Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small
Business and Education Committee
Submission to Senate Inquiry on : The capacity of public universities
to meet Australia’s higher education needs.
I would particularly like to address items (b) v of the terms of reference.
Background
I have worked as a research scientist from 1978. Until December 2000
I was a Fellow in the John Curtin School of Medical Research, ANU. I am
currently an NHMRC funded Senior Research Fellow in Chemistry, The faculties,
ANU. My area of expertise is the biological activity of fungal toxins.
I would like to note that I am not opposed to commercial funding of research
under the proper conditions and I have been a co-recipient of $1.5 million
dollars in external industry money.
General.
It is my contention that the current overwhelming swing to commercialisation
of scientific research in Australia has the capacity to irreparably damage
basic Australian science. This move for research groups to seek more and
more commercial funding is driven by the gross under funding of public
Universities by government. In particular the lack of sufficient funding
for basic curiosity driven scientific research. It has been demonstrated
time and again that it is mainly from the latter that the groundbreaking,
“paradigm shifting” discoveries arise. These are the discoveries
that impel science into new frontiers and bring kudos to the scientists
of that country and the country itself. They also inevitably bring economic
benefit if managed properly.
Concentrating on commercialisation of research is having the following
effects:
- An increase in application driven research rather than basic research.
This leads to “copy cat” or “bandwagon” projects
which hope to exploit some commercial aspect of the project although
there may be little originality. For example the many vaccine projects
that have highly desirable outcomes but are based on known technology.
Basic research in immunology should also be high on the agenda.
- Related to the above point is the proliferation of inappropriate projects
for PhD students that are often based on securing a particular outcome
rather than seeking new knowledge – two things which are often
not the same thing. This can lead to inadequate supervision because
the project is not primarily driven by the knowledge base in the institution
but by a commercial goal.
- An increase in secrecy and lack of communication between research
workers in institutions. Secrecy may be appropriate to industry but
not in a publicly funded University. On several occasions I have known
staff and students to refuse to answer questions at seminars or even
give seminars because of confidentiality reasons. This is highly inappropriate
in a publicly funded University which should be devoted to free and
unfettered investigations in the public good.
- Serious conflict of interests, particularly when researchers have
a monetary interest in the outcome of their work (see below).
- A degradation of the status of science and scientists in the public
eye because of exaggeration of the significance of scientific results.
On no fewer than 25 occasions for example the Canberra Times and other
newspapers have reported possible cures for cancer, AIDS and other common
and serious medical problems stemming from research at The John Curtin
School of Medical Research. I am aware of only one product, which is
currently on the market, which arose through basic research carried
out at the ANU. I am personally aware of many people both in and outside
of the ANU who regard many of these claims (I believe justifiably so)
with great cynicism. Exaggerated claims of medical cures are necessary
to secure funding for commercially driven research. They can also be
used to manipulate share markets. These claims will only serve to lower
the esteem that scientists have built in the eyes of many as unbiased
seekers after truth and indeed encourage those areas of new age pseudo-science
which have flourished recently.
- A general lowering of morale and increased cynicism in all University
staff. For example it is very hard to understand the justification for
slashing schools and departments at the ANU while simultaneously financially
propping up an ailing ANUTECH to the tune of $10 million dollars. This
sends a clear message that incompetent commercialisation of research
is more important than the research itself.
Biotron.
I would like to specifically discuss the inappropriately intimate arrangement
of the company Biotron with the John Curtin School of Medical Research.
This company has been established to commercialise basic research arising
from work done by scientists in the John Curtin School.
I have no judgment to make about the validity of the science underlying
the formation of this company. This is difficult to assess anyway because
much is unpublished. A raft of projects form the basis of possible therapeutics
to treat AIDS, to test for cancer, to overcome drug toxicity and develop
new insecticides. I would like to make the following points:
- The total shares on issue were 64,000,000. It is on the public record
that of these a total of approx. 22,300,000 were distributed to members
of the John Curtin School or the ANU (4,500,000; 7%). The executive
research director is also a full time member of the John Curtin School
staff and holds 9,500,000 of these shares (15%). Four members of the
John Curtin School research staff who are working on projects listed
in the Biotron prospectus also hold a total of 8,300,000 of these shares.
- The shares were floated at $0.5 each and at the time of writing this
submission were $0.45.
- No products have been commercialised from these projects.
- Biotron has first option of refusal on any commercially viable basic
research arising in the John Curtin School.
The formation of this company has the potential to significantly enrich
a small number of research workers in the John Curtin School for minimal
effort and must represent one of the most obvious examples of conflict
of interest between scientific research and commercial exploitation.
The company has been created essentially on the back of the illustrious
reputation of a publicly funded research institute. This is recognised
by a business assessment of Biotron by ASSIRT Equities Research: “
Biotron’s strategic alliance with the John Curtin School of Medical
Research provides a valuable link to a well recognised centre of research
excellence. We believe, in the absence of peer reviewed scientific
research, given the precarious nature of provisional patent approvals
and the associated risk to intellectual property, such an alliance provides
unofficial endorsement of the rigour of Biotron’s research methodology
and large Pharma visibility” # This business assessment also
recognises the importance of key research workers also being shareholders
: “It remains to be seen how an overtly commercial focus will impact
the internal culture of the research project team. A further consideration
being managements ability to attract, develop, motivate, retain and effectively
utilise auxiliary staff given the long lead times involved in basic research.
That said, post listing key personnel/ and associates will hold over
40% of total shares on issue, which we believe will align interest with
those of shareholders” # (My italics)
- Why should a publicly funded institution (including those researchers
working there at present) now be used to promote (and provide infrastructure
for) a company with no product yet to sell and whose shareholders include
a minority of staff who stand to gain (disproportionately) financially
from the success of this company?
- Share prices in Biotron will be reflected in the success or failure
of the research. Can we expect research workers to be scrupulously honest
in reporting facts that will adversely affect share prices. Even research
workers in the school not associated with Biotron may be under pressure
not to publish or disseminate results that adversely impinge on development
of the promised products and profits to Biotron since the ANU is a shareholder.
- It is unclear what the effect will be on individuals working in the
school in similar areas who are not associated with Biotron. Will new
researchers entering the school be prevented from working “in competition”
with Biotron projects.
I am not opposed to commercialisation of research. However it must be
carried out at arms length from Universities whose function is the collection
and dissemination of new knowledge. Mechanisms are in place for investigation
by pharmaceutical companies of promising procedures or drugs discovered
in Universities. Patents can protect the intellectual property and those
responsible for the discovery can be appropriately rewarded when a
drug or procedure has gained commercial success. Universities are
no place for speculative endeavours that, while enriching some, have the
potential to bring the institution into disrepute through serious perceptions
of conflict of interest.
I would propose that:
- Consideration is given for putting mechanisms in place, which clearly
separate the basic science from any commercial exploitation of that
science.
- Conflicts of interest such as those outlined above be prevented. I
understand that some North American universities have recognised this
problem and prevent scientists from working for companies in which they
also own shares. For example the Harvard Medical School explicitly prevents
“A faculty member receiving University or Hospital supervised Sponsored
Research Support (whether in dollars or in kind) for clinical research
or research which does not involve human subjects, from a business in
which he/she, a member of his/her family or an associated entity hold
a stock or similar ownership interest” *
- An independent complaints tribunal is set up for Universities including
one which would accept complaints in relation to the creeping corruption
of higher learning by commercialisation. This is particularly important
given the increasing direct involvement of Universities themselves with
commercial ventures. Thus the ANU, with 7% share in Biotron is clearly
in a position of conflict if it receives complaints related to the company.
- Increase University funding to allow basic research to flourish alongside
(but independent of) commercially successful applications developed
from that research.
# ASSIRT Equities Research appraisal of Biotron (accessible through Biotron
Ltd home page)
* see http://www.hms.harvard.edu/integrity/guide.html
Paul Waring (PhD) NHMRC funded senior research fellow 19/02/01