 |
|
Leaving room
for dissent
Gillian
Evans, Lecturer in theology at Cambridge University, public policy secretary for
the Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards (CAFAS) |
|
In the first universities
of medieval Europe, 800 years ago, an individual who questioned official attitudes
could find himself an outlaw. The notion that there was value in challenging what
society thought permissible through public debate emerged later, as a result of the
religious and intellectual wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. Gradually, a tacit
agreement developed between the state and universities, whereby freedom of speech
in the public interest was allowed.
Governments—and to some extent university administrations themselves—are losing sight
of the reasons for protecting this community that is allowed, like the court jester,
to ask authorities awkward questions. Universities are increasingly seen as training
centres rather than as institutions of higher learning. They are expected to produce
skilled workers instead of critical scholars in societies where a computer programmer
is deemed more valuable than a philosopher.
Pressure to reduce government spending coupled with rising student enrolment has driven universities
world-wide into the arms of commerce. The constant search for funding is time-consuming
and inefficient. Moreover some “big name” universities attract private funding more
easily than others because of their prestigious “brandnames.” When universities “collaborate”
or enter “partnerships” with big corporations, the lawyers of the latter are generally
far more astute in pursuing their clients’ interests than those negotiating on behalf
of universities. The corporation offers a new building, salaries to attract “big
leading players,” equipment. In return it may retain control of the direction of
the research and even impose a new set of staff relationships.
Before, long-term posts in the universities gave scientists the opportunity and security
to pursue novel ideas that arose during their work. But commercially-financed research
aimed at specific projects does not allow for digression. Its prime objective is
to produce the goods—marketable products—leaving fundamental science to the sidelines.
The sponsor can also control the intellectual property rights and even the right
to publish the project results. It can prevent the scientist from sharing research
at an international conference and can even stop his or her work if the funder doesn’t
like the way it is going.
The old expectation was that scientific expertise was global in its reach and exchange.
Scientists met in international conferences and gave papers which everyone could
discuss. Independent, respected voices could be heard to disagree with the claims
of government or corporate-sponsored research. Today, the corporations are buying
up this expertise, leaving very few voices to challenge what they are telling the
world.
Some international watchdogs are beginning to take action. Yet even the American
National Academy of Sciences considers that it is difficult to find individuals of
sufficient seniority and with visibly clean hands to form a watchdog body that would
call to account those who manipulate data, appropriate ideas or bend conclusions.
We need a critical mass of these brave and articulate individuals who are willing
to speak out until academic freedom is restored and recognized as a protection of
everyone’s freedoms. |
|
|
