Research is becoming increasingly political. Scientific research in particular. Whilst there are good reasons to use limited public grant funding resources for matters that are national priorities, the manner in which that list is set and the control over the direction of research within that scope needs review.
While those seeking to exercise this control may typically prefer to do so discretely, the Trump administration appears to celebrate the exercise of power in this transparent way.
This paper sets out a review of a sample of corporate and government controls to illustrate the breadth and depth of potential for conflicts of interest and political manoeuvring that can undermine research. It also highlights the important political function that forms a critical part of the landscape.
Corporate and Political Misconduct
We recently outlined examples of bias and misrepresentation in research, both directly and by exercising controls at an indirect level.
The Political Landscape
The politicisation of science the science agenda has seen more direct efforts to confine the scope of publicly funded research to matters within the realm of the political agenda. The examples are becoming more frequent. The opposition to the attempts is also becoming louder.
Policy makers must inform themselves as to the national and supranational importance of research and require greater engagement with scientists to ensure that political missions represent the interests of research. It is vital that the decisions being made about what goes on this list of any nation’s science priorities, are made with a solid grasp of the fundamentals. This is a two way street and the science community is stepping up to the challenge by increasing engagement and outreach with those in political halls of power and providing actionable recommendations to support investment in research.
Assuming the Trump factor is a temporary blip on the political radar and its consequences can be contained and remedied, it remains a challenge for policy makers to act with the long-term scientific agenda within the construct of an ever-shortening political cycle. That challenge precedes the current US political leadership by generations and has been shown to be subversive across the globe.
The need to resolve issues hindering cross border policy coordination is intensifying amidst a political landscape that is fracturing.
Efforts are being made by emerging funding participants the research community. For example, a maturing philanthropic movement is mobilising to address gaps (or blocks) in the political agenda. The transfer of political power that comes with private actor taking on this role, calls for transparency and validation of the stewardship these unelected groups provide.
Government led initiatives aimed at encouraging academic capitalism typically produce lacklustre results. It is difficult for governments to be effective in the role because the public funding that represents the lifeline for research (even with low grant success rates) is also a public asset. They have a vested interest that is not quarantined from the policy debate. Academic research is a soft political target for those looking to grandstand and a difficult subject to take on against the back drop of a short term political cycle. It is one thing to mandate that public research funding be applied with priority for those fields that are aligned with the national research priorities, but it is quite another to intervene by exercising pressure to manipulate the agenda for political gain.
There remains little accountability for the allocation or management of the various research funding pots. The tension for public funding bodies arises from the need to balance public accountability (safe choices) with creativity (the paradigm shifts) whilst at the same time balancing a need to invest in basic research (long-term), against the need to show commercial returns from its investment (short-term). These decisions are heavily influenced by politics and its short term cycle. They are not made in consultation with other actors with shared interests who could de-risk decisions for common good. In the private sector, metrics are opaque. Information asymmetry presents a challenge for which there are not established solutions.
All of this is happening against a backdrop of increasing grass roots awareness of the importance of a strong scientific community, whose ability to organise provides a reminder of the audacity of hope and the power of the collective might to solve complex problems.
A robust governance framework is necessary for research integrity. Subversive economics from both corporate and political sectors need to be countered. Incentives for academic researchers have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. The combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behaviour. The publication system does not have an effective correction system.
If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost.
Sign up to Coalfacer to learn more about the customisable governance framework on which the platform is built.
