from Chapter 4 of Living with the Fluid Genome by Mae Wan Ho

"...The suppression of scientific dissent is one of the most serious and visible signs of the 'academic-industrial-military complex' at work. It goes against the very grain and essence of what science ought to be: the open, disinterested enquiry into the causes of natural processes.

In Septembr 2000, trade union leaders warned that the integrity of British science was being threatened by "a dash for commercial cash". The Institute of Professionals Managers and Specialists carried out a survey of scientists working in government or in recently privatized laboratories. One-third of the respondents had been asked to change their research findings to suit the customer's preferred outcome, while 10% were pressured to bend their results to help secure contracts. Britain's handful of top research universities are dependent on private funding, often amounting to 80-90% of the total research budget.

. . .In my own case, it was indeed a phone call from Brian Cass, chief of Huntingdon's Life Sciences whose clients included Novartis (now Syngenta) that resulted in my being hounded out of the university I had worked in for nearly 25 years.

Environmental journalist George Monbiot gave more examples in his book, Captive State, The corporate Takeover of Britain of similar treatments universities mete out to academics daring to dissent from the corporate agenda or to criticise it.

But the phenomenon is far from new. I count myself among those at the receiving end of 'intellectual suppression'. Brian Martin, theoretical physicist turned social scientist in the University of Wollongong, Australia, has written volumes on the subject of how the academic establishment punishes individuals who challenge conventional wisdom or break with the orthodox opinion in any way. They are subjected to many kinds of abuse, cease to get grant support for their research, fail to get tenure or are passed over in promotions.

 . . . academic institutions have been getting into an orgy of incestuous relationships with industry. Scientists find themselves testing drugs they have invented, sitting on committees approving the drugs and holding financial stakes in companies that stand to profit from them.

. . .top journals such as Science, Natureand New Scientist are dependent on corporate sponsorship, and appear reluctant to give voice to scientists dissenting from corporate view, while granting undue and apparently unlimited access to their pages to pro-biotech scientists and other supporters of the industry..."

The book may be ordered from