Should academic institutions avoid financial support from industry for life science research? That's the message from Blumenthal et al.
Based on a survey of 2,052 faculty members at 50 universities, Bluementhal et al. reported that
- Industry-funded faculty members are as productive academically as those who are not industry funded.
- Industry funded faculty members are more productive commercially (i.e., patent applications and new product on the market) than those who are not industry funded.
- Industry funded faculty are more likely to restrict their communication with colleagues.
- High levels of industry support are associated with less academic activity but not proportional increases in commercial productivity.
Blumenthal et al. recommended that
...academic institutions should be moderate and vigilante in their pursuit of industrial support for research in the life sciences.
I guess I should agree with Blumenthal et al. After all, who wants scientists to be commercially productive (i.e., developing useful scientific knowledge or new medical technology)?
I think we need more government-funded research so that we can continue to beat the usual dead horses to death (e.g., dioxin, electromagnetic fields, climate change, ozone depletion, environmental estrogens, second-hand smoke, etc.)
Oh, by the way, did I mention that the Blumenthal et al. study was funded by — who else — the National Institutes of Health?!