A consequentialist evaluation of industry funding and commercialisation of public biomedical research

Abstract

There has been much discussion surrounding the relationship between academia and industry over the last few decades. Many governments have actively encouraged greater collaboration between the two and more entrepreneurial activity from academics, and the institutions themselves and industry have been just as keen to follow these incentives. Despite the support for closer ties between industry and academia it has not been without its detractors. Many opponents argue that industry funding and commercialisation of public biomedical research (BMR), and research in general, is undermining the goal and norms of the institution of public BMR. These opponents have tended to offer one of two solutions; the management strategy, which looks to mechanisms such as increased transparency to fix the problem; and the divestment strategy which looks to increase, to varying degrees, the separation between industry and academia. The purpose of this thesis will be to examine the problems caused by industry funding and increased commercialisation of public BMR, and the proposed solutions within a consequentialist ethical framework. In order to assess these solutions, I will refer to: the substantive debate amongst consequentialists between “Actualism” and “Possibilism”, Philip Pettit’s distinction between treating people as “potential interlocutors” or “merely parametric”, and will also draw on Michael Smith’s concept of “capacities”. Ultimately, I will find that the proposed solutions to the problems of industry funding and commercialisation of public BMR are untenable by themselves, and have ignored the possibility of engaging researchers as potential interlocutors. Finally, I will offer my partial and complementary solution, which is to engage researchers as potential interlocutors by trying to enhance their capacity to adhere to institution norms through an improved and expanded ethical training.