Lesson 5

Scientific Research
 Learning Objectives
• To discuss the funding and conflicts of
scientific research.
• To identify the research data recording
• To explain societal responsibilities of scientist
and science.
 Funding and Conflicts of Research
From the October 2007 Issue of Discover
Magazine, an article entitled, “Science’s Worst
Enemy: Corporate Funding” had this to say
regarding funding and conflicts in research:
• In recent years there have been a number of
highly visible attacks on American science,
everything from the fundamentalist assault on
evolution to the Bush administration’s strong-
arming of government scientists.
• But for many people who pay close attention to
research and development (R&D), the biggest
threat to science has been quietly occurring
under the radar, even though it may be changing
the very foundation of American innovation.
• The threat is money—specifically, the decline of
government support for science and the growing
dominance of private spending over American
research.
• The trend is undeniable. In 1965, the federal
government financed more than 60 percent of all R&D
in the United States.
• By 2006, the balance had flipped, with 65 percent of
R&D in this country being funded by private interests.
• According to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, several of the nation’s
science-driven agencies—the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of the Interior, and NASA—have been
losing funding, leading to more “outsourcing” of what
were once governmental science functions.
• The EPA, for example, recently began conducting
the first nationwide study on the air quality
effects of large-scale animal production.
• Livestock producers, not taxpayers, are slated to
pay for the study.
• “The government is clearly increasing its reliance
on industry and forming ‘joint ventures’ to
accomplish research that it is unable to afford on
its own anymore,” says Merrill Goozner, a
program director at the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group.
• Research universities, too, are rapidly
privatizing. Both public and private institutions
now receive a shrinking portion of their
overall funding from government sources.
• They are looking instead to private industry
and other commercial activities to enhance
their funding.
• Is all this truly harmful to science? Some
experts argue that corporate support is
actually beneficial because it provides
enhanced funding for R&D, speeds the
transfer of new knowledge to industry, and
boosts economic growth.
• Even many industry leaders worry that the
current mix of private and public funding is
out of balance, however.
 Conflicts of Interest
• A number of sciences and professions have
recently become aware of and concerned about
the extent to which corporate funding has
influenced or will influence their activities and
directions.
• Problems may arise, of course, as a consequence
of outside funding from any source when the
values of the donor and those of the recipient are
either in conflict or incompatible.
• The task force reviewed the consequences of external
funding of a range of activities across several sciences
and professions but chose to focus on pharmaceutical
funding as a case example for three reasons.
• First, the effects of pharmaceutical funding on the
science and profession of medicine have been very
well-documented and provide a telling example of the
distortions and unintended consequences that can
occur when academic centers, scientists, and
practitioners become overly dependent on for-profit
industries.
• Second, pharmaceutical companies have
expressed interest in funding activities of the APA
and that interest is expected to increase as more
psychologists obtain prescription privileges.
• Finally, the pharmaceutical industry is of interest
because it has been enormously wealthy and
politically influential and therefore has the
potential to exert a significant impact on the field
of psychology.
 Transparency and objectivity are
essential in scientific research and the
peer review process
The most obvious conflicts of interest are
financial relationships such as:
• Direct: employment, stock ownership, grants,
patents.
• Indirect: honoraria, consultancies to
sponsoring organizations, mutual fund
ownership, paid expert testimony.
Conflicts can also exist as a result of personal
relationships, academic competition, and
intellectual passion.
• A relative who works at the company whose
product the researcher is evaluating.
• A self-serving stake in the research results (e.g.
potential promotion/career advancement based
on outcomes).
• Personal beliefs that are in direct conflict with the
topic he/she is researching.
 Research Data Recording
Surrey’s web library has this to say for those
handling qualitative research data.
• Researchers can either take notes during their
interviews (transcribing) or observations, or
take a recording
• Using a tape recorder:
The benefits tape recording include:

1. The researcher can concentrate and listen and respond better

2. The discussion flows better when there are no distractions
3. In note taking there is an increased risk of the researcher being
more subjective
4. The entire interview/observation is recorded, which gives a better,
more holistic picture of what is going on
5. The participants may feel less observed if the tape recorded is used
in a a discreet way
6. During analysis, the researcher has the opportunity to go back over
material
Transcribing:
1. Transcribing the interview involves taking
notes of the interview...it is the full 'script' of the
interview and the aim is to take a full written
version of the interview
2. Transcribing an interview is very time
consuming, with an estimated time ratio of 5:1
(i.e. 5 hours of transcribing a one hour
interview)
• Tape analysis can be used, which is a
combination on the two and involves the
researcher taking notes from the recording.
• Bias must be considered when taking notes or
using tape analysis
• Good quality transcribing relies on skills
beyond just taking notes and there is often
space for subjectivity
Societal Responsibilities of Science and
Technology
• Right now, much of the emphasis in science is
on the professional responsibility of scientists
to stick to "standards agreed upon by the
scientific community" regarding how research
should be conducted, Frankel said.
• He called these responsibilities "internal." But
scientists also have "external," social
responsibilities "toward the larger
community,"
• Frankel argued—and "it is no longer
acceptable to focus on internal
responsibilities." Science depends on public
money, affects policy decisions, and offers
risks and benefits to society. “
• The communities in which you live and the
communities much farther out … are
ultimately affected by the work that you do.
Frankel would like to see three core ideas
integrated into graduate education.
• The first is that "science is a social institution,
with a mission and 'baggage' like all other
social institutions created by human beings,"
he said.
• Frankel's second core message was that young
scientists should appreciate the global
dimension of science.
• They should be "looking beyond themselves,"
he said, and should "use their skills to help
with global problems."
• Last, they should realize that their education
and research are being subsidized by society,
and take into account society's expectations of
how they should be using this knowledge in
the future.
• Scientists should also be prepared to confront
situations where their internal responsibilities
clash with their external responsibilities.
 The Research in the Society
• The public appreciates the scientific and
technological advances contributing to improving
their well-being.
• The scientific community should not “overreact”
to the uncertainty and even resistance with which
society sometimes responds to scientific or
technological developments. Instead, it should try
to understand the basis and the meaning of such
reactions, by creating an open, non-paternalistic
dialogue with the public.
• Researchers have to be aware of concerns and
attitudes in the social environment that are
relevant to some aspects of their work.
• They should take advantage of any available
opportunities to inform society of how
researchers incorporates the public’s
concerns, preferences, and requirements into
its work and decision-making.
• Another important aspect of researchers’
social commitment relates to the public origin
of the funds used for their work.
• It should be clear to the scientific community
that using public resources entails certain
indissoluble, inherent principles of reciprocity,
such as explaining the efficient use of
resources in terms that can be understood by
society that provides them.
• This task may be conducted by research
organizations through activities such as: open-
house days, electronic information resources,
disseminating reports of activities undertaken
and outlining researchers’ principles of
conduct.
 The Researcher as a Teacher and
Spokesperson
• It is important and urgent to make a lasting and
effective effort to increase society’s knowledge
and interest in the culture’s scientific foundations
and science’s contribution to their development.
Initiatives:
• Providing an intelligible and attractive description
of the creative function of scientific knowledge
and the impact of scientific and technological
advances on growth and well-being.
• Stimulating scientific interest and scientific
knowledge at all educational levels, according to
the specific characteristics of each level.
• Communicating information about the methods
and elements that typify scientific research, such
as: curiosity and a desire to understand the
world, the role of doubt, attention to empirical
evidence, uncertainty, risk, perseverance, and
critical analysis of the arguments of others, and,
more importantly, one’s own arguments.
The Researcher as an advisor in public
matters
Any research organization requires generous
measures of the following:

• social space for personal initiative and creativity;

• time for ideas to grow to maturity;
• openness to debate and criticism;
• hospitality toward novelty; and
• respect for specialized expertise.