There are no good intellectual or historical reasons to justify this lack of civility. University research has never been - and never will be - enclosed in a bubble, protected from outside influence. If we are going to talk about reality rather than social mythology, the question is not whether social groups will influence university research, but which groups are able to do so and which are not. As far as Nazism and Stalinism are concerned, Professor Duvick surely knows that in these systems economic and political elites directed the path of research without the participation of less privileged strata of society. He somehow failed to note that my proposal goes in the exact opposite direction: I would like to see workers, consumers, environmentalists, family farmers, and women have more of a voice, and not be crowded out by corporations and state officials. This is not Nazism, this is not Stalinism; this is a step on the path to economic democracy.
Now Professor Duvick is certainly correct that the ultimate consequences of research are impossible to predict. But we can't jump from the fact that it is impossible to predict all consequences of research to the conclusion that no consequences can be foreseen. The issue is not whether anyone can have perfect knowledge of the future. The question instead is which social groups get to push university research down paths they foresee will further their interests, and which do not. The fact that unanticipated consequences are inevitable shouldn't affect how we answer that question in the least, as far as I can tell.
Of course Professor Duvick cannot maintain the position that nothing about the eventual outcomes of research can be predicted. He himself correctly, if inconsistently, predicts that university research as presently organized will systematically tend to neglect certain "socially desirable goals that at this time have little or no short-term commercial value." I disagree with many of the details of his argument; in my view there is no good reason to assume a priori that the long-term interests of corporations necessarily coincide with the long-term interests of society as a whole, nor is there any good reason to assume that the short-to-medium term interests of corporations, workers, and consumers are identical. I gave arguments to justify these views in my paper; Professor Duvick chose to ignore these arguments. Nonetheless, Professor Duvick unequivocally agrees that there is a profound problem with the institutional framework within which university research is presently undertaken, and in the present context that is the crucial point.
(I must say in passing, however, that Professor Duvick does not appear to appreciate just how radical his claim is. If you hold that socially desirable goals are systematically neglected in our society, you find yourself in a confrontational position vis-a-vis those who hold economic and political power, whether you want to be in that position or not.)
I am very sympathetic to Professor Duvick's proposed solution to the problem: "We need more organizations like the Leopold Center." But I would like to add two comments. First, I am very skeptical of the thesis that technical experts, however well intentioned, are capable of articulating and defending the interests of groups presently underrepresented in debates regarding technology policy. Strong institutional links with the family farm movement, the environmental movement, the consumer movement, the labor movement, and so on are necessary if this is to occur.
Second, given the seriousness of the problem Professor Duvick stated, why should the discussion cease with one suggestion? The MIT magazine Technology Review recently published an article about instituting science courts in cases where the social and ethical implications of technical research have spurred controversy. Why not explore the possibility that the combination of such courts and more organizations like the Leopold Center might address the profound problem Professor Duvick refers to far better than the latter alone? Why not explore a third possibility, a fourth? Why constrict our social imaginations when there is such a great need to stretch them?
In closing, let me illustrate the magnitude of the problem. At the University of California- San Francisco, Betty Dong, a clinical pharmacist, conducted research sponsored by Boots Company on Synthroid, a hypothyroid drug marketed by Boots. Dong found that Synthroid, the dominant drug in a $600 million market, was not superior to lower cost drugs, with a potential savings to consumers of $356 million annually. When Dong attempted to publish her findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Boots blocked publication, invoking its right to censor under the provisions of the research contract. Boots then claimed the study was flawed, with Dong unable to counter because she could not make her work public. As of now, this is an exceptional case. But is there anyone who doubts that if present trends continue this corporate control will become more and more typical? The time for the academic community to consider ways to ensure that all stakeholders have a say in research policy is now.