Over the last 20 years, commercial influences on scientific research have become increasingly detrimental.
Discuss
After the advent of the era of science and technology, business has an exerted particularly remarkable impact on scientific research. There is no denying the fact that the mutual exchange and cooperation between enterprises and the academic community have played a positive role in a promotion of mutual innovation and capital flow. At the meanwhile, the public has been aware of its negative influence on academic research. In this paper, the business industry’s adverse influence on the scientific research is expounded from the aspects of quality and reliable, and several effective measures to protect the scientific research are also put forward.
Since the \academic institutions, the commercial and monetary policies made the quality of scientific research decrease. First of all, a reduction of research time is the most common way to pursue maximum profits. According to Pisano（2006）, there is indeed a conflict between business interests and research schedules. As a consequence, much less time has been spent on business research and trials than the standard scientific research. The result of the study cannot be guaranteed without enough time to study and confirm its security. The adverse impacts caused by such research are unbearable for both enterprises and the public. Therefore, the enterprise should shoulder certain social responsibilities.
Another aspect of the harmful impact of business is that the scientific research and experts lose credibility. \Bias” is the most significant reason for the declined public trust, because results that are in favor of funders’ benefits are generated by the research. In addition, the adverse results are kept undisclosed to the public. Olivieri who has been fighting with a drug company since 1996 found in her
1
research that, the excess toxin existed in a kind of drug manufactured by the company (Slaght, 2012). However, the company stopped her concerns from being publicized. The cases with proven evidence have broken the credibility. Moreover, the lobbying groups funded by the business sector have exacerbated the process. The most famous tactics come from tobacco and oil industries, which questioned not only the health research, but also the financial support given to climate skeptics in an intentional manner so as to mislead the public (Parkinson & Langley, 2009). These have proved that business exerts erosive impacts on the credibility.
As is said by Parkinson and Langley (2009), Most enterprises have their investment focused on the study which economic benefits can be directly created and ignore the public needs. For example, taking the agricultural research, the study of gene technology is more extensive than that of the whole agricultural field. Therefore, despite the fact that the agriculture with lower input and less profitable can be more useful to impoverished farmers, it is still ignored (Parkinson& Langley, 2009, p12). However, Slight (2012) pointed out that the ultimate goal of enterprises and business studies is to meet the needs of customers. For example, IBM invested in the blue-sky research in 1986. As a consequence, the high-temperature superconductivity was discovered, which exerted a great influence on both the energy and automobile industries. It is this discovery that makes John become the Nobel science award winner in the coming year. Therefore, not all the enterprises are just to create revenues (Slight , 2012) .
In conclusion, with the mutual interaction between universities and the industry, business produces adverse impact on the academic field. Profit-oriented enterprises shorten the time spending in scientific research, ignore the risk and the negative side of inventions. Their focus on the project that can gain profits will ultimately reduce the quality of scientific research. In addition, some scientists who have been attracted by the money will neglect the non-instrumental research. What’s more, the \bias\means the erosion of public trust, which has masked the
2
shortcomings of the sponsors and conducted misleading messages through the lobby group. However, the adverse effects cannot be resolved by simply cutting off the sponsorship between business and science. Only through establishment of an effective mechanism, can they be developed in favor of mutual benefits. It can be predicted that commercial and scientific cooperation will effectively achieve further progress in the next 20 years.
References:
Parkinson, S., & Langley, C. (2009). Stop selling out science to commerce. New Scientist, 204(2733), 32-33.
Slaght,J (2012) Is business bad for scientce? In Pallant, A & Slaght J (2012) Reading and writing source book. Reading: Garnet.
Ho,M,-W, & Saunders, P. (2001, July 10). Big business = bad science? I-sis News, 9/10. Retrieved April 11,2011, from www. i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/i-sisnews9-7.php
Pisano, G.P. (2006). Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech. Harvard Business Review. 84(10), 114-224.
3