:,1 C/) In recentyears the news media have been awash in storie'abljut increasingly close ties between o college campuses and multimillion-dollar corpora­ - tions. Our nation's universities, the story goes, reap m enormtus windfalls patenting products of scientific z ****************** ***~1* research that have been primarily funded by taxpay­ ers. Meanwhile, hoping for new streams of revenue SC IENCE SA{E from their innovations, the same universities are o j FOR allowing their research-and their very principles­ m to become compromised by quests for profit. But "Tl is that really the case? Is money really hopelessly o corrupting science? ;0 With Science for Sale, acclaimed journalist Daniel REliI\A~RmS, S. Greenberg reveals that campus capitalism is more ,THE PER I LS, complicated-and less profitable-than media reports C/) would suggest. While universities seek out corporate ",'AND DELUS IIQti;' '" \ funding, news stories rarely note that those industry » ~US ~ dollars are dwarfed by government support and r ·tfti/... ITA!..! s.M other funds. Also, while many universities have set up m technology-transfer offices to pursue profits through patents, many of those offices have been financial **;~:*.** busts. Meanwhile, science is showing signs of provid-: **'. ,. -: . :",,":);::,:!,:::,,:/..<':-:' ', **t*.' '::,:J<;," ****** ***.'*' * ing its own solutions, as highly publicized misdeeds in pursuit of profits have provoked promising counter­ measures within the field. But just because the threat is overhyped, Greenberg argues, doesn't mean that there's no danger. From research that's shifted overseas so corporations can avoid regulations to conflicts of interest in scientific I publishing, the temptations of money will always be I a threat, and they can only be countered through the viqilance of scientists, the press, and the public. I' \ Based on extensive, candid interviews with scientists and administrators, Science for Sale will be indis­ pensable to anyone who cares about the future of DANIEL S. GREENBERG" " ''; " 'J, ~: scientific research. CHICAGO en In recent.yaass the news media have been awash o in storie'ab<1ut increasingly close ties between college campuses and multimillion-dollar corpora­ - tions. Our nation's universities, the story goes, reap m enormlus windfalls patenting products of scientific z **********************J* research that have been primarily funded by taxpay­ ers. Meanwhile, hoping for new streams of revenue o SC I ENCE, FdR SAlCE from their innovations, the same universities are allowing their research-and their very principles­ m to become compromised by quests for profit. But 11 is that really the case? Is money really hopelessly o corrupting science? ;0 With Science for Sale, acclaimed journalist Daniel REW~R'~S, S. Greenberg reveals that campus capitalism is more '.t,; THE PERILS, complicated-and less profitable-than media reports en would suggest. While universities seek out corpcrata » 'lftNO DELUS I(QN:$ '; funding, news stories rarely note that those industry r 0'fP1ImJ~1J8 ~ITAL.I dollars are dwarfed by government support and ! 8)1 other funds. Also, while many universities have set up I m technology-transfer offices to pursue profits through patents, many of those offices have been financial / ''',I ":".:,-i """.:.'.:-',"', '. -, . ,'_),,' " .', busts. Meanwhile, science is showing signs of provid­ ****;_0*** ********** ***** ing its own solutions, as highly publicized misdeeds // / in pursuit of profits have provoked promising counter­ measures within the field. ; But just because the threat is overhyped, Greenberg argues, doesn't mean that there's no danger. From research that's shifted overseas so corporations can avoid regulations to conflicts of interest in scientific i .f publishinq, the temptations of money will always be a threat, and they can only be countered through the vigilance of scientists, the press, and the public. Based on extensive, candid interviews with scientists and administrators, Science for Sale will be indis­ DANIEL S. pensable to anyone who cares about the future of scientific research. ". -. <, \ CHICAGO \ '. Vl n iii' ::l n ~'" ~ Vl ..n; Sciencefor Sale The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism Daniel S. Greenberg The University of Chicago Press :: Chicago and London Contents A Background Note and Acknowledgments Vll Introduction I Part One: The Setting and the System 1 Money for Science: Never Enough II 2 Elusive Industrial Angels 38 3 Commercialize! It's the Law 51 4 Changing Attitudes 82 5 The Price of Profits lOr 6 Conflicts and Interests 127 7 ANew Regime 147 Part Two: As Seen from the Inside-Six Conversations 8 Success and Remorse 181 9 A Congenial Partnership 195 10 When the Rules Change in Midstream 205 11 Profits and Principles 220 12 Generations Apart 233 13 The Journals Revolt 243 A Background Note and Acknowledgments This book draws on a career in science journalism that began in 1961, when I joined the staff of Science. Since then I have been continuously steeped and educated iri the ways of science through innumerable interviews, hearings, briefings, conferences and meetings, and visits toresearch centers. During a decade at Science, 1served as reporter, news editor, and London-based European correspondent. Along the way, I held an appointment as a research fellow in the Department of History of Science at Johns Hop­ kins University while writing my first book, The Politics of Pure Science, first published in 1967 (new edition in 1999 by the University of Chicago Press). In 1971 I founded Science & Government Report, an internationally circulated newsletter, which I ed­ ited and published for over twenty-five years. I've also written for other publications, including the New En­ gland Journal ofMedicine, Nature, New Scientist, the Economist, and the Lancet. And for many years, I wrote an op-ed column on science and health politics that ap­ peared in the Washington Post and other newspapers. My second book-Science, Money, and Politics: Politi­ cal Triumph and EthicalErosion (University of Chicago Press, 2ooI)-was written while holding an appointment at Johns Hopkins as a visiting scholar in the Department of History of Science, Medicine, and Technology. Introduction In all cases; money drives the engine of a university. Salaries at this place are not guaranteed by anybody. Even. the tenured facuLty qet only a por­ tion of their support from the state,so thatthe pressure to bring in funds from wherever is huge. That's how you haveto Live: on patient care, clinical research, basic research, what have you. And I would say that under those circumstances, money talks. $0 the degree to whichit compromises the in­ tegrity of the institution or the individual-'-that's a tough call. I wouldlike to believe that very little of it contaminates us,but I think there are plenty of people who say it's verydifficultto resist being kind to the person whois payingyour rent. I'm not awareof any majorissues right now, either invotv­ ing patient care or basic research, or in terms of abusing the postdocs and the graduate students. The watchdog activities, certainly the IRBs [institu­ tionaL review boards] are quite good, and the requlations are gettingtougher and tougher. I'm wondering if, in fact, it's not quite excessive. I think it inhibits research by a number of peopLe. I'm.anexample. I just can't do it; Daniel Bikle"professor of medicine, University of California, San Pranctsccj.former chairman; UCSF Conflict of Interest Task Force1 Don't underestimate the power of greed in the halls of science or the wholesome presence of altruism and self­ respect. And don't overlook shame and embarrassment as forces for good behavior in scientific affairs. I found these precepts helpful navigational aids for exploring the dimly lit relationship between academic lNIKUUU\.11UN , The record of sins is by now large and dolefully familia}'.At the insistence of armaceutlcal-ind s onsors, research finaings unfavorable to their pro cts have been suppressed, sometimes y 0 hgmg univ'ersity scientists, sQmetlmes-W.lt1Lthe:ci51L~ univer~l~y admimstra., t0E.-intimidating orQY_W:idi.!!g.fu_<;1!h.lCE~2earch7~~,~H;;;;;anvolunteers in clinical trials have been needlessly endangered, and some have died in reckless experiments. In conflicts over environmental health and safety, "hired gun" scientists have collaborated with industry in efforts to mislead the public and stymie regulatory agencies. The ideal of open­ ness and collegiality for the advancement of science has always had to contend with the pursuit of personal glory. But surveys show that corporate money on campus and opportunities for commercial gain now also figure in scientists shielding, rather than sharing, their data." Seminal tactics for co-opting the prestige of academic science in behalf of corporate interests were developed bythetobacco industry following the publication in 1964 of Smoking and Health: Report ofthe Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General ofthe Public Health Service, which launched the federal government's war on tobacco. For decades after­ ward, university research financed with tobacco money provided cover for the industry, even when the results confirmed the lethal effects of tobacco. In a typical instance in 1979, when an industry-supported re­ search project linked smoking and heart disease, the industry-financed Council for Tobacco Research publicly questioned the cause-and-effect relationship and noted, "Grantees are always encouraged to publish their findings .... This and so much