigorous commitment to quality and value has resulted in the jealous former researchers who claim that this product is ineffective. This is not true, and to prove it we are bringing legal action against these ingrates. We stand by our record, and are proud of our achievements. We will be judged only by God Almighty, and not government regulatory agencies, disgruntled employees or consumer advocate groups.

I saw this coming

[Deanasc]

I paid for all my research out of my own pocket. Fortunatly I'm an undergrad and my research was something I could do on my own. The only thing the college had to buy for me was a couple tanks of Hydrogen and Helium for the Gas Chromatography machine. Had I accepted corporate funds from an oil company for my research I'm positive they would not have approved of my conclusions. Had I accepted private funds from Greenpeace or MassPIRG then my conclusions although support their general philosophy would have been suspect.

What we need is a general fund for researchers to draw from with only one limitation on how the funds are spent with the benefits to go directly back into the fund. IE royalties on cool technologies which can be made into products by the man should go back into the fund. After a few years I predict the fund could support itself and turn a profit for all Americans to share.

That one limitation would be for spending the funds on research only. Not on salaries or university overhead but on materials and equipment to further science.

Just my opinion.

Re:I saw this coming

[Deanasc]

That's what I mean. Something like the NSF that does make a profit and is self funding after a point. The NSF is afterall drawn from our taxes every year. There's no reason that it couldn't be self funding. Corporations also have to keep an eye on enforcement of royalties. They seem to be able to keep a lid on things.

NSF is good but could be better.

Re:Where's Paul Newman when you an advisor?

[Deanasc]

You said "That said, my greatest shock at seeing how real science is done was the dependence on tin foil. It's unreal. You rap your device in tin foil and you can get an order of magnitude improvement."

Yes that's true. It's called a Farraday Cage. It's the first thing they teach you in Instrumental Analysis. Works wonders. Nothing ruins sensativity in your equipment like having an elevator in your building. The cage just reflects some of that stray energy from the giant dynamo pulling the lift.

Now the fact that we all know about Farraday Cages in science makes it prior art for shielding peoples heads by wraping their cell phones in tinfoil. (or their heads in tinfoil if they're from California.)

The thing is Farraday gave this research away and the world is a better place for it. If he had a NDA with Nokia or Motorola we'd all be paying extra for the tinfoil liscence at Safeway.

Old story

[Phillip2]

Hmmm. This is quite an old story. There were a series of letters about it in nature six months ago.

There are plenty of other examples. One UK university recently took lots of cash from a tobacco company. Amusingly a student who got a major prize from that department publicly turned it down at the prize giving.

As for most of us who have seen the number of NDA's increasing, the patent clauses entering into out contracts, and the number of letters from lawyers suggesting that we talk to them before we talk to our colleagues its definately no surprise. Its not much good for science either, but he who pays the piper....

Phil

Re:Old story

[kaszeta]

s for most of us who have seen the number of NDA's increasing, the patent clauses entering into out contracts, and the number of letters from lawyers suggesting that we talk to them before we talk to our colleagues its definately no surprise. Its not much good for science either, but he who pays the piper....

Indeed, you've hit the nail on the head here.

To maintain and increase the level of technology in our society, it requires research. Research, unfortunately, costs money.

In recent history, many of our larger corporations did much of their R&D work in-house (GE's R&D Center, Bell Labs). And it made a lot of sense to do so, since one of the best ways to make your R&D work profitable is by keeping it proprietary and licensing it. So if your R&D is in-house, it's easier to keep your company secrets secret.

On the flip side of things, Universities traditionally did governmentally and tax-funded research. The important distinction is that, in general (yes, there are a lot of exceptions), Universities worked on basic theoretical research, while Corporate R&D departments generally worked on more applied research.

So what happened? A number of things---Public university funding spent on research declined (whereas money spent on instruction and administration has skyrocketed, but that's another topic), while in the corporate world many R&D departments were gutted since they weren't percieved as being short-term profitable (to look at my previous examples, we all know what's come of Bell Labs, and GE's Corporate R&D center is more of a engineer support center than an R&D center now). But companies still need research, and Universities still need money. The solution of both sides' problems was to have more company-sponsored research.

Alas, the result is that much of our tax money goes, indirectly, to supported corporate R&D work. At least we still have one useful byproduct: universities still produce trained graduates. But unfortunately recent developments, such as the increase in NDA's, and assignment of patent rights to companies, aggravate the situation. As the original article pointed out, for many universities patent income is significant, and now that is being eroded.

Yes, it is an old story, but still one worth examining.

Please red the article first

[drew_kime]

How can you reap profits AND corrupt research? I mean, if you get some students to develop something for you, if their research is bogus, then the product's not going to work, is it?

Well, if you had bothered to read the article you would have seen:

Betty Dong at the University of California, San Francisco, discovered data that led her to question the effectiveness of a medication being used daily by millions of people. But when she went to report it, she was blocked for seven years by the company that paid for the study.

David Kahn, another researcher at the same school, was sued last November for $10 million by the company that sponsored his study, after he published a report that the AIDS drug he was testing was ineffective.

So yes, Universities are being forced to stifle information showing that new products and techhnologies are ineffective, or at least less effective than existing ones. The products don't work, but no one's allowed to say anything about it.

Don't corporations pay taxes too?

[Nurgster]

I mean, get real.

Not only do corporations pay taxes, but they also make major contributions to the institutes doing the research.

Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?