Wednesday’s editorial about the “necessary evil” of corporate funding titled, “A necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless” raises an interesting question about sources of funding for university research. I support corporate funding in principle, but for different reasons than that editorial might suggest.
The tenor of this article suggests that funding from private corporations raises legitimate questions about the ethics of partnering with for-profit companies—especially those whose practices may raise legitimate ethical questions. It also questions whether a company would be willing to publish a negative finding.
I would argue that a private company would be far more willing to publish a negative finding than a traditional public grant-funded academic would, and that private companies are held to a higher ethical standard in this regard than most universities. The idea that academia is about the pure pursuit of knowledge is a myth. “Publish or perish” has long been the mantra of the academic and negative findings rarely, if ever, find their way into traditional academic publications. Publishing “the truth” almost always takes a back seat to publishing what will be in the researcher’s best interests—especially when the success of their career is at stake.
Companies—especially large publicly traded corporations—are subject to a myriad of legislated reporting requirements. Negative findings, often in the form of losses, are as much a part of a company’s annual report as its successes. I’ve yet to hear of research faculty being audited similarly, with the successes and failures of their research being enumerated and publicly reported.
Many academics find the profit motive of businesses bothersome, but it is that very profit that provides the tax base for funding through public grants. Another layer of bureaucracy is added by first collecting these monies as taxes, and then providing them to research through the auspices of public grants dilutes the actual amount of funding available.
It’s true that universities often lead scientific research, but private industry also drives a substantial amount of scientific research, and it is private industry that will ultimately figure out how to make scientific research profitable and accessible to the masses. The computer industry is an excellent example of this: while much of the research that has resulted in the internet has come from universities, it’s also true that we are all using computers produced by successful enterprises that know best how to implement, produce and support these systems.
By funding research, these companies can continue to support innovation that will result in better, more saleable and more profitable products for their consumers—all the while providing much-needed funding to universities.
I agree with the article’s statement that “ideally, we wouldn’t have to rely on private companies for any funding,” but I’d challenge the editorial board to question why public funding is any better. We live in a capitalistic society that encourages entrepreneurialism and the ultimate motive of any business is profit. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. What company would survive if it staked its success on public funding? Unless the university can be turned into a true profit center (as many successful private universities manage to do), it will be disingenuously taking money from both individuals and businesses to support a flawed and self-serving paradigm of academic research and publishing.
There’s an old saying, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Monsanto, R. J. Reynolds and the NSA are hardly the kinds of ethical companies (and in the case of the latter, public institutions) that I’d like to support. However, I think that partnering with these companies increases awareness about them and their practices. Some academic researchers may find that inconvenient, but it’s a small price to pay for the societal good that these partnerships facilitate.
