Science without morality
by Mischa Gelman

  A year ago, I wrote about one of the seven deadly social sins delineated
by Gandhi - education without character. It is not the sole such sin
we're committing though in modern America - we are also violating another
of those set forward by the Mahatma, that of science without humanity.
Across the country, science has become subverted to big business and its
whims, losing sight of more altruistic missions.
  The most prominent example is that of pharmaceutical research. Drug
companies are investing heavily in research for such serious conditions as
baldness, wrinkles and toenail fungus. Obviously, a market is seen - and
as a result our scientific research is directed at the market, rather than
at serious human needs. For instance, malaria kills over a million people
a year and tuberculosis approximately two million, but since these
conditions are plaguing those in poor countries, the drug companies and
researchers turn a blind eye to the problem. Instead, the burden falls to
underfunded government scientists, who are producing new medications at a
thirtieth of the cost of private industry. From 1975 to 1997, only
thirteen of 1,223 new medications from multinational pharmaceutical
companies were aimed at tropical diseases. What's more important to
scientific researchers - male pattern baldness or millions of deaths?
Sadly, our misdirected science says the former.
  The problems with medical research aren't limited to the experimentation
stage, as if that weren't a serious enough problem. US Today has recently
uncovered another disturbing fact - that the approval process is also
handled by industry insiders. In the last two and a half years, 92% of FDA
advisory committee meetings had at least one member with a financial
conflict of interest. At over of meetings, most of the advisers had a
conflict of interest. With researchers being bankrolled by industry, we
are left without objective reviewers - is it any surprise, then, that we
occasionally err on the side of the drug companies that they are
materialistically connected to?
  Of course, the problem is hardly just in the medical research field.
When it comes to biotechnology, Monsanto and other agribusiness giants,
often have backed money over morality in their scientific research. When
Dr. Arpad Pusztai found potential dangers with genetically engineered
potatoes, he was fired from the Monsanto-funded institute where he worked.
Obviously, they were only willing to back scientists who supported their
hype. Similarly, when Dr. Louis Priybl and other FDA scientists spoke out
about potential dangers, their views were ignored by FDA bureaucrats. Is
it any shocker that many FDA officials have ties to biotech companies and
would want to quiet any scientific doubts about the products put out by
those corporations? How can the scientists best serve humanity when money
talks louder than the public interest?
  In Britain, the situation is sadly no better, as George Monbiot reports
in the Manchester Guardian. The Office of Science and Technology was made
subservient to the Department of Trade and Industry during the 90s.
Research councils are now chaired by businessmen rather than scientists.
Corporations are now demanding public funding for research on the
psychology of consumption. More money is spent on oil and gas research
than on renewable energy sources (thanks to oil industry bribes). More
than 30 times as much is spent on research about genetically engineered
food than on organic food research - and, as Monbiot points out, the
former has such a limited market that industry fights labels, for fear no
one will buy their goods. Meanwhile, the market in organic food is
booming. 
   By focusing on what the moneyed interests want, we abandon humanity,
just as Gandhi warned us about. Let's set our scientific priorities
straight. Let's dedicate research to moral ends rather than monetary ends.

  Mischa Gelman would like to thank everyone who reviewed various drafts
of this article. All errors are of course his own.