Reading & Writing - EAS: English for Academic Study online

This fully updated 2012 edition of the English for Academic Study: Reading & Writing Source Book accompanies the EAS: Reading and EAS: Writing Course Books, which can be studied separately or together in an integrated course. The EAS: Reading & Writing Source Book contains authentic and up-to-date academic texts that will help prepare students for academic life.

Each text covers an interesting and topical issue, with the aim of challenging and stimulating the reader. All texts are a suitable length and level for academic study, and are designed for use with the Course Books. They will help to develop both reading and writing skills.

This book can be used in conjunction with the following books in the English for Academic Study (EAS) series, also published by Garnet Education: EAS: Reading, EAS: Writing, EAS: Extended Writing & Research Skills, EAS: Speaking, EAS: Listening, EAS: Vocabulary and EAS: Pronunciation.

�John�Slaght�has�worked�at�the�University�of�Reading�in�a�variety�of�capacities�since�1988�and�now�works�as�director�of�assessment�and�test�development�in�the�International�Study�and�Language�Centre.�John�has�considerable�overseas�experience�in�higher�education,�having�spent�14�years�teaching�in�Africa�and�the�Middle�East.�His�university�work�continues�to�provide�him�with�extensive�travel�to�many�parts�of�the�world.�

�Anne�Pallant�has�many�years�of�experience�of�teaching�English�for�Academic�Purposes,�and�has�been�teaching�at�the�International�Study�and�Language�Centre�since�1991.�Her�current�focus�of�interest�is�the�teaching�of�academic�writing�skills,�and�the�development�of�appropriate�materials�and�methodology,�both�face-to-face�and�e-learning.�She�is�especially�interested�in�the�teaching�of�critical�thinking�skills�in�academic�writing.

�The�International�Study�and�Language�Centre�(ISLC)�at�the�University�of�Reading�has�nearly��40�years’�experience�in�offering�English�for�Academic�Purposes�(EAP)�courses�to�international�students.�It�has�a�long-standing,�worldwide�reputation�for�the�quality�of�its�tuition,�materials�development�and�the�support�given�to�students�during�their�time�in�higher�education.

Suitable�for:

Upper intermediate to proficiency

IELTS 5.0–7.5+

CEFR B2–C2

Reading & W

ritingEnglish for Academic Study

New edition

Source Book John Slaght and Anne Pallant

www.garneteducation.com

Components:

EAS: Reading & Writing Source Book ISBN�978�1�90861�436�0

EAS: Reading – Course Book ISBN�978�1�90861�437�7

EAS: Reading – Teacher’s Book ISBN�978�1�90861�438�4

EAS: Writing – Course Book ISBN�978�1�90861�439�1

EAS: Writing – Teacher’s Book ISBN�978�1�90861�440�7

0088 EAS - Reading and Writing - Cover.indd 1 09/05/2012 11:00

English for Academic Study12 Reading & Writing Source Book

The business of science3

Text 3a Stopsellingoutsciencetocommerce

Stop selling out science to commerce

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Introduction�

DO COMMERCIAL pressures have a negative impact

on science? This debate has been raging for so long

that it usually raises little more than a shrug of

indifference. That is no longer a defensible response. A

new report from the organisation Scientists for Global

Responsibility (SGR) exposes problems so serious that

we can no longer afford to be indifferent to them.

Section�1�

The report looks at the impact of five commercial sectors

on science and technology over the past 20 years. The

damaging influence of two of these, pharmaceuticals

and tobacco, has been noted before. But we also looked

at the oil and gas, defence and biotech sectors, which

have been subjected to less scrutiny. We found a wide

range of disturbing commercial influences on science,

and evidence that similar problems are occurring

across academic disciplines.

Over the past two decades, government policy

in the US, UK and elsewhere has fundamentally

altered the academic landscape in a drive for profit.

Universities have been pushed to adopt a much

more commercial mindset, from taking out patents

to prioritising research that promises short-term

economic gains. The rapid spread of partnerships

between businesses and universities has led to some

disciplines becoming so intertwined with industry that

few academics are able to retain their independence.

Chemical engineering and geology are strongly linked

to oil companies, for example, and it is hard to find

an engineering department in the UK which does not

receive funding from the arms industry. And many life

sciences departments have extensive links with the

biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

Section�2�

This creates enormous potential for conflicts of

interest. The problem has long been recognised in

medical research, and journals are starting to crack

down on it, but in other disciplines the problems are

rarely even discussed, let alone acted upon. Such

problems are a major concern because they can

undermine the quality and reliability of research.

This is perhaps best illustrated by ‘sponsorship bias’,

where research generates results that suit the funder

0088 EAS - Reading and Writing - Source book.indd 12 09/05/2012 15:35

English for Academic Study Reading & Writing Source Book 13

Text 3a Stopsellingoutsciencetocommerce

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

3aThe business of science

(The Journal of the American Medical Association,

290, p 921). Another well-documented problem is the

failure to report results unfavourable to the funder.

Research is also undermined by misleading

messages put out by industry-funded lobby groups.

Again, these tactics are well known from the tobacco

and oil industries, with their deliberate questioning of

health research and sponsorship of climate sceptics.

Less attention has been given to the funding of some

patient groups by pharmaceutical companies and

the (sometimes covert) use of PR companies by the

biotechnology industry in the debate over genetically

modified crops. This does not bode well for public

discussions on the risks of synthetic biology.

Section�3�

Another cornerstone of science that is being eroded is

the freedom to set the public research agenda so that it

serves the public interest. Governments are increasingly

focused on delivering competitiveness, and business

interests are able to exert pressure on funding bodies

through representatives on their boards. As a result,

environmental and social problems and ‘blue-sky’

research commonly lose out to short-term commercial

gain. For example, genetics now dominates agricultural

science, not least because genetic technologies are

highly patentable. This not only dominates privately-

funded research, but also steers publicly-funded

research away from work that takes a different

approach or explores low-tech solutions. As a result,

‘low-input’ agriculture, which requires minimal use of

chemical fertilisers and pesticides and is cheaper and

more useful to poorer farmers, is largely overlooked.

Similarly, research on how to improve food distribution

receives inadequate support.

Section�4�

Another example is research on security issues,

which is overwhelmingly focused on new military

technology. Research into understanding the roots of

conflict, or to support negotiation and reconciliation

programmes, receives a tiny fraction of the tens

of billions of dollars spent globally on developing

military hardware. And most of that is public money.

Put bluntly, much publicly-funded science is no longer

being done in the public interest. Despite this, policy-

makers are complacent and argue that any damaging

effects of commercial influence are minor. In contrast,

many scientists are noticing the effects and becoming

discomfited by them. Some are starting to speak out.

For example, staff at the Open University in the UK

are pushing for new ethical standards for business

partnerships following the university’s involvement in

a major military contract. However, these campaigns

are few and far between. There is a strong incentive

for scientists not to make a fuss if their department

receives industry funds. This is strengthened by

contractual requirements for secrecy that often come

with industry partnerships.

Conclusion�

To defend independent science, reform is needed,

from the level of government policy down to

that of the research study. To this end, SGR is making

recommendations. These include: the open publication

of all funding arrangements between academia and

business; ethical standards for business–university

partnerships; proper handling of conflicts of interest

by journals; more involvement of the public in setting

research priorities; and a change in government

policies which prioritise research with short-term

commercial priorities above all else. Scientists

must now voice their concerns publicly in order

that policy-makers hear them. They could do worse

than follow the example set by campaigners at the

Open University.

Stuart Parkinson and Chris Langley are authors of the SGR report Science and the Corporate Agenda, which can be downloaded from sgr.org.uk.

Source: Adapted from Parkinson, S., & Langley, C. (2009). Stop selling out science to commerce. New Scientist, 204 (2733), 32–33.


English for Academic Study14 Reading & Writing Source Book

Text 3b Isbusinessbadforscience?

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is business bad for science?

Before the emergence of biotechnology, business and science operated in largely

separate spheres. The business world had little interest in expanding scientific knowledge, leaving research firmly within the domain of universities, government laboratories and non-profit institutions (Pisano, 2006). However, the new millennium saw a marriage of business power and scientific development as biotechnological advances drew both interests together.

The impact of the alliance between business and science has been substantial, but it has not always been seen positively. Many would claim that science has lost the freedom and the time to carry out research as thoroughly and as painstakingly as it should. The situation has been aggravated by the frustration felt by business interests, as investors demand, in their view quite reasonably, a much quicker return on their investment than has often been experienced.

A number of controversial questions have arisen. Does modern research (particularly medical research) serve the interests of society in general as well as it should? Is the approach to medical research as honest as it should be? To what extent is scientific research for its own sake being restricted in deference to short-term economic interests? Are governments and venture capitalists – people who make high-risk investments but with the possibility of making a significant profit – biased towards immediate economic gains with little or no respect for the health and welfare of society? Are scientists and the institutions they represent being both naïve and greedy in joining forces with commercial enterprise? Should science make a stand against aggressive business tactics, or should business experts promote a relationship with science that more equitably serves the interests of both investors and social welfare? Commercial interest in scientific research can have a detrimental effect. A further issue is the extent to which society benefits from such research – if it does so at all.


English for Academic Study Reading & Writing Source Book 15

3b


50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

The business of science

In 2001 an important conference was held in London to consider these concerns (see Ho & Saunders, 2001). A major cause for concern highlighted by one delegate at the conference – haematologist Nancy Olivieri, of Toronto University – was the concealment of research findings which might be detrimental to the interests particularly of large multinational companies. Olivieri’s struggle with her employer and with a drug company since 1996 is well documented. She had been undertaking research at the university hospital involving a drug for treating the blood disease thalassaemia. Olivieri maintained that when evidence emerged that the drug had a high level of toxicity, the company that produced the drug and funded the research went to great lengths to stop her publicising her concerns. Olivieri argued that the suppression of medical research findings was contrary to the principles of the Hippocratic Oath – according to which doctors swear to practise medicine ethically.

A key conference delegate was the late John Ziman – a noted physicist who was also interested in the social aspects of science – who categorized research as either instrumental or non-instrumental. Instrumental or ‘applied’ research is intended to be immediately useful, often in terms of economic or financial gain; consequently, it may often be tied to business interests. Non-instrumental or ‘theoretical’ research typically seeks to answer more basic questions and offers no obvious short- or medium-term opportunity for economic or financial gain. Ziman described instrumental research as ‘practical’, ‘proprietary’ and ‘partisan’. This meant that such research had an anticipated outcome and research results would be the property of some individual, company or corporation with a vested interest; as a result, any interpretation of the outcome was likely to be biased. Ziman noted that although non-instrumental research formed a crucial foundation for instrumental research, the motivation for undertaking non-instrumental research was much less immediately obvious. For him, non instrumental research was not only a

‘source-of wonder’ but also a way to develop ‘critical rationality’ – i.e., an unwillingness to accept claims or arguments without question. Ziman argued that a ‘post-academic culture’ had evolved in which science was no longer the province of universities or non-commercial research institutes but was treated as a ‘saleable commodity’ not necessarily in the interests of the public.

However, there is little doubt that serious scientific research would struggle if not collapse without cooperation between universities and business interests, underpinned by government support. This was a viewpoint emphasized by another delegate, David Weatherall of Oxford University’s Institute of Molecular Medicine. He stressed the importance of eliminating the pressure on science always to achieve short-term goals. Weatherall concluded that many scientists and universities were naïve and too easily exploited, and suggested that review panels be set up to monitor all scientific research to protect both science and the public it served.


English for Academic Study16 Reading & Writing Source BookReading & Writing Source Book

4


130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

The issue of scientific research only promising immediate or short-term economic benefits was also tackled by another delegate, environmentalist and political activist George Monbiot. He laid the blame on governments for encouraging this attitude. He also argued that commercial bias was evident in terms of which areas of research were selected for funding, referring to this as ‘the radon factor’. The chemical element radon is the only pollutant known to occur naturally and not as the result of industrial or agricultural activity, and Monbiot suggested that scientific research on radon pollution was more likely to be funded than research on any other kind of pollution simply because radon pollution does not occur as a result of human activity. Similar bias, he asserted, was demonstrated in the way that public funds were allocated for research on biotechnology in agriculture and medicine while research on the possible dangers of genetic engineering was clearly neglected. Monbiot contended that scientists were too easily enticed by business funding without due consideration for public needs. He urged a dramatic change of course by academics – a ‘revolution in the laboratory’.

The need to promote critical public understanding of scientific research was a further point delegates raised. Similarly, the need to ensure that science was ‘accountable’ to society was highlighted in various presentations. The compilers of the conference report, Peter Saunders and Mae-Wan Ho, concluded: ‘It is not just the individual freedom of scientists to tell the truth that is at stake, important though that is; it is their independence and their freedom to work for public good that must be restored and maintained’ (Ho & Saunders, 2001).

A different viewpoint on the argument over links between scientific research and business interests in the USA is presented in an article by Harvard Business School economist Gary Pisano (Pisano, 2006). He explains that by 2006 a great deal of money

(some $300 billion) had been invested in developing biotechnology in the belief that it could transform healthcare in the USA. Originally, the idea was that promoting new forms of entrepreneurial activity would in turn promote basic scientific medical research that would be profitable for investors. However, none of this had yet happened.

Pisano blamed this failure to be profitable on the structure of the biotechnology industry. He said an industry model that had been used successfully with computer and software companies was inappropriate when applied in a biotechnological context. Pisano’s view was that there was a conflict between, on the one hand, how industry manages and rewards risks and how businesses are funded, and on the other hand, the research and development timetable required to create new drugs. Basically, opportunities for learning through trial and error and through sharing of knowledge between scientists representing a plethora of disciplines are frustrated when individual companies closely safeguard intellectual property rights. Venture capitalists have a time horizon of about three years for a particular investment, which is much less than the average time most companies take to get a new drug on the market. Meanwhile, the period taken to confirm the safety and effectiveness of a newly developed drug is lengthy, involving a process of trial and error, which does not sit easily with much commercial or political planning.

ReferencesHo, M.-W., & Saunders, P. (2001, July 10). Big business =

bad science? I-sis News, 9/10. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/i-sisnews9–7.php

Pisano, G. P. (2006). Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech. Harvard Business Review. 84(10), 114–124.

Source:John Slaght, ISLC, University of Reading, UK, based primarily on Ho & Saunders (2001) and Pisano (2006).


Documents

Reading & Writing - EAS: English for Academic Study online