| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Nutrition Forum » The Judas Syndrome or corporate influence on academia
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| TC |
 Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=249757
The Judas Syndrome or corporate influence on academia
Arthur Felice
Funding for universities and for research may come from three sources:
public investment, i.e. national or extra-national government,
charities or industry.
In the present atmosphere of fiscal austerity and pragmatism leading
to stretched university budgets, academics are encouraged, and indeed
forced, to look for sources other than public funds to finance their
research and other academic pursuits.
Indeed, their calibre is often gauged by the amount of money they
manage to churn out from these sources. This is considered as a
laudable target by those who hold that private industry can provide
the much-needed supplementary funds for state-of-the-art equipment and
research that would otherwise not take place.
Corporate influence may also facilitate technology transfer, that is a
more efficient, faster course from research results to the
marketplace. Universities have proved themselves at conducting
research but have not excelled at creating products.
This trend towards corporate funding, however, amounts to a
privatisation life, which has implications on the whole of society and
harbours several potential dangers: there is a distinct possibility of
conflict of interest between the scientist and the funding industry,
which naturally insists on tangible, economically useful results.
Short-term objectives are preferred to long term ones, even if the
latter are more socially useful. Industry's primary commitment is to
its shareholders and not science. There may be pressure to direct
research efforts towards what is more profitable, which may not concur
with what is most necessary.
The results of research may be interpreted in a biased manner, with
even the possibility of results never been published, when they are
not favourable to the funding corporation. There have been several
instances of academics being threatened and trials being interrupted
when the projected results were not acceptable to the funding
industry.
Corporate forces tend to favour cutting-edge technology rather than
the improvement and evaluation of impacts of existing technology. The
side effect of this is that, since cutting-edge technologies are less
well understood, their environmental impact is less predictable and
their regulation and control more difficult.
Furthermore, there is always the danger that academics are distracted
from their other duties, e.g. teaching. It is even conceivable that
corporate interference may extend to curricula and student intake.
Thus, there is an understandable concern about the erosion of
scientific independence due to tight academic budgets, the lure of
corporate funds and the open encouragement by governments for closer
ties between universities and industry as a source of economic growth.
Co-operation between industry and academia should not result in
lowering of ethical standards or in undue influence of the interest of
industry on the decisions of the researcher.
All this is not an exercise in ethical fundamentalism, but rather
stems from the realisation that academic pursuits are too important
for the growth of knowledge, as well as protection and betterment of
society, to be controlled or effectively influenced by sectors whose
primary aim is profit.
One must point out that corporations are not the only source of
encroachment on intellectual independence. Governments can be
similarly guilty. As an example, the early reports on the link between
Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE) and the human variant Creutzfeldt-
Jacob disease, were discouraged by the United Kingdom Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as uncovered by the Philips Enquiry.
One can make a few suggestions to help untangle this complex knot: the
obligatory disclosure of conflict of interest, though a positive step,
is not always completely practical. Besides, it is not a sufficient
guarantee against bias.
Complete separation of academia from corporate funding is an ideal
that is probably impractical. Corporate funding would become
acceptable if channelled through a common financial pool.
The distribution of funds can be overseen by an independent body or
the University Ombudsman, who should be sufficiently independent and
powerful. This will protect academics from undue interference and
censorship of results.
It is not in anybody's interest to demonise or shun industry. As
indicated in the initial part of this article, there are some
advantages in such a co-operation. However, one needs the appropriate
attitudes and mechanisms to protect the interest of civil society
against those of powerful individuals and corporate industry.
A decline in the impact of public funding for the university is short-
sighted and will ultimately harm all strata of society.
*****
TC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
|
"Funding for universities and for research may come from three sources:
public investment, i.e. national or extra-national government,
charities or industry."
As an insider in the meat industry, what is its annual budget for
funding research to get people to eat more meat? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| TC |
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 6, 5:19 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
Quote: "Funding for universities and for research may come from three sources:
public investment, i.e. national or extra-national government,
charities or industry."
As an insider in the meat industry, what is its annual budget for
funding research to get people to eat more meat?
The satisfaction of knowing that they will be healthier for it.
TC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:56 am |
|
|
|
|
On 6 Feb 2007 19:05:45 -0800, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 6, 5:19 pm, capm...@shipper.com wrote:
"Funding for universities and for research may come from three sources:
public investment, i.e. national or extra-national government,
charities or industry."
As an insider in the meat industry, what is its annual budget for
funding research to get people to eat more meat?
The satisfaction of knowing that they will be healthier for it.
I copy and past Roman's recent article:
"Diet high in animal protein and intestinal bacteria
key in colon cancer", Health Sentinel, February 5, 2007,
Colorectal cancer is the most common gastrointestinal cancer and the
second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In fact,
the National Cancer Institute estimates that in 2007 there will be
approximately 150,000 new colorectal cancer cases with over 50,000
deaths.
African Americans have a high rate of colon cancer, occurring at a
rate of 65 per 100,000. However, native African's rate of colon cancer
is far lower, occurring at less than 1 case per 100,000. Because
African Americans have a rate 65 times higher of getting colon cancer
than native Africans strongly suggests that differences in environment
influence this disease.
Previous studies have shown that over 90% of gastrointestinal cancers
are due to environmental influences such as diet. Strong epidemiologic
and experimental evidence indicates that a diet high in red meat and
animal fat is associated with an increased colon cancer risk.
Over 88,000 women aged 34 to 59 from the Nurses Health Study were
examined to determine the link between diet and colon cancer. The
analysis showed that those who frequently ate beef, pork, and lamb
were 2.5 times more likely to develop the disease. Those who ate
processed meats and liver were also at an increased risk, while those
eating fish and skinless chicken were at a decreased risk.
In another study, the EPIC study, a database of over 470,000 men and
women from 10 European countries was examined. Colorectal cancer was
positively associated with a dietary high in red and processed meat,
but inversely associated with a diet high in fish.
A review of 13 published studies found a significant association with
a diet in meat and the risk of colon cancer. The study found that for
each 100 grams of meat eaten each day there was a 12-17% increase in
the risk of colon cancer.
A recent study published in The Journal of Nutrition attempts to
answer why African Americans get more colon cancer than native
Africans. They examined the diets of a number of African Americans as
compared to native Africans. They also examined the intestinal
bacteria of the study participants as there is evidence that a diet
high in meat inhibits beneficial bacteria and promotes detrimental
bacteria. Hydrogen-producing bacteria harm the digestive lining, or
mucosa, while methane-producing bacteria protect the mucosa by
detoxifying the hydrogen into methane.
They found that African Americans consume more protein, fat, animal
protein, and cholesterol that native Africans. They also found that
African Americans have a higher amount of the damaging hydrogen-
producing bacteria and a lower amount of the beneficial methane-
producing bacteria than their studied native African counterparts.
"Our results suggest that the significantly higher intakes of animal
protein and fat and the higher colonic colonization with hydrogen-
producing bacteria and lower activity of colonic mathanogenic (methane
producing) bacteria help explain the higher risk of colon cancer in
African Americans."
The researchers also examined the colons of native Africans versus
African Americans. They found that the colons of native Africans were
"far healthier" than those of matched Americans. Epithelial cell
proliferation is a marker for cancer risk and the researchers found
that rate to be more than 10 times greater in African Americans which
the researchers found "particularly striking".
The authors conclude that the risk of colon cancer is determined by an
overall lifetime of environmental factors some of which promote
intestinal health and some of which are detrimental for intestinal
health. "Our study confirms the USDA [United States Department of
Agriculture] figures that suggest Americans, and particularly African
Americans, consume excess quantities of animal protein and fat and
lead us to the conclusion that a healthier lifestyle that includes
less meat and more fruit, vegetables, grains, and exercise should be
beneficial not only for the colon but also for general health."
SOURCE: The Journal of Nutrition, January 2007
http://www.healthsentinel.com/org_news.php?event=org_news_print_list_item&id=117
jack |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:19 am
|
|