[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Fwd: [Fwd: Defining Public-Interest Research (Loka Alert 6:3)]
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Defining Public-Interest Research (Loka Alert 6:3)
>Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 07:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
>From: LOKA INSTITUTE <loka@amherst.edu>
>To: loka-alert@egroups.com
>
>
>Please Repost Widely Loka Alert 6:3 (9 July
>1999)
>Where Appropriate
>
>
> DEFINING PUBLIC-INTEREST RESEARCH
>
>Friends & Colleagues:
>
> IN THIS LOKA ALERT: A group of scholars and activists
>assembled by the nonprofit Science & Environmental Health Network
>(SEHN), Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture, Research & Education
>(CSARE) and the Center for Rural Affairs (CRA) proposes a definition
>for "public-interest research." Their concern is to help concerned
>citizens and public agencies distinguish research that genuinely
>advances a common good from research that merely pretends to do so.
>The authors welcome comments on their working definition.
>
> This is one in an occasional series on the democratic politics
>of research, science, and technology issued free of charge by the
>nonprofit Loka Institute. To be added to the Loka Alert E-mail
>list,
>or to reply to this post, please send a message to
><Loka@amherst.edu>.
>To be removed from the list, just send an E-mail with no subject or
>message text to <loka-alert-unsubscribe@egroups.com>. IF YOU SEND
>US A SUBSTANTIVE REPLY, LET US KNOW IF WE MAY REPOST YOUR NOTE to
>one of Loka's online discussion forums. And if you enjoy Loka
>Alerts, please invite interested friends & colleagues to subscribe
>too. Thank you!
>
> Cheers to all,
> Dick Sclove, Research Director, The Loka Institute
> E-mail <Loka@amherst.edu>, Web <http://www.loka.org>
> P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA
>
>**********************************************************************
> CONTENTS
>
>1. Defining Public-Interest Research, by Carolyn
> Raffensperger and 9 co-authors........................ (6
>pages)
>
>2. What You Can Do To Advance the Concept & Practice
> of Public-Interest Research............................ (1/3
>page)
>
>3. Internships at the Loka Institute.................... (1
>paragraph)
>
>4. About the Loka Institute................................ (1/2
>page)
>
>**********************************************************************
>
>
> (1) DEFINING PUBLIC-INTEREST RESEARCH
>
> A White paper written for the Science and Environmental Health
> Network; The Center for Rural Affairs; and the Consortium for
> Sustainable Agriculture, Research and Education
>
>
>By: Carolyn Raffensperger, M.A., J.D. (Science & Environmental
> Health Network)
> Scott Peters, Ph.D. (Cornell University)
> Fred Kirschenmann, Ph.D. (Kirschenmann Family Farms)
> Ted Schettler, M.D., M.P.H. (Science & Environmental Health
>Network)
> Katherine Barrett (University of British Columbia)
> Mary Hendrickson, Ph.D. (University of Missouri)
> Dana Jackson (Land Stewardship Project)
> Rick Voland (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
> Kim Leval (Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture, Research &
> Education and the Center for Rural Affairs)
> David Butcher (Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group)
>
>
> [Editor's Introduction: Co-author Carolyn Raffensperger
>explains
>that the following working paper grows out of a concern that
>publically funded research sometimes runs contrary to any reasonable
>definition of the public good. A good example is the U.S. Dept. of
>Agriculture's involvement in developing the "Terminator Technology"
>--
>a biotechnological technique for rendering agricultural seed self-
>sterile, so that farmers are prevented from setting seed aside for
>use
>in future seasons. The working paper attempts to develop criteria
>for
>distinguishing such socially dubious or detrimental research from
>research that genuinely advances a public or common good.]
>
> [Carolyn Raffensperger <craffensperger@compuserve.com> is the
>Executive Director of the Science & Environmental Health Network and
>also Chair of the Board of the Loka Institute.]
>
>
> DEFINING PUBLIC-INTEREST RESEARCH
>
> It is in the interest of science, government agencies, and
>advocates for the public interest alike to develop a clear, coherent
>definition of "public interest research." When the connections among
>science, government, and the public interest are murky and
>inconsistent, both good science and the public interest suffer.
>
> Yet neither government agencies, universities, nor nonprofit
>organizations have defined what constitutes research in the public
>interest. Agreeing on a definition is important. Science and
>technological advances may serve the common good, private profit, or
>both; but when public money is involved, the public has a right to
>expect that research it has funded will serve the public interest.
>Moreover, when private interests may result in public harm, it is
>the
>duty of public agencies to support public interest over private
>interests.
>
> The authors of this paper--a diverse group of scientists,
>sustainable agriculture practitioners, environmentalists, health
>care
>providers, and others--propose the following working definition of
>public interest research, encompassing both ends and means:
>
> Public interest research aims at developing knowledge and/or
>technology that increases the commonwealth. Such research requires
>complex problem-solving and will involve at least the economic,
>social, and environmental dimensions of people and natural
>resources.
>It will require that insights from these different ways of knowing
>be
>synthesized, and that an active citizenry be involved. (Peters,
>1999)
>
> Such research will be identified by its beneficiaries, the
>public
>availability of its results, and public involvement in the research.
>These key benchmarks identify public interest research:
>
> * The primary, direct beneficiaries are society as a whole or
> specific populations or entities unable to carry out research
>on
> their own behalf.
>
> * Information and technologies resulting from public interest
> research are made freely available (not proprietary or
>patented);
> and
>
> * Such information and technologies are developed with
> collaboration or advice from an active citizenry.
>
>
> "Public" means "not private." Most research done in the private
>interest is done for the financial gain of a limited, circumscribed
>group. Research done in the public interest will seldom involve such
>direct financial gain to the developers and will benefit a community
>or the commons.
>
> The following questions may help clarify these three elements:
>
> IDENTIFYING THE BENEFICIARY OF RESEARCH: Whose problem is being
>addressed? What new sources of economic and political power will
>emerge as a result? Who benefits from any scientific uncertainty
>surrounding the solution?
>
> MAKING RESULTS FREELY AVAILABLE: How are the data and results
>of
>publicly funded research kept in the public domain? Are they made
>available through the internet, public libraries, newsletters, press
>releases for media stories? Who decides how such results are used?
>
> INVOLVING CITIZENS IN RESEARCH: Has an active citizenry been
>involved in or signed off on the research?
>
> Finally, an important set of questions has to do with
>PROTECTING
>THE PUBLIC FROM RESEARCH THAT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: Will
>new
>problems be created by solving an old one? Who may be harmed as a
>result? Is science being used to delay or obfuscate action? Will the
>citizenry and natural resources be protected by precautionary
>measures, if results are uncertain?
>
>
>IDENTIFYING THE BENEFICIARIES
>
> What problem is the research in question trying to address? Is
>it
>a public question, or does it address a private concern? If the
>latter, has public funding been used against the public interest?
>
> The U.S. Department of Agriculture carried out research for
>Delta
>and Pineland Co. on genetically engineering seed to make it sterile
>in
>the second generation, thus forcing farmers to buy seed every year.
>This "Terminator Technology" did not address a public question.
>Instead, it addressed a question posed by a private corporation
>attempting to protect its investment.
>
> Terminator, like much of today's research, is directed toward
>product development for purposes of global trade and economic
>development. Some segments of the public will benefit from such
>research indirectly as the balance of trade is enhanced and the
>gross
>national product expanded. Yet the principal, direct beneficiary is
>the corporation manufacturing and selling the product.
>
> Use of public funds to support research in the private interest
>is questionable at best. In this case, the technology is
>demonstrably
>detrimental to a large segment of the public. Terminator technology
>thus falls outside the bounds of public interest research and should
>not have been publicly funded.
>
> Contrast the research by J. Lewis and his colleagues at the
>Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
>examining the systemic response of plants to predators. This
>research
>is likely to promote systems that perpetuate themselves in nature,
>enhancing ecosystem services and long-term environmental health. All
>of this is clearly in the larger public interest.
>
> Research on global climate change, teen pregnancies, endocrine
>disruption, and worker health and safety are examples of questions
>that fall squarely in the public domain.
>
> A research problem may be posed so that it either falls
>squarely
>in the public interest or veers away from it. For instance,
>preventing
>cancer is unquestionably in the public interest. However, curing
>cancer is a grayer area, since the primary beneficiaries are not
>only
>cancer sufferers but also drug companies who benefit financially
>from
>the research. Moreover, the cancer patients who benefit may be those
>who can afford to pay for the technology, and not the cancer
>population as a whole. If the research is publicly funded, the
>unequal
>distribution of both financial and health gains resulting from the
>research raises ethical questions.
>
> The Terminator technology also illuminates the question of
>economic and political power. By engineering seed sterility and
>preventing farmers from saving seed, large corporations garner
>unprecedented power over the world's food supply. In contrast,
>research by Miguel Altieri on small-scale food systems keeps
>economic
>power at a local level, enhancing the ability of farmers to fit
>their
>farming practices into sustainable cultural and ecological niches.
>The
>former represents private interest; the latter represents public
>interest.
>
> In developing the public policy agenda and allocating public
>funding, we believe that research that is clearly in the public
>interest should receive the highest priority.
>
> The question of who benefits from scientific uncertainty
>surrounding the solution to a research question is a more subtle and
>very important way to identify the beneficiary of research.
>Agricultural, public health, and environmental questions have
>potentially large societal impacts but also are areas of significant
>scientific uncertainty. For example:
>
> * We do not know for certain whether global climate change will
> adversely affect the planet. But petroleum companies benefit
>from
> that uncertainty if it allows them to continue expanding their
> use of polluting technologies and to profit financially from
> those technologies.
>
> * We do not know for certain what health effects PVC toys laden
> with plasticizers will have on children who chew them. The toy
> industry benefits financially from the uncertainty so long as
> PVCs are not banned for such use.
>
> * Pesticide manufacturers benefit from the absence of conclusive
> proof that their products disrupt endocrine function in humans
> and wildlife.
>
>
> In these cases, industries benefit from the failure of
>researchers to produce conclusive evidence of harm, in situations
>where absolute proof of harm is elusive. The public and the
>environment, meanwhile, bear the cost.
>
>
>KEEPING RESULTS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
>
> The issue of who owns the results of publicly funded research
>is
>complex and a continuing matter for debate in the scientific
>community. Much of this research is carried out in universities,
>which
>many would consider to be appropriate custodians of the public
>domain.
>Most current practices are built around this assumption. For
>instance,
>many universities require a potential source of research funds to
>agree that the university and the researchers retain the right to
>make
>decisions about publication of results of research. Federal law
>requires that inventions resulting from federally funded projects
>must
>be disclosed to the university where the research was carried out.
>Researchers at some universities may be free to choose the fate of
>the
>invention.
>
> But others argue that universities represent yet another form
>of
>private interest. As universities accept private funding it becomes
>increasingly difficult for them to uphold the public interest.
>Private
>interests set priorities that may not be in the public interest.
>Both
>private funding and government funding may come laden with secrecy
>requirements. Secrecy cuts off public debate both within the
>university and within the larger community about whether such
>research
>and its results serve the public interest.
>
> Some would say that keeping information in the public domain
>does
>not rule out profit. The computer industry is experiencing the
>benefits of freely available programs and operating systems
>developed
>by volunteers. In some cases, companies continue to invest in
>systems
>they will not be able to own, and both the public and the company
>profit from the development this stimulates. But others wonder
>whether
>research that results in financial gain to universities, hospitals,
>and corporations qualifies as public interest research.
>
> American agriculture and society as a whole have benefited from
>the freely available information coming from publicly funded
>experimental stations and universities. This has begun to change,
>however, as patent laws assign ownership to information developed at
>public expense. While the privilege of patenting genes and organisms
>encourages investment in research and marketing to exploit these
>technologies, it also directs public money to private gain.
>
> When public funds have supported any aspect of research, it is
>difficult to reconcile the issuing of patents and the sealing off of
>proprietary information with the public interest.
>
>
>INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
>
> Public interest research is characterised by "extended peer"
>communities, that is, it reaches beyond traditional narrow fields of
>expertise in large part because public interest research is often
>multi-disciplinary and involves policy questions. Accordingly,
>scientists involved in public interest research have the opportunity
>to test their work against a wider public and a wider variety of
>knowledge. The tension that will inevitably result between experts
>and nonexperts can also be productive. Such collaboration can lead
>to
>more robust and cost-effective science. (Peters, 1999)
>
> Members of the public have identified and helped define
>numerous
>problems, stimulating research carried out in the public interest.
>Laypeople can make important contributions to the research itself by
>offering observations, firsthand and over periods of time, about
>changes in an ecology or in public health. For example:
>
> * Schoolchildren in Minnesota were the first to observe
>widespread
> deformations in frogs in the area. This observation resulted in
> an international effort to understand the causes of those
> deformations.
>
> * Mothers in Woburn, Massachusetts, observed a horrifying
>increase
> in leukemia in their neighborhoods. In collaboration with
> scientists and physicians, they traced the cause to drinking
> water contamination.
>
> * Ordinary citizens first called Rachel Carson's attention to
>dying
> birds, leading to Carson's landmark discoveries linking DDT to
> numerous environmental consequences.
>
>
>PROTECTING THE PUBLIC
>
> It is precisely because many results of apparently benign
>technological development cannot be foreseen that public involvement
>in research and the research agenda is so important. The public
>often
>serves as guinea pigs and victims of technological developments,
>even
>while supporting them with their tax dollars.
>
> In technological advances, the solution sometimes becomes the
>problem. Although insecticides kill a target insect, they may also
>kill predators that previously kept pests in check. DDT, CFCs, the
>automobile, and atomic energy have all had unintended, serious, and
>expensive consequences. The technology of genetic engineering is
>rapidly changing the face of agriculture and medicine, but its
>potential social, environmental, or public health consequences have
>not been addressed. We have not successfully adopted scientific
>review
>practices that predict consequences of technologies that mayhave
>broad
>geographical and temporal impacts.
>
> When a public entity or a "common"--the ozone layer, farmers,
>marine resources, public health--will be damaged by a solution to a
>research question, the research is the antithesis of public interest
>and should not be undertaken with public money. This is especially
>true when those adversely affected have no means of defending
>themselves.
>
> In cases of scientific uncertainty--when a problem threatens
>great but as yet unproven or unprovable damage--it is imperative
>that
>the public, rather than private interests, receive the benefit of
>such
>doubt. Public interest research is grounded in the precautionary
>principle, which requires precautionary action in the face of
>scientific uncertainty and the likelihood of harm.
>
> Current regulatory approaches emphasize avoiding false
>negatives--that is, they refrain from taking action until proof of
>harm is irrefutable. This gives the benefit of doubt to the
>proponent
>of a technology. But the public should not bear the responsibility
>for
>scientific uncertainty when a private interest is at stake.
>
> Unfortunately, industry often uses science and the elusiveness
>of
>scientific proof to stop preventive action. For example, pesticide
>companies, in an effort to block regulation of organophosphates and
>carbamates under the Food Quality Protection Act, have initiated
>practices such as testing pesticides on humans in order to undermine
>EPA's safety factor. In the case of dioxin, EPA's peer review of one
>report has been going on for years with no resolution, thus
>preventing
>updated regulatory action.
>
>
>CONCLUSION
>
> It is not enough to couch a research agenda in slogans such as
>"feeding the world" or "national security." It is essential to adopt
>criteria whereby we can assess whether research will benefit the
>public and examine the consequences of that research. We recognize
>that there are many gray areas, particularly where the public may
>benefit from research despite inordinate financial gain on the part
>of
>a few. Those gray areas demand extra scrutiny, particularly when the
>public helps fund the research, and when the consequences are
>uncertain.
>
> NOTES
>
> Parts of the preceding discussion were adapted from Scott
>Peters,
>Nicholas Jordan, and Gary Lemme, "Towards a Public Science," to be
>published in the 1999 issue of the Kettering Foundation's Higher
>Education Exchange.
>
> Some questions were adapted from Neil Postman, "Staying Sane in
>a
>Technological Society," Lapis #7, 1998: 53-57.
>
>**********************************************************************
>
>
>(2) WHAT YOU CAN DO TO ADVANCE THE CONCEPT & PRACTICE OF PUBLIC-
> INTEREST RESEARCH
>
> (a) COMMUNICATE your comments to the authors of the preceding
>white paper by sending them to Carolyn Raffensperger, SEHN, Route 1,
>Box 73, Windsor, ND 58424 USA; E-mail
><craffensperger@compuserve.com>;
>Tel./Fax +1-701-763-6286. Please let Carolyn know whether or not
>she
>has your permission to share your comments publicly with others
>(e.g., via Internet discussion lists).
>
> (b) SHARE AND DISCUSS your reactions to the white paper by
>joining the Loka Institute's FASTnet (Federation of Activists on
>Science & Technology Network) Internet discussion list. To
>subscribe,
>send an E-mail message to <majordomo@igc.org> with a blank subject
>line and "subscribe FASTnet" as the message text. You will receive
>an
>automated reply giving more details. FASTnet is a moderated
>discussion list, which protects subscribers from receiving posts
>inappropriate to the list's purpose.
>
> (c) URGE ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH YOU ARE AFFILIATED to
>consider
>adopting a statement similar to that articulated in the white paper.
>
>**********************************************************************
>
>
>(3) LOKA INSTITUTE INTERNSHIPS
>
> The Loka Institute has openings for volunteers, graduate and
>advanced undergraduate student interns, and work-study students for
>the fall of 1999 and beyond. The activities in which interns are
>involved vary from research assistance and writing to assisting in
>project development and management, fundraising, managing our
>Internet lists, Web page updates, helping with clerical and other
>office work, etc. If you are interested in working with us to
>promote a democratic politics of science and technology, please send
>a hard copy resume along with a succinct letter explaining your
>interest, and stating the dates you would like to be at Loka, to:
>Volunteer & Internship Coordinator, The Loka Institute, P.O. Box
>355,
>Amherst, MA 01004, USA. You may also fax these materials to us at
>+1-(413)-559-5811.
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>
>(4) ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE
>
> (A) The Loka Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to
>making research, science and technology responsive to democratically
>decided social and environmental concerns. TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT
>THE
>LOKA INSTITUTE, read previous Loka Alerts, participate in our
>on-line
>discussion groups, download or order publications, or help please
>visit our Web page: <http://www.loka.org>. Or contact us via E-mail
>at <Loka@amherst.edu>.
>
> (B) TO LEARN MORE about the Loka Institute's concerns and
>vision,
>see Loka founder Richard Sclove's book, _DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY_
>--
>recipient of the Don K. Price Award of the American Political
>Science
>Association as "the year's best book on science, technology and
>politics". For a paperback copy, contact your local bookseller,
>Guilford Press (in the U.S. telephone toll free 1-800-365-7006; or,
>from anywhere, fax Guilford Press in the U.S. at +1-212-966-6708 or
>E-mail: <info@guilford.com>), or order on the Web from
><http://www.amazon.com>.
>
> "Mr. Sclove is refreshing in the way he rejects ideas so
> nearly universally held that most people have never thought
> to question them." -- _New York Times Book Review_
>
>
> (C) FUNDRAISING UPDATE: The nonprofit Loka Institute is
>currently supported by grant awards from the W.K. Kellogg
>Foundation's
>Managing Information with Rural America (MIRA) Initiative, the John
>D.
>& Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the C.S. Mott Foundation, the
>Albert A. List Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the
>National Science Foundation, and the Menemsha Fund. WE ARE ALSO
>TREMENDOUSLY GRATEFUL TO THE LOKA INSTITUTE'S GROWING FAMILY OF
>INDIVIDUAL DONORS -- PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU, who have decided that
>supporting cutting-edge activism and scholarship to democratize
>science and technology is a wonderful gift to oneself, family,
>friends, and future generations. TO DONATE, just send a check drawn
>in U.S. or Canadian dollars to: The Loka Institute, PO Box 355,
>Amherst, MA 01004, USA. (Donations to the nonprofit Loka Institute
>are deductible on U.S. tax returns to the full extent allowable by
>law.) Thank you!!
>
> ###
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/loka-alert
>http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com