The Commercialization of Research and the Quest for the Objectivity of Science

Abstract

In this paper, I discuss the objectivity of science in the context of commercialized research. Objectivity has traditionally been associated with the behavior of individual scientists and their willingness and ability to base their reasoning on data and logic. By introducing some examples of problematic practices in current research, I show that this view is insufficient. A view that I call the Social View on objectivity succeeds better in accommodating the way in which commercialization affects research.

Objectivity in rare disease research: A philosophical approach

“…Traditionally, the concept of objectivity in research implies the ability of scientists to base their reasoning on logic and data, thus avoiding prejudice and bias in the knowledge they provide about the world (Daston & Galison, 2007;Godfrey-Smith, 2003;Jokula, 2016;Porter, 2012). We would argue, however, that it is perhaps not that simple.…”

“…As the number of individuals living with a particular disease is relatively small-and there are a significant number of rare conditions-an array of challenges complicates the knowledge development in this area of study (Institute of Medicine Committee on Accelerating Rare Diseases Research & Orphan Products, 2010). Some of those difficulties include attracting public and private funding for research and development, recruiting enough numbers of research participants for clinical studies, appropriately using clinical research designs for small populations, and securing adequate expertise at the federal level that reviews rare disease research applications or authorizes the marketing of medications or treatments for rare conditions (Gericke et al, 2005;IOM, 2010;Jokula, 2016;Tabor & Goldenberg, 2018). These challenges make it difficult for researchers to recruit an adequate number of patients to reach scientifically valid conclusions (Faber & Fonseca, 2014;Gupta, 2012).…”

“…By partnering with industry, rare disease researchers have access to resources, participants, and potential collaborators-all of which are necessary to support scientific advancement, yet difficult to access otherwise (Gericke et al, 2005;Jokula, 2016). The tradeoff, of course, is the influence (real and perceived) of the industry partner on the science.…”

“…The impact of researcher values on data interpretation is integral to successfully addressing the research problem in rare disease; their utility lies in determining the significance of the gaps in the empirical data (Jokula, 2016;Wilholt, 2009). Given the highly specialized nature of their practice, clinicians and researchers in rare diseases have the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the need for knowledge/treatment in the context of known personal biases/ preferences, current treatment and wider healthcare priorities, and the available empirical evidence (Gericke et al, 2005).…”

“…It has been argued that, by allowing stakeholder values to inform and influence scientific research, the knowledge that is generated will disproportionately reflect those preferences (Kuhn, 1973;Wilholt, 2009Wilholt, , 2010. This concern carries with it the possibility that a false judgement claim regarding the reliability of results will be made and/or left unchallenged by the researcher or wider scientific community (Jokula, 2016). Not only will the study then lack rigor (Hanna, 2004;Kuhn, 1973), but it will ultimately detract from the wider body of knowledge in that area.…”