Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 367–373

Private Interests Count Too

Commentary on “Science, Democracy, and the Right to Research”


Along with concerns about the deleterious effects of politically driven government intervention on science are the intrusion of private sector interests into the conduct of research and the reporting of its results. Scientists are generally unprepared for the challenges posed by private interests seeking to advance their economic, political, or ideological agendas. They must educate and prepare themselves for assaults on scientific freedom, not because it is a legal right, but rather because social progress depends on it.


Animal rights extremists Corporate interests Litigation Peer review Scientific freedom Scientific responsibility Subpoenas 


  1. A Report of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. (1975). Scientific freedom and responsibility. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, p. ix. Also at Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
  2. ASCE responds to subpoena for peer review records. (2007). Posted at Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
  3. Brown, M. B., & Guston, D. H. (2009). Science, democracy, and the right to research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, this issue. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9135-4.
  4. Conn, P. M., & Parker, J. V. (2008). The animal research war. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., Annas, G. J., & Drazen, J. M. (2008). Peer review in the balance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2276–2277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferguson, N. (2001). Censorship in action: Why I don’t publish my HDCP results. Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
  7. Fischer, P. M. (2006). Science and subpoenas: When do the courts become instruments of manipulation? In W. Wagner & R. Steinzor (Eds.), Rescuing science from politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Foster, A. L. (2001). Princeton cryptographer’s challenge to music industry draws computer scientists’ support. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Posted at Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
  9. Graham, L. R. (1978). Concerns about science and attempts to regulate inquiry. Daedalus, 107(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  10. Guess, A. (2008). California passes law protecting animal researchers. Inside Higher Ed at Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
  11. Kaiser, J. (2008). Pfizer denied access to journals’ files. Science, 319, 1601.Google Scholar
  12. Kellermann, A. L. (1997). Comment: Gunsmoke—changing public attitudes toward smoking and firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 87(6), 911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knoll, C., Bookwalter, G., & Ostrom, M. A. (2008). Police: UCSC researchers targeted in firebombings this morning. Santa Cruz Sentinel at Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
  14. Kuehn, R. R. (2005). Scientific speech: Protecting the right of environmental scientists to express professional opinions. Environmental Law Reporter, 35, 10857–10871.Google Scholar
  15. Letter from the Recording Industry Association of America. (2001). Posted at Accessed 18 Apr 2009.
  16. McGarity, T. O., & Wagner, W. E. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Parrish, D. M. (2002). US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2839–2841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Squires, J. (2008). Police serve search warrant on house raided in first UCSC animal rights attack. Santa Cruz Sentinel at Accessed 18 Apr 2009.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program, American Association for the Advancement of ScienceWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations