How Corporations Like Monsanto Have Hijacked Higher Education
May 11, 2012 |
Photo Credit: Shutterstock/mostafa fawzy
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Here’s what happens when corporations begin to control education.
"When
I approached professors to discuss research projects addressing organic
agriculture in farmer's markets, the first one told me that 'no one
cares about people selling food in parking lots on the other side of the
train tracks,’” said a PhD student at a large land-grant university who
did not wish to be identified. “My academic adviser told me my best bet
was to write a grant for Monsanto or the Department of Homeland
Security to fund my research on why farmer's markets were stocked with
'black market vegetables' that 'are a bioterrorism threat waiting to
happen.' It was communicated to me on more than one occasion throughout
my education that I should just study something Monsanto would fund
rather than ideas to which I was deeply committed. I ended up studying
what I wanted, but received no financial support, and paid for my
education out of pocket."
Unfortunately,
she's not alone. Conducting research requires funding, and today's
research follows the golden rule: The one with the gold makes the rules.
A
report just released by Food and Water Watch examines the role of
corporate funding of agricultural research at land grant universities,
of which there are more than 100. “You hear again and again Congress and
regulators clamoring for science-based rules, policies, regulations,”
says Food and Water Watch researcher Tim
Schwab,
explaining why he began investigating corporate influence in
agricultural research. “So if the rules and regulations and policies are
based on science that is industry-biased, then the fallout goes beyond
academic articles. It really trickles down to farmer livelihoods and
consumer choice.”
The report
found that nearly one quarter of research funding at land grant
universities now comes from corporations, compared to less than 15
percent from the USDA. Although corporate funding of research surpassed
USDA funding at these universities in the mid-1990s, the gap is now
larger than ever. What's more, a broader look at all corporate
agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7
billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same
year.
Influence does not end
with research funding, however. In 2005, nearly one third of
agricultural scientists reported consulting for private industry.
Corporations endow professorships and donate money to universities in
return for having buildings, labs and wings named for them. Purdue
University's Department of Nutrition Science blatantly offers corporate affiliates
“corporate visibility with students and faculty” and “commitment by
faculty and administration to address [corporate] members' needs,” in
return for the $6,000 each corporate affiliate pays annually.
In
perhaps the most egregious cases, corporate boards and college
leadership overlap. In 2009, South Dakota State's president, for
example, joined the board of directors of Monsanto, where he earns six
figures each year. Bruce Rastetter
is simultaneously the co-founder and managing director of a company
called AgriSol Energy and a member of the Iowa Board of Regents. Under
his influence, Iowa State joined AgriSol in a venture in Tanzania that
would have forcefully removed 162,000 people from their land, but the university later pulled out of the project after public outcry.
What
is the impact of the flood of corporate cash? “We know from a number of
meta-analyses, that corporate funding leads to results that are
favorable to the corporate funder,” says Schwab. For example, one peer-reviewed study
found that corporate-funded nutrition research on soft drinks, juice
and milk were four to eight times more likely to reach conclusions in
line with the sponsors' interests. And when a scrupulous scientist
publishes research that is unfavorable to the study's funder, he or she
should be prepared to look for a new source of funding.
No comments:
Post a Comment