reading & writing - eas: english for academic study online
TRANSCRIPT
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.
0088 EAS - Reading and Writing - Source book.indd 13 09/05/2012 15:35
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.
0088 EAS - Reading and Writing - Source book.indd 14 09/05/2012 15:35
English for Academic Study Reading & Writing Source Book 15
3b
Text 3b Isbusinessbadforscience?
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.
0088 EAS - Reading and Writing - Source book.indd 15 09/05/2012 15:35
English for Academic Study16 Reading & Writing Source BookReading & Writing Source Book
4
Text 3b Isbusinessbadforscience?
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).
0088 EAS - Reading and Writing - Source book.indd 16 09/05/2012 15:35