Text of an article by Stuart Parkinson, Director, SGR for Water and Environmental Management magazine, April 2004
 

It's been just over a decade since John Major's Government published a White paper entitled Realising our potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology. It was based on an important premise: that the primary function of science is to generate technological innovation and hence economic prosperity. The policies of the Blair Government have fostered this role of science. But is such a narrow role an appropriate one in the quest for sustainable development? And aren't there serious risks that environmental protection and broader social goals are being side-lined by this state of affairs?

In this article, I will highlight two particular concerns I have with this policy:

• That scientific research in universities is becoming too intertwined with industry and as such there is an erosion of the scientific independence which is essential in warning of, eg, environmental problems arising from industrial activities; and
• That emphasis on new technologies based on cutting-edge science introduces more environmental risks than, eg, simpler technologies, and can divert resources away from social or political solutions to society's problems.

Biased science?

From the appointment of leading industrialist Lord Sainsbury as UK Science Minister to the expansion of the LINK programmes and exponential growth in university spin-off companies, the growing links between academia and industry are very visible. So what effect has this had on the direction and reliability of scientific research?

One piece of evidence comes from a recent investigation into research carried out in UK universities relevant to the upstream oil and gas sector¹. It highlighted that only 2% of this research is directed towards assessing environmental impacts, while most of the rest is focussed on improving the efficiency of oil and gas discovery and extraction.

For other evidence, we can take as an example climate change research in the United States. For over a decade, fossil fuel industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) have been funding a small number of ‘climate sceptic’ scientists publishing work critical of the evidence for climate change. Despite having limited credibility with most other climate researchers, the high level of funding has allowed these sceptics to have a great deal of influence over US policy-makers. One of the latest examples was a paper funded by the API and published in 2003 in the journal Climate Research. It presented an alternative assessment of temperature variation over the last 1000 years which concluded that recently observed warming was merely natural variation. The paper was used by George Bush to support his continued opposition to strong action on climate change. However, critics have pointed to many shortcomings in the paper, and the resulting arguments led to the resignation of half the editorial board of the journal in protest at the paper’s publication².

These examples are enough to ring some alarm bells, but do they constitute a systemic bias due to industrial collaboration? For rigorous evidence, we can draw on investigations of the pharmaceutical sector. Several studies have now been carried out investigating the link between research funding and the results of safety assessments on pharmaceuticals. A 1998 study examining 70 research papers on a particular drug treatment for cardiovascular disease was typical. It found that of those authors supportive of the drugs, 96% had financial relationships with the drugs’ manufacturers; while only 37% of those who were critical had such relationships³. Almost all of the other investigations found similar results: when a single vested interest, eg a corporation, funds a research study on an area of relevance to them, that study is much more likely to yield results which favour the vested interest. It is worth noting, however, that when a study had multiple funders with a range of interests, the results were rather less prone to bias.

Dangerous new technologies?

The reliance on cutting-edge science as the source of new technologies also has important ethical and environmental consequences. By definition, cutting-edge science is less well understood than other areas. There is more uncertainty, especially concerning the effects of releasing such a technology into the wider world. The potential for unforeseen environmental, human health or social problems is significantly higher. Further, the ability to regulate new technology to prevent serious problems is rather lower, exactly because of this uncertainty.

There are many examples of technologies which were considered to be generally benign when introduced, but were later found to have serious side-effects: eg coal combustion which led to local air pollution/ climate change; chemical pesticides which led to biodiversity loss/ human health problems. This is not to say that these technologies have not yielded benefits and should be banned, more that if a precautionary approach had be taken, the damaging side-effects could have been detected and dealt with much earlier.

Conversely, technological innovation need not rely on cutting-edge science. The clockwork radio invented by Trevor Bayliss is a good example: straightforward technology developed to benefit those without access to an electricity grid. There is plenty of potential here with technologies such as solar hot-water systems or wave turbines. The organisation Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) specialises in this area because it is a cheap, effective way of fostering development for the world's poorest.

And the simpler technology can be more effective and cheaper than the hi-tech route. For example, a comparison of attempts to improve the yield of sweet potato in Africa showed that while GM crop trials projected an increase of 18%, conventional methods (at much lower cost) had already achieved an increase of nearly 100%⁴.

The emphasis on technological solutions can also divert attention from effective non-technological solutions. For example, in tackling the problem the of child tooth decay, water fluoridation is advocated rather than a ban on advertising food high in sugar (which would have many additional benefits).

Time for a rethink

The Government policy of encouraging very close links between academia and industry is eroding the independence of science and increasing the risks due to technology. Research which has commercial application has become the priority, while the more ‘blue skies’ work or that which may highlight potential problems of industrial activities (eg environmental assessment) is getting too little attention. Furthermore, academics who rely on industry funding are less able to give the impartial view on which society has come to depend. At the same time, the focus on cutting-edge technologies can increase the risks of unpredictable impacts.

The funding and management of science and technology need to change. There needs to be much more academic research which is clearly independent from industry. Industry-academic partnerships need to give far greater priority to environmental and social assessment. Research councils and other public funding bodies should include more representatives from social and environmental groups to balance input from industry. Meanwhile industry needs to take a more precautionary approach to the introduction of cutting-edge technologies, while looking more closely at technological developments based on simpler science. In addition to reducing the risk of unforeseen side-effects, these will have the added advantage that they are likely to be cheaper and hence more widely available to those who could benefit from them.

Notes