Industry-Supported Labs Battle To Gain Respect

PALO ALTO, CALIF.—It wasn’t very good news for the public.., or for the electric power industry. Researchers had found that sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants could aggravate the condition of asthmatics. But the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), which financed the research, didn’t flinch. EPRI was created in 1972 to support research on subjects that are important to the electric utility industry. Its $379 million annual budget comes entirely from contributions by its 700 members. But that long list of subjects, which includes a search for more efficient fuels, a better understandmg of earthquakes, and an investigation into the health effects of power transmission lines, contains many issues that affect the public. And emissions from coal-burning plants is one of them. That meant the findings—that asthmatics reported temporary bouts of coughing and wheezing induced by exercising near the power plants— belonged in the open literature. So EPRI had them published in a succession of peer-reviewed journals. In addition to widely disseminating that information, the research institute was preserving its reputation for being a scientific straight shooter. It’s a reputation that EPRI officials have worked hard to earn. The results of research funded by industry consortia or trade association are becoming a staple in the public debate over scientific and technical questions that affect society, and growing number of organizations are entering the fray (see story or page. 10). But the supposedly hard data on controversial issues are often greeted with suspicion by those who look at who has funded the work. Part of the problem, of course, is The 1991 Budget: More Promises, Less Money Bush is likely to propose funding increases for science, but the federal deficit will force cutbacks and cancellations the shabby historical record of certain industries in cases in which negative results were seen as a threat to the health of the industry. In company-sponsored research on such product hazards as ‘asbestos, cigarette smoking, and dioxins, for example, data generated by company scientists fell on the deaf ears of top executives, or were deliberately hidden from the public. As a consequence, industry-backed, institutes must struggle to overcome the perception that their results are shaped more by corporate dogma than scientific truth. But some have succeeded in building a solid scientific reputation. And many offer scientists a middle ground between ivory-tower academic research and product-driven industrial science. “As far as we can tell, their work seems to be reliable—and it’s useful,” says William Moomaw, director of the climate, energy, and pollution program for the World Resources Institute, about EPRI’s work. Moomaw, whose organization is an independent think tank based in Washington, D.C., has heard scientists from industry-backed institutes speak at many conferences and scientific panels.. At the same time, he makes clear that his comments don’t apply to all such institutes. “I haven’t found that [reliability] to be true for the Tobacco Institute,” he says, referring to the cigarette manufacturers’ group that has tried to rebut the mountains of evidence linking smoking to heart and lung disease. The definition of what constitutes an industry-funded research entity is vague. Those who follow them say it is sometimes difficult to make clear distinctions among consortia, institutes, and trade associations. EPRI represents the type of organization whose primary purpose is to conduct research in fields in which hazards can affect the public health and safety. Other industry-funded consortia, such as the newly formed Sematech or the older Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp. (MCC), were created primarily to combat a commercial threat from foreign manufacturers and, therefore, do not engage in research that affects the public directly. Despite the imprecision of exactly how many such consortia exist, their number is expected to grow rapidly in the next decade. Given today’s pressure to show results on the bottom line, along with the interdisciplinary nature of many of the problems, it’s virtually impossible for corporations to finance all their own research and development. Aided by federal legislation that is meant to ease restrictions on cooperative basic research enterprises, firms in fields ranging from semi-conductors to chemicals are joining together to develop new products and manufacturing techniques. And much of the research is being done through such joint institutes, either by their own staff or by funding outside researchers. For scientists, working in such an institute is dramatically different from working in either industry or academe. One advantage is that they don’t have to hunt desperately for funds, as their academic colleagues do. Another is that they aren’t tied to a project in which success rests on getting to market before one’s competitors. In many cases, researchers also serve as administrators—farming out work to scientists at universities, government labs, and industry. While ‘the resulting emphasis on applied research is not for everyone, it does appeal to some scientists. “I think it’s a very good place if you want a lot of responsibility and want to really get involved in doing some good, practical kinds of things,” says Irvine J. Solomon,chief scientist for the Gas Research Institute (GRI) in Chicago. “You start with an idea and a few years later you see a commercial product.” Indeed, metallurgist John Stringer discovered that a research institute was just what he was looking for. He joined EPRI in 1977 after 17 years at the University of Liverpool. “Everything that can happen in a university, I’d already seen— sometimes two or three times,” says Stringer. At the same time, industry seemed too focused on little projects. He adds, “This presented what I thought was an interesting opportunity for really doing something much broader.” Stringer now doles out grants to universities, industry, and even other institutes in an attempt to develop products that bridge the gap between basic academic research and the narrowly focused, incremental approach taken by many companies. EPRI scientists draw up a three-year ‘plan (soon they will be asked to do one that extends for 10 years) that is evaluated annually by management and outside advisers. For instance, the research on sulfur dioxide emissions is part of a broader effort to understand, and eventually control, the effluence from power plants. EPRI typically owns any patents resulting from research performed under its contracts, but it shares with its partners any royalties from licenses granted as a result of new inventions. This type of operation offers scientists the chance to develop practical tools that can transform an industry. Stringer himself helped to start EPRI’s Clean Steel Project, which began seven years ago as a small academic effort to improve the toughness of steel rotors in steam turbines by reducing impurities like sulfur and manganese. Now the rotors are being produced and readied for the commercial sector. “That project,” says Stringer, “is a great source of satisfaction to me,” because it allowed him to solve a scientific problem in a way that also offered an immediate payoff. The GRI, an industry-funded consortium, employs some 100 scientists in fields ranging from environmental researchers to engineers. Its handling of research between in-house and contract work is very similar to the division at EPRI. On the other hand, the 11-year-old Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) in Research Triangle Park, N.C., runs an extensive intramural program. The institute operates on a $14.7 million annual budget—provided by 44 industry members—and employs some 45 Ph.D. scientists who carry out research on an array of subjects. But no matter how the research is conducted, a pressing question for all such institutes is how the public—including other scientists— perceives the quality of their science. Although it’s a matter that doesn’t affect organizations such as Sematech, the giant Texas-based consortium that develops manufacturing techniques for semiconductor producers and technical reports for a limited audience, it is vital for those groups whose members must maintain good public images. Better Than Good “That’s a continual problem,” admits Irwin Billick, a principal scientist for GRI. “There is a reluctance on the part of some people to share data with us because they feel we’re an industry group and we don’t have objectivity—that we take their data and misuse it.” Such an attitude has forced Billick to bend over backward to demonstrate his objectivity. Says Billick: “I’ve often felt that our research has to be of a higher quality and more open than what’s done even by some universities and government, because we’re always going to be suspected of being an apologist for industry.” Billick’s work involves the quality of indoor air, specifically, how levels of nitrogen dioxide are affected by gas combustion. He says he has never felt pressure to hide information from the public. “I think the gas industry has to realize that it is producing a pollutant and that they have to know how much it is and what level,” he says. To illustrate the benefits of dealing openly with the public, Billick cites current work on the factors that influence levels of nitrogen dioxide. While it is not known at what levels nitrogen dioxide becomes harmful, the gas is most prevalent in homes with pilot lights and where residents use the gas range for space heating. As a result, he suggests that utilities seek to reduce the risk to the public by encouraging people to install electronic pilots and not use the range for household heating. Disseminating such information through an autonomous research institute, rather than an individual company or group of companies, can help counteract the reputation that some individual firms have acquired of hiding research from the public, says toxicologist Ellen Silbergeld, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a Washington, D.C.-based activist organization. The corporate conduct of Johns Manville with regard to the safety of asbestos, or of Monsanto with regard to PCBs and dioxin, says Silbergeld, has made the public suspicious of any scientific claims by industry. Research institutes have adopted several strategies to protect themselves against charges that they produce biased results. In fact, public perception is one reason why some institutes farm out their research. “We believe that outside contracts protect us substantially from the suspicion of bias,” asserts EPRI’s Stephen Peck, the present director of EPRI’s environmental division. Indeed, the list of those doing environmental research for EPRI includes scientists at Ivy League universities like Yale and Columbia as well as those at such prominent research institutes as the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio. Every respected institute also subscribes to peer review and uses scientific advisers—university, regulatory, and industry scientists— who are intimately familiar with the field under study. (James Popp, vice president and head of CIIT’s department of pathology and toxicology proudly notes, for example, that among his organization’s advisers is Curtis Harris, chief of the laboratory of human carcinogenesis at the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute.) Of course, no institute is perfect. Moomaw, of the World Resources Institute, says that the biggest fault of industry backed institutes is their limited perspective. That narrow view, he adds, may reflect the interests of their financial backers. “They tend to think fairly conventionally about what the options are,” he says. As an example, Moomaw notes that EPRI has almost completely ignored cogeneration—in which larger utilities buy power from smaller companies to meet some OF the demand and, therefore, reduce the need for new power plants—-despite the fact it has been shown to work in Europe. Look More Closely Moomaw also believes that it’s difficult to ignore the source of one’s funding. “I’m sure they check some of those [results] that look less favorable more than those that look more favorable,” he says. “And I guess that’s only natural.” Still, by holding to scientific principles of openness and peer review, institutes can produce results that are not only objective, but important to science and public policy. Moomaw credits the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy—a coalition of companies that manufacture chlorofluorocarbons—for replicating studies that showed how CFCs deplete the ozone layer in the earth’s atmosphere. And he gives other institutes—like EPRI and GRI—a clean bill of health, as well. Moomaw isn’t alone in his praise for some industry-funded research. EDF’s Silbergeld lauds the work of CIIT under the leadership of recently retired Robert A. Neal. She says that the institute was the first to publish data showing that formaldehyde was carcinogenic, and notes that Neal attracted many top scientists who never shiedaway from tough issues, she says. Although a few top scientists left CIIT when their mentor retired last year, she says that she hopes his successor will pick up where he left off. “I hope industry perceives that this has been a good institute,” she says, “because I think we need more institutes like this.” Robert Buderi is a freelance writer based in San Francisco.

Industry-Supported Labs Battle To Gain Respect

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of