Corporate Funding: The Future Morality Of Science

1029 Words 5 Pages
Science is generally publicly funded, however, increasingly the use of corporate funding changed science. As the use of corporate funding is increased, science becomes less moral. According to Understanding Science by Berkeley University, almost 75% of U.S clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies, (Casazza, Gilet, Stuart). Corporate funding is on the raise. As corporate funding increases, the worry that biases coming from corporations will grow. Furthermore, the worry is that these biases will interfere with the future morality of science. Corporate funding is on the increase. According to Joaquin Palomino, in 2012, the Energy BIosciences building at UC Berkeley was constructed with more than $90 million from numerous …show more content…
Since the corporations are funding the research or the trial, the public is worried the corporation will have influence over the outcome of the study. Theoretically, a pharmaceutical company paying for a study of a new depression medication, might influence the study 's design or interpretation in ways that subtly favor the drug that they 'd like to market. Aforementioned author Jennifer Washburn reports, “Research on secondhand smoke conducted by researchers with industry ties is 88 times more likely to find no harm; industry-funded studies comparing cholesterol drugs are 20 times more likely to favor the sponsor 's drug.” (Washburn). These types of biases, affect the morality of the science industry. According to Candace Gilet, Stephanie Stuart, and Lorraine Casazza, from University of Berkeley, “Drug research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is more likely to end up favoring the drug under consideration than studies sponsored by government grants or charitable organizations,” (Casazza, Gilet, Stuart). These are the types of biases that are developing with the rise of corporations funding scientific research. Furthermore, Scientific American reports, “Without government support, most basic scientific research will never happen. This is most clearly true for the kind of pure research that has delivered enormous prestige and great intellectual benefits but no profits,” …show more content…
The existence of biases in science is an immoral creation and therefore, makes science immoral. Although science cannot be completely controlled in terms of all human biases, attempts can be made to limit them. Scientific research will naturally contain biases based on the fact it is conducted by humans. Michael E. Price, Ph.D, writes in From Darwin to Eternity, “...moralistic tendency is not an inherently good or bad quality; it’s simply a fact of human nature,” (Price). However, by limiting the additional factor of corporation 's biases, the process to maintain science’s morality is started. Continually, the morality of scientific research cannot be debated if said scientific research doesn 't exist. In explanation, corporate funding is necessary, in certain cases, and therefore, the morality of the research is pushed aside. According to Gretchen Goldman, part of The Union of Concerned Scientists and lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy, “science should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny if it receives funding from an industry with direct interests in the implications of that science,” (Goldman). This allows for corporate funding to make an appearance when necessary, but does not simply dismiss the idea of these corporate sponsors creating biases, and causing immoral research to take

Related Documents