Another long one, my apologies, and tempting as it is to want to defend
Peter Hartmann I am sure he is capable of mounting his own defence if he
perceives a need, so I will refrain.
However I would really like to make some further comments regarding industry
funded research in general .
I’d like to begin with saying that I gave careful thought to my initial use
of the word demonise, because it implies the attribute that something is all
bad, in a very black and white kind of way, and there were, at the time I
posted, a great many comments being made that gave the impression that
this was how Medela was being viewed. I would like to refer to the following
comment as an example (I just chose the first I came across)
“*The work Medela is funding in the areas of milk banking, human milk
fortifiers, and stem cell research is downright disturbing to me. This
research is funded for one reason, and one reason only: Medela is banking on
their future ability to gain patents in these areas and then profit from
them*”
If we look at this statement it infers that business (and in this particular
case Medela) is only motivated by mean spirited reasons (such as making
money) and has no social conscience. It also implies that the business
dictates the direction of the research (or at least that’s how I perceive
this comment) and has little interest in the actual research’s social worth,
only in its potential for making money.
But why is this assumption made? Is it because they advertise their product
in a way we disapprove or do we make this assumption for other reasons?
Perhaps a bad personal experience with a company representative? Should
this colour our view of the company itself? Perhaps an inability to
communicate our concerns successfully? Did we have a role in the failure to
communicate our concerns adequately? Perhaps just an inherent distrust of
all big business - although I’m not actually sure medela falls into the big
business category. And are they valid assumptions if we have no real
personal knowledge of the ethos or the people who comprise the company? What
can we do to have a meaningful dialogue to communicate our concerns? Is what
we are saying here in this forum beneficial to change?
Regarding another point from this comment - industry does employ people to
undertake research “on its behalf” but this is very different from
scientific researchers whose work remains their own intellectual property
and is, at the same time, only made possible through industry funding which
the researchers have sought. The above comments seem to assume that medela
researching fund is of the first type and are sentiments that probably reflect
the fears of many in being suspicious of a degree of “dirty tricks and
unethical behaviour”, esp in regard to stem cell research .
The bottom line with medical research is that yes, we would all like funding
to be provided by government but where will this money come from? Government
funding for research is incredibly hard to procure – especially the large
amounts involved in science research – in fact most government bodies now
only fund large projects where there has already been industry funding
procured. So, will we be happy to have our taxes increased for this
purpose? Seeing the Australian response to a small increase in their taxes
to help flood victims I can only assume not. So where will the money come
from to provide new cures for our modern (and not so modern) diseases?
Industry funding is now a necessity if advances are to be made in science
and medicine, this is a fact of life. Instead of having a blanket fear of
any type of industry funded research and subsequently rejecting good
research for fear of it being “tainted”, what we really need is an ability
to control and critically review the processes and final product of the
research that has been funded in this way, and make our final decisions
based on this. Peer reviewed publication is one way of achieving this.
Also, should we be surprised that scientists are grateful to their
benefactors and want to, in part, repay them for making their research
possible by at least acknowledging the part they have played? Should we deny
business the pride of being involved in something socially worthwhile and
the ability to play a part in contributing to social capacity? Or should we
expect them to sit in the background, names unknown and unappreciated, and
only be involved in funding things they are wholly unconnected with? If we
prevent them from having any sort of personal interest or profile in regard
to the research they fund are we only encouraging the lack of social
responsibility we all so fear? In short, will making them inclusive
encourage them to be better contributors to society?
I know the sceptics and cynics among you will be shaking your heads at me,
perhaps believing me incredibly naďve (and perhaps even worse J ). I don’t
believe I am. I am acutely aware of the ethical pitfalls of industry funded
research (in fact I lecture on it in the research methods unit I teach)…………
But I do seek to present to you an alternate view for you to consider in
what is a very complicated area. ..
Something else I would also like to throw out there………………….
Much is often said about “code violations” in regard to the advertising of
bottle and teats for the administration of EBM. Given the ever increasing
numbers of women needing to use these aids to give their babies breastmilk
(esp mothers returning to work) should we consider changing this part of the
code? I have seen the view that business shouldn’t be allowed to advertise
directly to mothers for this purpose and that they could advertise to us
only, who would then make the decisions about what is best for a mother to
choose. This struck me as being very paternalistic, I would be interested to
hear what others have to say on this.
Warm regards
Cathy Fetherston RM PhD IBCLC
Perth, Western Australia
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
