Corporations

In the last 20 years, corporate funding in the fields of information technology and biotechnology has grown faster than support from any other source, and there is growing concern over possible corporate interference and industrial pressures that could inappropriately influence the direction, interpretation, and outcome of research. This past summer, several organizations took measures to examine and address this situation.

"The pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries are funneling more and more cash into the pockets of academics who teach and study ethics," observes philosophy professor Carl Elliott, who works at a bioethics center. "Bioethicists have written for years about conflicts of interest in scientific research or patient care yet have paid little attention to the ones that might compromise bioethics itself," he notes, pointing to several cases in which companies like Eli Lilly have used funding to pressure ethicists into censoring or changing their views.

Supporters of the Center for Media & Democracy have just been mailed the third quarter 2001 issue of PR Watch. It examines the strategies employed by corporations such as Philip Morris and BP/Amoco, and their PR firms such as Burson-Marsteller, to defeat environmental activism through partnerships and co-optation. Articles include "Keep America Beautiful: Grassroots Non-Profit or Tobacco Front Group?" by Walter Lamb; "Corporations 'Get Engaged' to the Environmental Movement" by Andy Rowell; and, "Endangered Wildlife Friends Are Here" by John Stauber.

The American Medical Association is mounting a $1 million campaign to educate doctors about its ethics guidelines against accepting gifts from drug companies -- with most of the funding for the effort coming from drug companies.