The scientific consensus of public, academic scientists tells us that:
1. The earth's climate is warming, with at least a component of human cause
2. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth and continues
3. Transgenic trangenic (GMO) food crops are safe and effective
4. Vaccines are a tremendous, safe cornerstone in public health.
5. Stem cell based therapies show great promise and some application now
Every one of these statements is a well supported hypothesis. Each is based on substantial data from different experiments and models, from many independent labs, worldwide.
Critics suggest that such data and conclusions only are present because academic scientists are "bought and paid for" by big corporations. The allegation is that corporations dictate what is to be studied, what will be funded and what results will be obtained, and what may be published.
According to critics, who's bought off, who does the buying?
1. Climate change scientists- George Soros, liberal media
2. Evolution scientists- liberal media, secular humanist and atheist groups, the ACLU, National Academies of Science, Family Guy.
3. GMO scientists: Monsanto
4. Vaccine science: "big pharma"
5. Stem cells: Liberal government operatives that want to kill babies.
I've even endured this personally. Lay people that disagree with my evidence-based-food stance tell me that none of my work matters because it is all paid for by Pepsico and Monsanto, simply because those companies have minor product licensing agreements with my university.
This argument comes up frequently in discussion of these topics, so I thought I'd take a look. How much of our research is corporate sponsored? How "bought and paid for" are we?
First, I went to an easy source at my university, the University of Florida. The Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) publishes their financials every year. You can find this online here.
How much Big Corporation money did we spend? Not that much. It is buried somewhere in that "other sponsored funds" piece of the money pie.
If corporations are fueling scientific discovery at universities,
they sure aren't contributing too much. Somewhere in "Other Sponsored Funds"
Now wait, I can hear critics already screaming that "other sponsored funds" is almost 10% of the research dollars spent, and that's a significant amount at a place like the University of Florida. So let's use the record to break that down:
Yikes. Corporate sponsorship is a pretty small sliver of that pie.
So about two percent of our funds come from corporate interests. For the anti-scientific critics out there, that's about two dollars out of every hundred.
If we are bought and paid for, we're bought really cheap and not paid well.
In reality, you can check any individual's research funding, as all of these records are publicly available. Me, I can state that I've never received corporate financing. Not a penny. I do get some support from farm-industry groups, but these are associations of farmers, not corporate interests.
And I am the rule, not the exception. Very few of my colleagues have corporate sponsors.
The other piece of tangential evidence backing my claim of low-corporate involvement in academic science is that public universities are suffering from massive cutbacks. Whole departments are shrinking or are cut, state and federal resources are harder to obtain, and funding research is harder than it has been in a long time.
Meanwhile Wall Street rolls along, recovered and soaring as the stock markets reach new highs and corporate profits exceed old records. The corporate world is driving forward, and if they are really sponsoring research in public universities they can't be paying too much.
Maybe these activist causes should consider who academic researchers really work for. Them.
** Since first posting of this blog I have received some minimal corporate support for a small project in testing gene regulatory sequences. It is not from MON, DOW, Bayer, etc.