Should scientific research be largely driven by commercial interests?

In 18th century Britain, an infectious disease, the smallpox virus, had taken the lives of many. Almost one in three who were infected were killed, while the rest were badly disfigured by the resultant scars left by the the infection. All that came to an end when a country doctor, Edward Jenner, created the first vaccine that was to rid the world of this disease. By the late twentieth, the smallpox has been extinct based on the World Health Organisation, but that again, Edward Jenner's gift to the world. After the discovery, he had refrained from patenting the vaccine as he feared that the cost of producing vaccines would be increased by his patent and the vaccine out of reach from the average person. Today, it would be unimaginable that any pharmaceutical conglomerate would squander millions on research and clinical trials just to leave out the opportunity to file patents and secure its revenue. Indeed, living in a world described as such, it is no wonder many lament that the pursuit of science has been commercialised at the expense of the welfare of society. However, to undermine the positive role of commercial institutions would be naive as we should also realise that all organisations exist to serve a purpose in society.

Some may argue that scientific research driven by commercial motives would make the products of scientific research too expensive for majority of society. There is some truth in the statement, as we frequently hear from opponents of certain fields of bioethics. Intellectual property rights that restrict the use of scientific discoveries and their associated products made in the corporate world have created monopolies that, given the freedom to make the most of their investments, have sold off their products at prices that more than cover for the cost of research and production of drugs, further widening the income gap by rewarding the rich with profits at the expense of the poor who are unable to obtain treatment. This was the basis when India disallowed the patenting of drugs in its domestic market, allow an Indian firm to produce generic drugs that have gone on to become the greatest supplier of drugs to fight HIV in poorer nations. While the move probably gained much support from the layman, this has removed the incentive for pharmaceutical corporations to invest in the research of drugs in India. If this had been done in more countries, it would be possible that corporations may no longer see any possible gain in researching into new drugs that would result in better cures, causing them to each wait for an opportunity to free ride on others efforts, which is especially notable in India where drug research is anemic, if even existent.

Opponents for profit driven scientific research also bring up the argument that profit motive degrades the moral values of researchers. History has shown us that it is not a far-fetched claim. Thomas Edison, known for his works in physics, most notably in the discovery of the direct current which brought electricity to households, was ruthless in his competition with George Westinghouse. Westinghouse's push for the alterating current threatened to rival and even take over his direct current supply lines as the dominant form of supplying electricity to households. This drove him to hold public campaigns on the dangers of the alternating current. Many would have heard of his famous experiment where he executed an elephant that had killed its carer, simply for the purpose of demonstrating the potential dangers of using his rival's works. These days, news of unethical practices in the research sector comes in the form of falsified research documents and experiments. These practices taken together are counter productive in the the pursuit of knowledge in the academic arena and are indeed a hindrance to the progress of science. However, many also fail to realise that in the business world, there is no place for incompetent work. Businesses eager to create new products and production methods are almost always open to scientific research that best suits their needs. In the example of Thomas Edison, Westinghouse's alternating current eventually became the staple for distribution of electricity due to its ability to transmit electricity across long distances to reach out to more households. Also, researchers who flaunt their falsified work are quickly discovered, just as the truth behind South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk's fraudulent experiments had been made know to the world soon after its release that had many crown him a great scientist of our times. In cutting edge times we live in today, we should never doubt the efficiency of the world to quickly sieve out the best solutions to our problems, as well as isolate and condemn those that threaten to halt our progress.

On the contrary, the ability of commercial organisations to increased rate of research has not been acknowledged enough. Corporations, with their great financial might, are able to command the wealth of societies and invest them into the development of new technologies and drugs. Corporate research and development efforts today account for over 70 percent of all research work done worldwide. Indeed, it is notable that militaries worldwide, with their push for more effective communication devices have been less successful than their counterparts in the corporate world, who have developed water resistant, dust-resistant and scratch proof phones more than capable of carrying out communication functions. Few can dispute that corporate research has been much too successful in this arena.

Also, the participation of commercial organisations ensures that scientific knowledge is turned into usable products. The pursuit of science by itself is only a process of gaining knowledge to catalogue the workings of the physical world. The business world, however, is more concerned with creating products to supply the need of society. After all, only products needed by society will be able to sustain corporations and bring in profits. By combining the two, we are able to ensure that the pursuit of knowledge is translated into progress in society when the knowledge gained by scientists are in turn used to build new objects with practical uses in society. For example, the understanding of the basis of cancer is a subject of research in many universities, as much as it is a widely researched field in corporate research. However, until now, not a single drug for treatment of cancer has originated from universities. This is because universities are institutions of learning and exploration of the frontiers of our understanding of the world but it does not play a role in, or have a responsibility to help solve the problems of mankind. Corporations, however, are sustained by the continued patronage of customers. This ties them in with the needs of the community and makes their work skewed towards the needs of the people. Thus commercial interests are not necessary for scientific research to take place, but it is almost always necessary for scientific research to benefit society.

Finally, commercial interests help in the democritisation of technologies. Few organisations in the world take on research and development roles. Other than universities and educational institutions, it could be argued that the only other organisation that undertakes scientific research at a large scale are governments, being one of the few organisations with the incentive and financial might to do so. However, unlike governments, commercial organisations help to spread technologies to more communities around the world in order to increase its profits. Many of us would be familiar with the development of military technologies by governments worldwide, especially in the field of unmanned aerial drones for surveillance. These technologies have played a crucial role in the wars against insurgents. However, their usage in civilian populations has not seen much of an increase despite rapid development of such technologies, and their possible applications in fields such as crowd surveillance by private security firms and land surveillance by investment firms. This is because countries that have developed these technologies feel that the technologies are strategic and should not be "leaked" to the public. Profit motive of corporations, however, would bring about the widespread use of any product from scientific research undertaken by corporations. This is because corporations are not bound by obligations to restrict their sales to interested individuals or organisations which are viewed as rivals, being protected by intellectual property rights. Hence, it is only when scientific research is driven by commercial interests that it would be truly possible for there to be widespread use of developed technologies.

To take all views into perspective, scientific research should be largely driven by commercial interests, but actively monitored by organisations accountable to the people. Commercial interests are crucial in guiding scientific research towards improving the lives of people and not simply be for the intellectual pursuits of scientists not accountable to the general population. However, as with all systems, corporations have their Achilles heel, which is their susceptibility to dishonest practices. This is why there is a need for them to be monitored. After all, in a world where more than half of the world's largest economies are transnational corporations, it would be easier to ride the wave of corporate expansion and tap on their plentiful resources rather than attempt to fight them.

Is the poor an inevitable feature in every society?

The dust has finally settled. Disgruntled men and women who rallied on the streets in demonstrations unseen in western societies in recent years have been displaced from news headlines as other conflicts like the territorial disputes in East Asia, and the aftermath of natural disasters on unprecedented scale hog the attention of the media and investors. But we should not stop pondering about the rich poor divide that has segregated nations of peace loving people and thrown societies into chaos. Have the poor really been compromised on certain grounds that should warrant a makeover in the way we run the capitalist free society? Indeed, it has brought about problems that stem from the inequity supported by this system, but in my opinion, there are few other ways to promote efficient societies that bring us the material standard of living that has lifted the masses out of abject poverty that was the characteristic of the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Income inequity does bring about problems. Income inequity has the potential to destabilise societies, putting the economic engine to a halt. When faced with great income inequity, workers who take a smaller share of the economic pie often lose their productivity by taking part in strikes call for by labour unions, be it the white protesters in Wall Street or the blue collar workers in the Foxconn plant in China. Most modern economies are built on the assumption that welfare of people in society should be supported by a basic level of material wealth that promises to relief them of problems like malnutrition, sickness and exposure to the elements of mother nature. This is the most basic goal of most governments even though it is never written in any charter or constitution. All that is threatened when the state of the economy is thrown into a standstill by the unhappiness of men and women who feel the have been left behind by the affluent high society.

Also, income inequity can translate into a setback to the aim for equality among men. For ages, men of great financial clout have been able to bend the will of fellow men, to subject groups of people to their control and to force those around them into submission. That is why the French Revolution was founded upon the principles of "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity", to reverse the grossly imbalanced world that had lasted through centuries. Today, that revolution is being reversed by the ridiculous inequity that exists in capitalist societies. The free market was never a place for equality. In the free market, businesses follow the lead of the "money vote", of which each man holds unequal amounts of depending on their purchasing power. Even political systems have become slaves to money. In the super PAC of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson - the CEO of a major player in the global gaming industry - had donated a stunning USD 36 million, and was quoted saying "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing politics, but as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it". It seems even democratic systems that had hoped to represent the voices of most if not all citizens equally through a system of "one man, one vote" had failed to rid itself of the influences of the wealthy.

However, we should also realise that inequality is an important driving force for progress in society. In capitalist societies, inequality arises because individuals are paid differently depending on their ability to carry out tasks assigned to them as well as the number of tasks they are willing to devote their time to completing. Such tasks usually aim to create value in society, as individuals work as an integral part of a firm that supplies society with the goods and services that improve the lives of people. But without an incentive, few individuals would probably have chosen to work less or give up on working as not all share this inspired vision. Inequality of income gives people the reason to work harder to achieve a better life, depending on their goals. By promising a greater share of the country or organisation's financial gains, people are motivated to work harder than their peers as they realise that society recognises their additional contribution and rewards them proportionally.

Also, job prospects are different for every job, and the nature of jobs themselves vary. In occupations that demand high level of skills or intelligence, high salaries are given to attract people to undergo the necessary training and to enter the field. For example, the training process of a doctor is notoriously long, spanning at least 5 years at a university. Some jobs also require talented individuals due to the large impacts of their decisions. In a study where CEOs were followed and their daily decisions studied, it was found that an average CEO makes 120 decisions a week of which around 50% are done within 9 minutes.This represents a tremendous strain on the concentration and analytical capabilities of individuals in such posts, where they have to make possibly multi-million dollar decisions within time constraints dealt to them by the large number of problems competing for their attention. Without the possibility of making up for the losses involved in terms of taking up a less taxing job or spending the lengthy training time on leisure activities or on an alternative career, few would be willing to devote themselves to these jobs.

To put all views into context, the poor is indeed an inevitable feature in society, if poor is to be defined in relative terms with their counterparts of the same day and age. It is impossible and even dangerous to imagine a world where everyone enjoys the same material wealth in spite of differences in their contribution to society. At the same time, it would foolish to think that high income inequality can be sustained in the age of the individual, where people are more vocal about their personal needs and wants. To walk the fine line between both is perhaps the eternal challenge of developed nations. But more importantly, while it may be true that sentiments against the rich in the countries mentioned are worthy of our attention, we should also remember that these same protesters are probably enjoying a much higher material standard living than our predecessors. After all, the industrial revolution had done so much to lift humanity out of poverty that even with the inequality that exists, the poorest of today might well be richer than some of the richer individuals of the past. In that aspect, all of us in the developed world are the same.