Frankel M S
Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., USA.
Acad Med. 1996 Dec;71(12):1297-304. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199612000-00011.
The crucial issues in a policy debate are often matters of perception and interpretation rather than fact, and the values and norms that influence perceptions are central to an understanding of conflict in the policy arena. For example, science's norms of objectivity and disinterestedness are being modified today to accommodate closer academic-industry ties. The author traces in detail how these ties and the accompanying public distrust have developed, beginning with the post-World-War-II increase in public support for basic research and continuing with subsequent pieces of legislation that lowered the barriers between academic and industrial research in order to reap economic benefits. He then analyzes the impact of financial incentives in university-industry relationships on science and on public perceptions of science, and the price both science and the public would pay if the public loses trust in science and refuses to support it. He also reviews the history of the ill-fated National Institutes of Health guidelines for university-industry collaborations proposed in 1979 and the subsequent history of the policy on this topic recently adopted by the Public Health Service. He maintains that the PHS policy poses both a risk (the temptation to enforce the policy loosely) and an opportunity (for research institutions to grasp the initiative and develop meaningful conflict-of-interest guidelines of their own). But the policy falls short of responding to the much broader range of concerns associated with university-industry research collaboration, for example, the possible effects of such collaboration on the traditional openness and sharing among scientists. The available data on these effects are mixed. He concludes by maintaining that scientists and their industry partners should address the issues surrounding their collaboration now rather than waiting for negative events to trigger public arousal and force a mutually unsatisfying political solution. This article is one of three in this issue of Academic Medicine that deal with issues of conflict of interest in university-industry research relationships. These articles are discussed in an overview that precedes them.
政策辩论中的关键问题往往是认知和解读方面的问题，而非事实问题，并且影响认知的价值观和规范对于理解政策领域的冲突至关重要。例如，如今科学的客观性和无私利性规范正在被修改，以适应学术界与产业界日益紧密的联系。作者详细追溯了这些联系以及随之而来的公众不信任是如何发展的，始于二战后公众对基础研究支持的增加，接着是后续一系列降低学术研究与产业研究之间壁垒以获取经济利益的立法。然后，他分析了大学与产业界关系中的经济激励措施对科学以及公众对科学认知的影响，以及如果公众对科学失去信任并拒绝支持，科学和公众将付出的代价。他还回顾了1979年提出的命运多舛的国立卫生研究院大学与产业界合作指南的历史，以及公共卫生服务部门最近在这个问题上所采取政策的后续历史。他认为公共卫生服务部门的政策既带来了风险（宽松执行政策的诱惑），也带来了机遇（研究机构抓住主动权并制定自身有意义的利益冲突指南）。但该政策未能回应与大学与产业界研究合作相关的更广泛的一系列担忧，例如，这种合作对科学家之间传统的开放性和共享可能产生的影响。关于这些影响的现有数据好坏参半。他总结称，科学家及其产业伙伴现在就应该解决围绕他们合作的问题，而不是等待负面事件引发公众关注并迫使达成一个双方都不满意的政治解决方案。本文是本期《学术医学》中探讨大学与产业界研究关系中利益冲突问题的三篇文章之一。在这些文章之前有一篇综述对它们进行了讨论。
