Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material
Answers

Question

You have said the sites Independent Experts are volunteers. No doubt thats true, but that doesnt make them independent. If you value transparency, you would provide a list of biotech industry grants and research sponsorships to them individually and to their institutions or organizations, and not suggest that site visitors go to all those entities and search for such information on a casebycase basis.

Submitted by: mainer


Answer

Expert response from Kevin Folta

Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida

Monday, 06/07/2015 21:39

Scientific independence is a simple topic.  As a public scientist, I can tell you that proper experiments and sound interpretations are the cornerstones of our existence, and that our reputations are the most valued and cherished asset we have.  That’s why independence is so important.

 

It is our independence that makes us a valuable resource for public inquiries.  At the same time, it is our independence that makes us attractive partners for industry.  We’re not them.  We’re separate, and if they are wrong we tell them they are wrong.  That’s why they sponsor research with independent university scientists. Typically it is cheaper for companies to do the work internally, so they usually are just reaching out for an independent analysis or perhaps a specialization they don’t have in-house.

 

What does a research agreement look like?  It usually provides salary for a postdoc with some basic fringe, a modest supply budget and maybe some travel to a national meeting.  They are expected to pay some university overhead, which is between 20-50% to the university to cover costs to perform the work, as electricity, water, custodial staff, etc., are not free, and the corporations should pay their fair share.  A typical agreement might budget $30-50k for a postdoctoral researcher (including fringe/health) and $5,000 for supplies. No magic Monsanto van pulls up with a big novelty check and balloons.  Work is budgeted and performed, and scientists are accountable to the penny.

 

These agreements are not typically attractive because they occupy time and space, and the best that can be obtained is the opportunity to publish findings.  Nowadays we are excited to find funds to pursue research and publish, so that’s where these research contracts are favorable.  

 

It is impossible to provide up-to-date lists of every contributing scientist’s funding in a place like the GMO Answers website, but for public university scientists this is all online or part of public record.

 

If you are curious about someone’s funding, call them, send an email, whatever.  Even better, the information is typically on their websites, in their presentation slides, and in the acknowledgement section of their published work.  In the rare case we actually find research support, we are glad to visibly acknowledge the source.   

Answer

Expert response from Kevin Folta

Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida

Monday, 06/07/2015 21:39

Scientific independence is a simple topic.  As a public scientist, I can tell you that proper experiments and sound interpretations are the cornerstones of our existence, and that our reputations are the most valued and cherished asset we have.  That’s why independence is so important.

 

It is our independence that makes us a valuable resource for public inquiries.  At the same time, it is our independence that makes us attractive partners for industry.  We’re not them.  We’re separate, and if they are wrong we tell them they are wrong.  That’s why they sponsor research with independent university scientists. Typically it is cheaper for companies to do the work internally, so they usually are just reaching out for an independent analysis or perhaps a specialization they don’t have in-house.

 

What does a research agreement look like?  It usually provides salary for a postdoc with some basic fringe, a modest supply budget and maybe some travel to a national meeting.  They are expected to pay some university overhead, which is between 20-50% to the university to cover costs to perform the work, as electricity, water, custodial staff, etc., are not free, and the corporations should pay their fair share.  A typical agreement might budget $30-50k for a postdoctoral researcher (including fringe/health) and $5,000 for supplies. No magic Monsanto van pulls up with a big novelty check and balloons.  Work is budgeted and performed, and scientists are accountable to the penny.

 

These agreements are not typically attractive because they occupy time and space, and the best that can be obtained is the opportunity to publish findings.  Nowadays we are excited to find funds to pursue research and publish, so that’s where these research contracts are favorable.  

 

It is impossible to provide up-to-date lists of every contributing scientist’s funding in a place like the GMO Answers website, but for public university scientists this is all online or part of public record.

 

If you are curious about someone’s funding, call them, send an email, whatever.  Even better, the information is typically on their websites, in their presentation slides, and in the acknowledgement section of their published work.  In the rare case we actually find research support, we are glad to visibly acknowledge the source.