1. IBM, Elsevier Science, and Academic Freedom
- Author
-
Andrew Watterson, Timothy Rohm, Yung-Der Wang, Joseph LaDou, John C. Bailar, Robert Harrison, Andre Cicolella, Daniel Thau Teitelbaum, Barry S. Levy, and Fumikazu Yoshida
- Subjects
Freedom ,Academic freedom ,Level playing field ,Universities ,Elsevier ,Research Support as Topic ,Industry ,International Business Machines Corporation ,Medicine ,IBM ,Industrial relations ,Occupational Health ,Publishing ,Conflict of Interest ,business.industry ,Research ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,Conflict of interest ,Public relations ,Industry influence ,Dominance (economics) ,Law ,Professional association ,Elsevier Science Publishers ,business ,Environmental Health ,Employees Health and hygiene - Abstract
Elsevier Science refused to publish a study of IBM workers that IBM sought to keep from public view. Occupational and environmental health (OEH) suffers from the absence of a level playing field on which science can thrive. Industry pays for a substantial portion of OEH research. Studies done by private consulting firms or academic institutions may be published if the results suit the sponsoring companies, or they may be censored. OEH journals often reflect the dominance of industry influence on research in the papers they publish, sometimes withdrawing or modifying papers in line with industry and advertising agendas. Although such practices are widely recognized, no fundamental change is supported by government and industry or by professional organizations.
- Published
- 2007
- Full Text
- View/download PDF