Abstract
Along with concerns about the deleterious effects of politically driven government intervention on science are the intrusion of private sector interests into the conduct of research and the reporting of its results. Scientists are generally unprepared for the challenges posed by private interests seeking to advance their economic, political, or ideological agendas. They must educate and prepare themselves for assaults on scientific freedom, not because it is a legal right, but rather because social progress depends on it.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The literature on a “right to research” is overwhelmingly produced by lawyers and legal scholars, not scientists or engineers.
“Because the texture and boundaries of scientific freedom and responsibility resist simple definition, the position of scientists needs to be reassessed from time to time in the context of changing ethical predicaments” (AAAS Committee 1975, p. v).
Historian of science Loren Graham wrote in 1978 that “This autonomy of science should be defended not as a privilege for an elite, nor as an absolute right, but as a need of society itself. The conclusion will be, then, that some aspects of science and technology should be controlled for the same reason that other aspects should not be: namely, it is better for society that way, ….” (Graham 1978, p. 2).
Perhaps a better and more recent example is the enactment of the Researcher Protection Act of 2008 in California. In that case, the California university system led the charge in efforts to pass legislation that would increase law enforcement’s tools to protect academic researchers and their families from intimidation and violence by anti-animal research extremists (Guess 2008).
This is what Brown and Guston (2009) refer to as “the expansion of conflict.”
References
A Report of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. (1975). Scientific freedom and responsibility. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, p. ix. Also at http://archives.aaas.org/docs/1975-SFR.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
ASCE responds to subpoena for peer review records. (2007). Posted at http://pubs.asce.org/magazines/ascenews/2007/Issue_02-07/news11.htm?PF=1 Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
Brown, M. B., & Guston, D. H. (2009). Science, democracy, and the right to research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9135-4.
Conn, P. M., & Parker, J. V. (2008). The animal research war. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., Annas, G. J., & Drazen, J. M. (2008). Peer review in the balance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2276–2277.
Ferguson, N. (2001). Censorship in action: Why I don’t publish my HDCP results. http://www.macfergus.com/niels/dmca/cia.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
Fischer, P. M. (2006). Science and subpoenas: When do the courts become instruments of manipulation? In W. Wagner & R. Steinzor (Eds.), Rescuing science from politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, A. L. (2001). Princeton cryptographer’s challenge to music industry draws computer scientists’ support. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Posted at http://chronicle.com/free/2001/08/2001081602t.htm. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
Graham, L. R. (1978). Concerns about science and attempts to regulate inquiry. Daedalus, 107(2), 1–21.
Guess, A. (2008). California passes law protecting animal researchers. Inside Higher Ed at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/02/protect. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
Kaiser, J. (2008). Pfizer denied access to journals’ files. Science, 319, 1601.
Kellermann, A. L. (1997). Comment: Gunsmoke—changing public attitudes toward smoking and firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 87(6), 911.
Knoll, C., Bookwalter, G., & Ostrom, M. A. (2008). Police: UCSC researchers targeted in firebombings this morning. Santa Cruz Sentinel at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_10080054?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
Kuehn, R. R. (2005). Scientific speech: Protecting the right of environmental scientists to express professional opinions. Environmental Law Reporter, 35, 10857–10871.
Letter from the Recording Industry Association of America. (2001). Posted at http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20010409_riaa_sdmi_letter.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
McGarity, T. O., & Wagner, W. E. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Parrish, D. M. (2002). US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2839–2841.
Squires, J. (2008). Police serve search warrant on house raided in first UCSC animal rights attack. Santa Cruz Sentinel at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_10136850?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frankel, M.S. Private Interests Count Too. Sci Eng Ethics 15, 367–373 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9137-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9137-2