Should industry hug academics more?
We need more public-private partnerships, demands Günter Stock, President of the Berlin Brandenburgische Academy of Sciences (Germany), former member of the management board of Schering AG. Isn't funding research rather the duty of a government, asks LabTimes reporter Karin Hollricher.
LabTimes: Professor Stock, you say that public-private partnerships are an essential element for the European Research Area. You talked about that during the Euroscience Open Forum in Munich this year. Do you think that more money really means more or even better science?
Stock: Of course, there's no doubt that with more money we can do more science. It depends on how much a country; a society is prepared to spend. In Germany for example we spend less than three per cent of the gross national product for science. That's not enough. We need more money.
LabTimes: Isn't funding academic science rather a duty of a country, a government than of industry?
Stock: No doubt the money should come from the government, but what are the facts? Seventy percent of research money comes from industry, only thirty per cent comes from German governmental sources. I believe that the German government could and should do more and of course industry should also do more.
LabTimes: What about other EU-countries?
Stock: In England for example government pays even less than in Germany. That's why the British government has started an enormous effort to spend more money on the science system. They have made really interesting and aggressive progress when it comes to public funding.
LabTimes: How much money is given by industry and by governments in Europe?
Stock: I can't tell you. We don't know what the whole of Europe is really spending on research. Also we don't know what governments put under the heading of research money. This can vary between countries depending on the philosophy of what they call research. It is not easy to get a clear figure.
LabTimes: So is that why you plead for industry to put more money into public research?
Stock: I'm highly interested in getting more money into the system because we in Europe are dependent on knowledge based industries. We have no other resources. That's why we have already invested in early education and have to continue with graduate students and postdocs. We have to offer labs and working opportunities in different areas of the system in order to fully exploit what you can get from our knowledge. Science is the basis of our current life and even more so for our future. Therefore if you want to secure the future, we need not only to talk about our social systems which are now a top topic in Europe. We also have to discuss carefully how can we build a firm basis, a firm educational infrastructure which really allows us to fully exploit the knowledge which is there and which can be worked on in terms of creating products. That is why I'm fighting for "public private partnership".
LabTimes: Isn't there a risk that academics become dependent on or even controlled by industry?
Stock: That is a typical Central European discussion. In Great Britain there's more relaxation about that topic. In the USA there's no such kind of discussion. There are now rules for cooperation between industrial enterprises and academic institutions about patenting, publishing and milestones. That can all be fixed in contracts. What comes with industry cooperation is that those milestones can be stricter than milestones that are formulated by public funding sources.
We need perhaps a new disciplineguidelines on how to work together properly.
LabTimes: That sounds too simple...
Stock: Look: There's research organized in academic institutions and there's research organized within an industrial context. We have to allow for cooperation between those people who have the brains and who have the desire to really create something new. At present Wwe discuss those things only on an institutional level and we always feel it is highly complex. It is not. Scientists wherever they are working in many cases share common goals. That's definitely true in biomedicine and technological areas. No doubt! Why should there be controlling of industry. How could it ever work when qualified scientists cooperate?Why should we fear academics being controlled by industry when all qualified scientists want to do is to cooperate with one another?
LabTimes: How does industry work with academic institutions in the European Community?
Stock: That depends on what type of industry we are talking about. In the biomedical field unfortunately Europe is no longer the Mecca of the pharmaceutical industry. However, we have gained a lot of very good experience concerning cooperation. In Great Britain, Sweden and in Denmark to my knowledge the interaction is working smoothly. In France things are probably not that well sorted out - but that is a very subjective feeling, I have no data to support that. In Spain there's no relevant pharmaceutical industry so they have to learn both sides. In Germany we have changed our attitude to quite an extent within the last ten years; the cooperation has become better but could still be increased and improved.
LabTimes: Is industry interested in putting more money into academic research?
Stock: Industry has learned that networking and cooperation with academic institutions is a "Must". The question is: Where to put the money? Do they go to an American, British, Swedish or German institution? The answer is: European industry tends to spend their money in the USA. So we do not get enough industrial money into European academic research.
LabTimes: When it comes to clinical studies private funding is urgently needed. However, academic scientists are cautious, arguing that one should never believe a clinical study when it is funded by industry. One complaint for example is that negative results tend to be omitted. Would you like to comment on that?
Stock (with emphasis): I would love to comment on that. Have you ever seen a researcher publishing negative data on his mice experiments? No! The reason could be that there is no fun in publishing those things or working them out properly. That is inherent. Very good, professional companies will always agree with researchers who want to publish negative results. I think this is an attitude that depends a bit on the style of the company. There might be some problems from time to time but the issue is largely, really largely exaggerated by the public. The dominating factor is: it's no fun to publish negative results. What would you learn from them?
LabTimes: If negative results were published perhaps one could avoid other experiments.
Stock: There is the assumption that negative data would deter other companies from doing the trial or experiment again. This is fair but I do not know of any company who has repeated the same trial because they usually have other drugs, other patients and different questions to answer. So studies will also be different to a large extent. One major objective in clinical trials is to bring together 1000 patients in ten or more clinics under the same treatment regime, under the same treatment philosophy with the same measurements and with the same endpoints. No one will want to pay to repeat another study. It is a real piece of art not to repeat another study. In addition, clinical research is not only clinical testing of substances. That is an incorrect connotation. With molecular medicine we have now entered an area where we need clinical research at its best in order to verify in vitro and animal experiments.
LabTimes: Right, humans are not simply big mice...
Stock: ...human beings are so complex. Animal experiments give you very specific answers on a very specific question. That's why it is of the utmost importance that intelligent clinical research sorts out what is useful in humans. Some people call that translational research and it is definitely going to grow. In Europe this can only grow with public-private partnerships. Public money will never be enough to support this type of research. There's a need for industry money to be used with clear, careful quality control and of course consideration of ethical issues. In the clinical world there is no major research effort where you do not need public-private partnerships when it comes to larger scale research and complicated questions.
LabTimes: So scientists need not fear that they have to publish what Germans call Gefälligkeitsstudien where results are polished to the wanted outcome?
Stock: Believe me: in industrial research there is no "soft money".
LabTimes: Soft money?
Stock: That is money for projects that have not been intensively reviewed, where science plays no role. The real industry money is the money that is taken for research and there is no soft money here.
LabTimes: What I can hardly believe...
Stock: The money industry spends on academic research is money that is taken away from their own researchers. Before these guys will give the money outside their own domain, you can be sure they really want to be convinced. Applications will be reviewed and money will be spent only on scrutinized projects. This is really "hard money".
