According to Nicklaus, two glasses of wine a day is good for you, but only if researched by wine companies. Apparently he mistrusts scientific research conducted by companies or the industry. But much research is being conducted within companies, or with their financial support. Is Nicholas mistrust justified? And why do scientists cooperate with companies? There are several reasons to do so. Universities and other academic institutions don't excel in applicability. Work in their buildings is often abstract, long-term and fundamental. Companies have more short-term focus and aim for direct impact, that's a safer way to make a profit. So one reason for academics to cooperate with companies is direct relevance and impact. A second reason is resources. In all western countries the governmental budget for scientific institutes is smaller then the industry budget for research. Moreover, companies tend to have more professional organizations, more support staff, better equipment, nicer buildings. So there are various reasons to do your scientific research there. However, there are also some difficulties, possibly leading to dilemmas. First of all, companies and scientific institutes differ in their ultimate goals. Academics aim for knowledge, while companies aim for profit. This might lead to conflicts. For example, what to think of a recent trend among marketing firms to buy expensive fMRI scanners and to hire scientists who can work with those machines. All with the aim to research what's going on in someone's brain when he or she makes a decision to buy something from a purely scientific point of view, there is no conflict of goals. The scientists find new knowledge, and the firms apply that knowledge to make a profit. However, from a personal point of view, I can imagine you would not agree with the goals of such a firm. I wouldn't, but then fMRI equipment is expensive and it is difficult to get access to those machines, so you might be inclined to operate with the firm even if you have troubles with it's goals. Secondly, firms have the less scrupulous critical attitude. Scientists should always doubt results, also their own results. And consequently, adhere to strict working procedures. Firms, on the other hand, are often satisfied with just maybes. Examples from the pharmaceutical industry are particularly well-known. If some medicine seems to have a positive effect a company is inclined to claim its workings. While most academic scientists will remain more reluctant, at least for awhile until they also are convinced. So Punter's doubts about the supposed effects of drinking wine are understandable. A striking example of an industry that influenced science very, very badly is the tobacco industry. In 1993 the US Environmental Protection Agency declared tobacco a class A carcinogen. That means it causes cancer. This declaration was based on extensive scientific research. This clearly did not suit the tobacco industry, and they responded by creating a non-profit organization, the Centre for Indoor Air Research. A supposedly independent research institute, which was actually completely dependent on tobacco firms. The Centre for Indoor Air Research funded 200 studies to prove that tobacco was not causing cancer. Moreover, the tobacco industry tried to influence on government research and put their friends on editorial boards of academic journals. Now, this was an extraordinary scheme. And luckily, it was stopped and the tobacco industry had to pay billions of dollars compensation. But the risks of cooperations between science and industry are clear. To summarize, science is vulnerable because of its critical nature, while industry is powerful because of its resources. Now, this does not mean that scientists should not cooperate with companies, such cooperations can have many advantages. But it's your responsibility as a scientist to cope wisely with the differences between science and the industry, and to maintain your academic scrupulousness.
