Ethics on the Corporate Payroll

Image: Erica P. Johnson The Midwest Bioethics Center in Kansas City, Mo., runs a modest operation, so its officials rejoiced when they received $600,000 (US) from Bridgewater, NJ-based Aventis Pharmaceuticals. The grant will almost entirely fund a study on research integrity, and the center will host a conference on integrity in biomedical research in 2003 to culminate the work. "It's the best example of altruism," says Myra Christopher, president and CEO of MBC, which receives just $2 million in private donations each year. But some worry that bioethicists who accept such funding become puppets to the companies that subsidize their institutions. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently sent letters to more than 125 bioethics institutions and journals asking them to disclose their financial relationships, especially those with private industry. "There is a question as to what bioethics institutions and journals are doing to make sure that industry funding does not inappropriately influence the opinions and recommendations of bioethicists," says Virginia Sharpe, director of the Integrity in Science project at CSPI. THE ETHICAL BOARD The industry's increasing recruitment of bioethicists has been widely debated, as has the scope of the contributions. Most bioethics institutions don't publish such statistics, leaving the public to draw its own conclusions about conflicts of interest. Industry, on the other hand, trumpets the presence of bioethicists on the corporate payroll. Many companies staff institutional review boards (IRBs) with bioethicists to monitor their own research. But bringing such advisers on board does not guarantee that company officials will act ethically. "[The IRBs] are extremely useful to the companies that convene them," says Sharpe. When bioethicists lend their titles to companies, she continues, they suggest that they help oversee the company's actions, without necessarily doing so. "[IRBs] only reassure the public that the company is consulting with ethics advisers." Glenn McGee, professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, recalls such an experience during his stint on the IRB at Advanced Cell Technology, in Worcester, Mass. He resigned from his position when he learned the company hadn't consulted the IRB about a decision to clone the endangered wild gaur. "Companies can't always afford to tell the ethicists what they are doing," McGee says. "One PR [public relations] misstep and many small biotechs are out of business." Despite potential problems, some bioethicists lend their credibility to IRBs, making them privy to new and controversial research. The role of bioethicist as quotable source on bioethics for the media can be lucrative even when the salary is nominal. "They could charge you to be on the board like that and there still would be a line around the block for it," McGee says. "There's a lot of power and prestige to be had from working behind the curtain." IN FRONT OF THE CURTAIN Corporate contributions to ethicists have attracted critics who question whether ethicists can always be trusted to take care of ethics. When the University of Nottingham accepted £3.8 million from British American Tobacco (BAT) for a center on corporate responsibility, two professors and 20 researchers resigned, and the Cancer Research Campaign withdrew a £1.5 million donation. The protest stemmed from BAT's involvement in several lawsuits alleging that the company knowingly caused fatal diseases in smokers.1 Sharpe says corporate funding doesn't always taint bioethics research, and her letters merely encourage institutions to publish the names of financial supporters. "We advocate for full disclosure at the very least so readers can have the relevant information to draw their own conclusions about the findings and value of the research," Sharpe says. The Berman Bioethics Institute (BBI) at Johns Hopkins University established a policy on corporate support in October 1998 that includes full disclosure, says Ruth Faden, executive director. BBI set a cap limiting the contributions from any single source to 10% of the annual budget, she adds, which is about $6 million. Not more than 20% can come from industry. Faden says ignoring industry altogether would be naïve. "Money's not easy to come by, and if a corporation wants to give an annual gift, why not take it?" she asks. "The mindset that any corporate money is evil money is just silly." The Center for Bioethics at Penn aggressively seeks corporate funding, McGee says. Nevertheless, according to CSPI, the University of Pennsylvania was the only one of 89 institutions surveyed earlier this year that posted its conflict of interest policy and a complete list of funding sources on the web. The list has prompted scrutiny. "As a consequence of our disclosure, we're having to answer questions other people should be answering," McGee says. "So the advantage of being the first to do this is negligible." Shortly after CSPI released its letters calling for disclosure, the MBC posted its corporate sponsorship policy on the Web. Christopher says the policy allows acceptance only of gifts that have no strings attached. "The minute I start talking about a contribution, I say we can only accept it if it's completely unencumbered," Christopher says. The policy has not yet discouraged funders. "Aventis gave us this gift and walked away." Barbara Koenig, executive director of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, says criticism of corporate funding is unfair. Even National Institutes of Health grants often "have strings attached," she notes. "These institutions having to beg for money is the problem." Hal Cohen can be contacted at hcohen@the-scientist.com. 1. S. Cassidy, "Sponsorship: University torn apart by £3.8m tobacco deal," The Independent, June 19, 2001, p. 9.

Ethics on the Corporate Payroll

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of