Commercial conflicts of interest in science threaten public trust in research

Evidence

Researchers now worry that the growing possibility for great wealth from discoveries, especially but not only in genetic science, may reduce the openness of their enterprise (see, for example, Zandonella 2001). Moreover, the general commercialization of biological findings increasingly puts scientists in conflicts of interest between doing good science and making huge sums of money. In a recent case, a young man, Jesse Gelsinger, died during an experimental test of a new method of gene therapy. The University of Pennsylvania and one of the clinicians involved in the test held stakes in a gene-therapy company (“Controversy of the Year: Biomedical Ethics on the Front Burner,” Science, 22 December 2000, 2225). Reports on such cases might eventually damage the reputation of scientists enough that educated publics might begin to doubt the reliability of science, scientists, and agencies that have access to biological information of various kinds and that stand to benefit from the use of such information. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 857

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Hardin’s core argument about trust requiring conflict-of-interest-free, predictable behavior from trustees; also echoes the book’s broader theme of the doctor’s wife as sole reliable actor amid compromised institutions. — connects to: Research funding subordinates truth to the goal of performativity — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on…, 342; Publishing doubts about models can conflict with protecting one’s business interests — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 815; Marketized public universities have no reason to fund research fields — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s…, 389 (+2 more)