http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nbt/journal/v22/n8/full/nbt0804-947.html

Nature Biotechnology 22, 947 - 948 (2004)
doi:10.1038/nbt0804-947

Bioethic$ Inc.
Leigh Turner

Leigh Turner is in the Biomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social
Studies of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel
Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1X1, Canada and is a 2003–2004 member of
the Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science, Princeton,
NJ 08540, USA. [log in to unmask]
By now, everyone knows the claims used to argue that bioethicists should
accept consulting opportunities and research funding from pharmaceutical
and biotech corporations. Proponents of corporate-sponsored bioethics
commonly develop variations on three themes.

First, we live in a capitalist economy and bioethicists have the right
to seek remuneration for their services. Bioethicists should not be
expected to provide pro bono work for corporations; instead,
bioethicists ought to be able to offer their professional services as
consultants to industry. Bioethicists can promote ethical corporate
practices and protect corporate interests by identifying moral concerns
related to such topics as embryonic stem cell research and genetically
modified crops. For many biotech and pharmaceutical corporations, the
use of bioethicists fits within a larger program of risk analysis and
risk management1.

Second, bioethicists need to work with different 'stakeholders,' leave
their 'ivory towers' and address the moral ambiguities of the
marketplace. To understand the complex ethical, legal and social issues
facing company executives, corporate compliance officers and industry
scientists, ethicists need to visit the boardroom2. Advanced Cell
Technology (Worcester, MA, USA), Ardais (Lexington, MA, USA) and several
other corporations have established bioethics advisory boards. Numerous
bioethicists act as corporate consultants to biotech companies. In this
capacity, they accept consulting fees, honoraria, research grants and
other corporate perks. The establishment of ties between corporations
and bioethicists is not limited to a few entrepreneurial bioethicists.
The University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics (Philadelphia), the
Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics
Institute at Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD), The Hastings
Center (Garison, NY), the Center for Practical Bioethics, the University
of Toronto Joint Center for Bioethics and the Centre de Recherche en
Droit Public at the University of Montreal all accept funding from
corporate sponsors3.

Third, in an era when competition for government funding of academic
research is growing increasingly intense, corporate funding provides a
resource for building bioethics programs and educational initiatives.
Here, the argument is that bioethicists and bioethics centers need
corporate funding to survive. Decreases in government funding of
academic research, or increased competition for available funds, serves
as the basis for an argument on behalf of the necessity of accepting
corporate support.

The language of debate and argumentation suggests that bioethicists are
carefully weighing the consequences of cultivating close ties to
industry. However, many bioethicists seem to have overcome their initial
reservations and now welcome a close relationship with the corporate
sector. Potential conflicts of interest are to be addressed through
disclosure policies and institutional firewalls4. Disclosure guidelines
will ostensibly address all concerns about hidden agendas or partisan
interests.

However, should bioethicists so eagerly seek corporate funding? Are
there any reasons why we might want to discourage stronger ties between
bioethicists and the biotech and pharmaceutical industry?

Carl Elliott is perhaps the most outspoken critic of the entrepreneurial
turn in bioethics5. He argues that the bioethics watchdog is quickly
becoming the corporate show dog6. Elliott raises legitimate concerns
about the dangers of bioethics being 'captured' by corporate interests.
Close ties between bioethicists and industry have several deeply
problematic consequences.

First, they help whitewash the reputation of corporations by letting
companies promote ethics advisory bodies and ethics programs in
advertising and promotional brochures. Ethics consulting promotes the
façade of responsible corporate policies while often doing little to
improve corporate practices. Though bioethicists like to tout their
contribution to improving corporate social responsibility, there is
little evidence that bioethics consultants and bioethics advisory boards
play a meaningful role in improving corporate practices.

Second, accepting corporate funds places bioethicists in the pockets of
the very industries they claim to critique. The consequence, Elliott
suggests, is that criticism is muted or tempered by the recognition that
bioethicists depend on the corporations they propose to advise or
regulate. In effect, corporations respond to social criticism by buying
their critics. The phenomenon, sometimes described as 'regulatory
capture,' suggests a process whereby outspoken social critics and
regulators are harnessed by the industries they attempt to constrain.
Bioethicists receive financial perks and institutional support in return
for tempering their critiques, and corporations placate the parties that
might otherwise seek to constrain or block their economic objectives.

Third, taking corporate funds generates intractable conflicts of
interest. Bioethicists risk appearing mere toadies of the corporations
they propose to advise and regulate. The increasingly prevalent practice
of accepting funding from the corporate sector generates an outcome
whereby bioethicists come to be perceived as corporate shills who will
use their 'arms-length' relationship to promote corporate objectives.
Many citizens have no idea that the bioethicists seemingly offering
'independent' analysis in The New York Times are receiving research
funds and salary support from the very industry about whom they purport
to provide 'unbiased' commentary.

Stockholders were astonished to discover that stock analysts often held
financial stakes in the stocks they promoted. Similarly, citizens might
well be amazed to learn that bioethicists providing social commentary on
the biotech and pharmaceutical industry sometimes benefit from close
financial ties to the very corporations whose research they publicly debate.

Bioethicists increasingly seem to be more interested in discussing how
to forge links with corporations than in confronting whether
bioethicists should have such close ties to industry. And yet, the
current move toward corporate consulting and obtaining research
contracts represents a major transformation in the ethos of bioethics.
Born in the social turbulence of the late 1960s and early 1970s,
bioethics has its roots in social critique. Some of the earliest work in
bioethics addressed the need to reform psychiatric hospitals and other
medical facilities, the patient-physician relationship and the conduct
of biomedical research. Early bioethicists prided themselves on
maintaining a critical distance from commercial forces and the powerful
economic interests of the 'medical-industrial complex.' Now, 30 years
later, the independence and integrity of bioethics is in question, and
bioethicists risk being perceived as corporate pawns whose social
commentary is compromised by their corporate ties7. The constant shape
shifting among the roles of regulator, advisor, educator, consultant,
watchdog and employee raises difficult questions about the very identity
and purpose of bioethics. If bioethicists are incapable of maintaining
financial and intellectual independence from the drug industry, what
purpose will their social commentary serve?

Regrettably, few bioethicists are giving much thought to the
transformation of their field. Elliott's depiction of bioethics as
lapdog is perhaps too generous a characterization. More porcine imagery
is needed to convey the rush toward corporate consultation, research
contracts and advisory gigs.

Top
REFERENCES

1. Arakelian, C. Drug Discovery Today 8, 386–388 (2003). | Article |
PubMed | ISI |
2. Magnus, D. Drug Discovery Today 7, 385–387 (2002). | Article | PubMed
| ISI |
3. Elliott, C. Hastings Center Report 31, 9–12 (2001). | PubMed | ISI |
ChemPort |
4. Brody, B. et al. Hastings Center Report 32, 14–20 (2002). | PubMed |
ISI |
5. Elliott, C. London Review of Books 24, 36–37 (2002).
6. Elliott, C. The American Prospect 12, 17 (2001).
7. Youngner, S. & Arnold, R. Hastings Center Report 32, 21–22 (2002). |
PubMed | ISI |





FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such
material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.