INVESTMENT OF FUNDS. INSERTION OF BIAS?

Can industry sponsorship lead to scandal?

CAROLYN WALKER STAFF

If the “proximity to greatness makes you great” theory holds true, then the business intellect behind the research park initiatives seems to be common sense: place a growing company amidst a community of intellects and the company will grow up smart by association. Whether this theory actually holds true or not, the number of collaborations between industry and academia is on the rise.

Investors contribute funding to collaborative research projects to help privately and publicly funded researchers make advancements in the name of science, business, and technology. While some researchers and business owners approve of these types of partnerships, others question the end results of the idea. Does pairing industry with academic facilities introduce bias into the research of a public institution?

A quick trip down Innovation Drive

In the 1950s, the wheels of change were in full motion. Newfoundland had just become a province, the credit card system had started up in America, the first organ transplant took place, and the “research park” (another economically stirring idea) began to take off in North America.

What exactly is a research park? Corporations with a focus on research and development are invited to form a community, often on university campuses, in order to collaborate: the corporations bring their lines of credit and world-class technology to the university, which in turn supplies experts, projects in need of funding, and students — in a buzz-word, innovation.

This concept of development and investment encouraged technological growth and productivity, particularly in the U.S.. Research parks encouraged the movers and shakers of industry to mingle with the brainpower of academia during a period in history when government funding for education in the U.S. was socially controversial due to budget shortages, the Cold War, and the civil rights struggle.

As education slowly became a more important stitch in the economic seam, the number of research parks and number of interested investors increased. Today, research parks are common — most universities in Canada that does scientific research has one. Private/public companies and the education system seem to be ever more entangled, and collaborative projects seem to be ever more popular between the technology-driven companies, research-based companies and post-secondary institutions. Several companies are capitalizing on the concept at the University of Manitoba in an area termed Smartpark.

Who’s who in Smartpark

These 100 acres of land, intersected by Innovation Drive just west of the Fort Garry campus, house a diverse assortment of companies. The companies eligible to participate in Smartpark are divided into four distinct sections: information and communications technology, engineering and advanced materials, health and biotechnology, and agricultural and nutritional sciences. The project was announced in 1999, and in October 2003 the first tenant, Cangene, moved in. Since then, Cangene has built an extension — and the park is now home to 15 companies, with seven buildings and 850 employees. All of the research done in Smartpark is applied, while some of the research conducted in the university-proper is pure — meaning that the research coming out of Smartpark leads to patents, while students and professors generally aspire to add to the scientific knowledge base.

Smartpark’s website lists five reasons tenants choose to lease land or office space at Smartpark. Number three: “The relationship with the University and our key sponsors that are here.”

Who wins? Who loses?

Are industry members capitalizing on this proximity to higher education by working more closely with university researchers? Absolutely, according to Lindsey Weibe of the Smartpark Development Corporation — she said Smartpark encourages tenants to build a relationship with the university staff and students.

Peter Jones, director of the Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, said that the centre is employing six undergraduate and several graduate students this summer. The Richardson Centre is a U of M building located within the Smartpark. “The centre offers students a fantastic opportunity to learn on state of the art equipment [because] so often in the university environment . . . students [are working] with [25- or 30-year-old] equipment . . . that should be in a museum.”

Jones told Western Economic Development Canada that the Richardson Centre, which officially opened May 16, 2006, already has a number of research projects lined up. “We are researching Becel margarine for Unilever, plant sterols in yogurt for Dannon, and hoping to make breakfast cereals healthier in the future. We are also working with Merck Frosst, a pharmaceutical company, on agents that will act against obesity,” Jones said.

Who else is benefiting?

Collaborative work is common — and becoming increasingly so as universities and research parks across the country continue to expand internships and co-operative programs. Top students in the biological sciences are offered summer jobs with Cangene, agriculture students with Monsanto.

According to the 2005 Smartpark Development Corporation annual report, “Smartpark’s high-tech focus will ultimately . . . encourage entrepreneurs and university graduates across many disciplines to stay in Winnipeg and in Manitoba.”

The Industrial Technology Centre (ITC) — an agency of the Province of Manitoba under the department of energy, science, and technology, located in the park — has collaborated with the engineering department at the U of M and has partnered with high-tech companies located on the Smartpark grounds. The ITC features the province’s only public access Technical Library and a number of laboratories, and is only one example of the provincial government’s contributions to Smartpark, both in bringing forward projects and contributing financially.

David Olafson, manager of corporate services for the ITC hopes that the centre can become “more involved in training with the U of M and that the centre will become more involved with students [by helping them apply] . . . new technologies in the areas of technologies in advanced manufacturing.”

The Smartpark contractor is also benefiting from the booming business. According to the 2005 Smartpark Development Corporation annual report, over the last three years, Smartpark “has stimulated over $100 million in capital developments . . . [and is currently] home to 15 growing companies in high-tech sectors.”

Funding formulae

However, when collaboration and money become involved in this relationship, the association quickly becomes more political. Companies have funding that post-secondary institutions desire, but may have an agenda that institutions can live without.

In 2003 Joel Lexchin, an associate professor at the school of health policy and management at York University, published a paper entitled “Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.” Lexchin’s results, published in the British Medical Journal, stated that “systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research [and these products were favoured by means of ] . . . inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.” Lexchin discussed that the results for this paper were collected “over at least two decades and [were collected] regardless of the type of research being assessed — pharmacoeconomic studies, clinical trials, or meta-analyses of clinical trials.”

Sometimes sponsorship may seem to come with an ethical price tag; however, the issue is not necessarily black and white. Research and sponsorship relationships can be mutually beneficial, yet mistaken for bias.

According to an article published in the British Medical Journal by Tom Sorell, professor of philosophy from the University of Essex, one of the downfalls to sponsorship of medical research is that “as soon as the source of the funding is known the research is discredited.” Sorell is referring to medical research performed by tobacco companies; however, this statement can be applied to a wide variety of research areas. Sorrell argued that academics should be more concerned with the quality of medical research conducted by tobacco companies than indirectly related research — but noted many professors have expressed concern that industry sponsorship exists in most research-related areas such as health, biotechnology, agriculture, and nutritional science, to name a few.

Does funding from industry investors have strings attached? At a Graduate Students’ Associationorganized panel discussion held Oct. 25, 2005 and entitled “Are Corporate Interests Jeopardizing Academic Freedoms?” this was one contention. Though the discussion centred on last year’s controversial addition to the Monsanto building, economics professor Robert Chernomas summed up the intended issue of debate.

“The question we all have to face . . . is to what extent universities and the public sector in general are being colonized by the for-profit sector engineered by the federal [government] in this country,” said Chernomas.

And he’s not alone in the concern that partnerships of this type may lead to skewed research results. According to an article written by Sarah Boseley in the Guardian, for example, in 2001, “the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and other major journals accuse[d] the drug giants [or the powerful drug companies] of using their money — or the threat of its removal — to tie up academic researchers with legal contracts so that they are unable to report freely and fairly on the results of drug trials.”

Does collaboration equal bias?

Christopher Proctor, head of science and regulation for British American Tobacco, published an article in the British Medical Journal about tobacco industry research. The article discusses the benefits of collaboration as opposed to confrontation between British American Tobacco, a tobacco company providing funding for biomedical research, and the public health authorities. To relieve any concerns that the research results may be skewed, Proctor wrote that the research results are “peer reviewed and published for general consideration.” Proctor indicated that the collaborative research between the two parties “has led to a greater understanding of smoking behaviour, constituents of smoke, and possible mechanisms of disease.”

The research collaborations provide academics with tools and industry contacts that may help them to keep their research both current and (in some cases) funded.

On the upside of these industry/ academia collaborations, many cash-strapped universities and research groups stand to gain by pairing with industry. In the private sector anything over five or seven years is generally replaced, the Richardson Centre’s Jones mentioned. Jones commented that there is value in training students on newer equipment and that at the Richardson Centre (a centre that will be involved in collaborative work) students have the opportunity to learn how to do research using the very best equipment.

The fine print

To defend against claims of bias and alternative agendas, a public institution such as a university maintains its integrity, high ethical standards, and objectivity through university policies and procedures. The University of Manitoba Policies and Procedures state that employees must avoid “conflict[s] of interest” or promoting an interest that, according to the university’s policies, interferes with the objectivity or promotes “a material gain to an employee, and/or to other person(s) with whom the employee does not deal at arm’s length.” It relies on researchers to identify and disclose such conflicts.

According to the University of Manitoba Policies and Procedures, by reason of its public stature, the “university prohibits secret or classified research” — essentially meaning that all university research is for the public good, and thus for the public to know about. On the other hand, many companies in highly competitive industries keep their research and development work confidential; therefore, the university’s policy towards research secrecy conflicts with many industries’ progression towards research confidentiality.

In an attempt to clarify this policy further, the university’s Board of Governors added a new policy on June 20, dealing exclusively with research agreements. The policy reiterates the university’s full-disclosure policy on conflicts of interest, and notes that the university is financially and ethically responsible for every grant given to its staff as part of their work, that every contract will be administered through the university’s vice-president (research) — in short, that the university, and not the grant provider, is in charge of research results.

If the university is in charge, the question remains: will it be able to distance the public research conducted on its property from the proximal influence of private funding?

The future of Smartpark

The most recent additions to the Smartpark are the Richardson Centre, which belongs to the University, and Monteris Medical.

According to Smartpark spokesperson Wiebe, no new additions or tenants are planned, though sidewalks and other infrastructure developments have been added over the summer. This infrastructure development was part of a $3 million project, which also includes roadway development. The intention of this project is to improve the university student accessibility and to encourage connectivity between the Smartpark facilities and the U of M’s main campus.

By improving connectivity between the Smartpark and the U of M campus, faculty, students, and staff in both locations can connect through resource sharing and collaboration. In theory, collaboration between industry-based companies and academia is an ideal partnership; however, ethical dilemmas about research direction, methodology, and projects, and about public versus confidential research results may interfere with this affiliation’s harmony.

The actions of university employees are bound by the university’s guidelines on responsibilities for research ethics whereas the actions of industry employees may or may not be.

Only time will tell if collaborations between technology driven companies, research-based companies and post-secondary institutions are headed for success or failure.

Is Smartpark unique? See the August issue of the Manitoban for a look into the commercialization of intellectual property across Canada — and how the university’s partnerships might affect bow the new research agreement is used.