Tuesday March 27, 2001

How does society know that it can trust the reassuring noises of governments when something scientifically scary comes over the horizon? The government announces that its position is supported by expert scientific opinion. The population is increasingly sceptical. A number of episodes - BSE, genetically modified foods, nuclear power - have led to widespread questioning of the credibility of scientific expertise stored conveniently in politicians' pockets like a clean handkerchief for use in emergency.

It is one thing for the sometimes conflicting "honest views" of scientists to be played off against one another in what a government will naturally claim to be the public interest. It is another for the whole system to be shot through with uncertainty so that no one can be confident of the truth of anything scientists say.

Let us look at the factors making for uncertainty. A high proportion of Britain's academic scientists are on short-term contracts. The dual support system which funds the infrastructure in universities separately from the project money means that for most, the continuance of their research - and their very jobs - may depend on getting the next tranche of money.

At the top of the academic heap are those who can help ensure that it is forthcoming. They have permanent positions. They sit on the research council committees. They edit the journals. They give the references, or choose the referees. They have postgraduate studentships in their gift and also postdoctoral positions on research teams.

It would scarcely be possible to design a structure better calculated to create a climate in which patronage flourishes and the wary junior scientist keeps his head down and does not ask awkward questions. Now introduce into this unhealthy environment government encouragement to universities to form links with commerce and industry, so as to reduce demand on the public purse, and government encouragement for universities to be entrepreneurial while they are about it, generating spin-offcompanies for the commercial exploitation of the findings of the research thus funded.

The heads of departments and projects are keen to have this money; money is useful and this money comes without public funding's strings.

But it does not come quite string-free. The days of benefaction (literally) for the good of one's soul are some centuries behind us.

Commercial funders arrive with big corporate lawyers and contracts of a sophistication which often leave academics so dazzled as to be unable to see clearly what they are signing. Universities ought to be keeping a sharp eye on sharp practice but pressure to keep the coffers full may encourage the odd wink and blink.

So we come to the honest scientist who knows that the results of the research are not what the commercial funder wishes. Notwithstanding recent legislation intended to protect the conscientious whistleblower (though not if he is a PhD student), recent cases show that it can lose a scientist not only his job of the moment but also any prospect of a future career to defend the integrity of his research. Universities, which ought to be reliable protectors of their academic scientists, will "let the scientist go" rather than stand up to the funder. Some of these are to be the subject of a forthcoming conference.

To undermine trust in the integrity of science all that is needed is for there to be reasonable doubt in the public mind. This is the moment to call for a "Neill" committee on standards in scientific research.

• The Corruption of Scientific Integrity? - The Commercialisation of Academic Science, conference at the British Academy, May 2, details: D.E.Packham@bath.ac.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001