There is common assumption that those of us who undertake applied research with the commercial world must be biased.
This month the University of Queensland’s Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI), which I work for, came under fire in an article in The Australian newspaper.
Under the headline “Institute shy about industry cash”, the article implied the SMI has a conflict of interest as it is partly funded by the resource industry.
As a researcher I don’t speak on behalf of the institute. But I do feel strongly that I should share my approach to my work.
Not shy
Far from being “shy” about industry funding and engagement, SMI is an institute that is comfortable in its role, working with partners to effect change.
Yet at the same time, there are ethical considerations that demand to be taken seriously.
Each of the SMI centres are focused on improving sustainable development in the resource sector: workplace health and safety, rehabilitation of mined land, social performance), water and energy consumption, and operational efficiency. The institute engages with the resources sector to make mining more sustainable and equitable. It sees itself as practically delivering on sustainability.
Paul Cleary’s article repeats earlier comments about the issue of industry funding, influence and “university capture” made in his book and raised by Professor Clive Hamilton.
The argument was, and is, that if universities take money from the resources sector they must be doing so at the expense of an independent perspective.
Valid scepticism
Such a scepticism is healthy and to be encouraged. There is a need for vigilance about the motivations of organisations and the resources that support them, particularly in the contested space of mining.
This scepticism, even cynicism, is fuelled by very real instances of “greenwashing”. Front groups backed by industry funds can mask poor corporate performance, feign reform where no such reform exists, or manufacture “grassroots” organisations who defend the status quo (a practice sometimes called “astro-turfing”).
But SMI is not an institute that can fairly be described in this way. Even a cursory look at its research profile would reveal as much.
Critical view
The institute takes a critical view of industry practice. Its applied research has a different model than that of advocacy-focused civil society or campaign organisations.
The Institute’s research questions are framed to provide knowledge that can improve environmental and social performance.
Industry funding is an investment in finding out how to mine using less energy, with less water, more safely and with better results for the community.
Industry involvement in research
In my view, the industry bodies that fund SMI are doing so not because they are enlightened entities but because governments, civil society and communities are demanding such change.
There are those within the resources sector who look for external support to mobilise change internally to improve performance.
The institute’s director, Professor Chris Moran, articulates the institute’s approach. He says that the resources sector traditionally operates in a state of “maximum revenue mining”.
The institute’s work challenges the sector to move beyond focussing on efficiency to higher levels of effectiveness and sustainability (see Figure 1).
It is his view that some of the intractable issues in the sector can be resolved through applied research across disciplines. It should focus on all resources spheres, from the legacy of abandoned mines to beyond-the-horizon visions of what the NextMine and NextWorkforce should look like.
Complementary development
This unashamedly reformist approach is different to the approach adopted by social movements or civil society.
But it is nonetheless complementary – so long as reform is progressively aimed toward a broader goal, in this case sustainable and equitable development.
There is an onus to go beyond simple arguments that funding equals bias. The media should understand there are multiple avenues to deliver change. But there should always be a legitimate place for commentary about influence. And commentators need to hold any organisation to the ideals it espouses.
Likewise there is an onus on SMI to explain its model of change, not just to those in the resources sector it is seeking to influence.
It needs to have an inclusive dialogue with a broader set of stakeholders about the effectiveness of its approach – ironically the things we are often telling companies they should do.
Join the conversation
Comments (9)
stephen prowse
(logged in via Twitter)
There is a complex mixture of issues here that requires great transparency. Taxpayer funds should support basic research and applied research where there are outcomes that are of national benefit. Where the outcomes are of benefit to an industry sector and deliver a national benefit, there is an arguement for support through public funds. Where the research delivers benefit to a narrow section of a sector or to a single company, such research should be fully funded by the industry. Company size should…
show full comment
Jack Heinemann
(Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics at University of Canterbury)
What is sustainable mining?
I suppose I can fathom working to reduce adverse effects of mining, but I cannot fathom the possibility that mining will ever be part of a system in which the Earth is somehow replenished with raw materials as an end product. While no human activity at the moment meets this stringent condition, there are at least theoretical possibilities that biological systems could achieve sustainability (under the present Sun), including human communities.
I ask this question because…
show full comment
Stephan Lewandowsky
(Australian Professorial Fellow, Cognitive Science Laboratories at University of Western Australia)
Daniel, interesting article and you raise a complex issue. There is some research on this in the medical community, and I would like to draw your attention to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (Angell, M., 2000. Is academic medicine for sale? N. Engl. J. Med. 342 (20), 1516–1518.).
I quote a crucial paragraph below:
"Many researchers profess that they are outraged by the very notion that their financial ties to industry could affect their work. They insist that, as scientists, they…
show full comment
Daniel Franks
(Senior Research Fellow in Resources Policy at University of Queensland)
Thanks Stephan for the thoughtful comment.
I too think there are careful ethical issues to traverse as I hope I was able to articulate in my article.
What I think I was getting at, though, is that it is as much about how research questions are constructed as it is about the 'objectivity' of research.
If the research question is framed well than some of the ethical issues are easier to manage. That is if one accepts that resource sector performance is in need of improvement and undertakes applied research to develop solutions to meet that improvement that is a different situation to undertaking an 'assessment' of performance.
Stephan Lewandowsky
(Australian Professorial Fellow, Cognitive Science Laboratories at University of Western Australia)
I agree--up to a point. If you take the radical position that all mining is intrinsically bad because it is not sustainable, then of course you enter into an ethical quandary the moment you start working for the resources sector.
I am not taking this radical position, but I am just pointing out that there is a tacit framing you accept--viz. that mining *can* be sustainable or ethical--and that's important to at least be aware of.
Daniel Franks
(Senior Research Fellow in Resources Policy at University of Queensland)
Perhaps, though I would contend that one accepts this tacit framing as soon as we invite the products of that sector (metals, computers etc..) into our lives. The onus I believe is to shape a better future (that is alternative visions of mining and/or alternatives to mining).
Stephan Lewandowsky
(Australian Professorial Fellow, Cognitive Science Laboratories at University of Western Australia)
precisely. and therein lies the problem, as well as the potential solution.
Jon Wardle
(NHMRC Research Scholar, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
I have absolutely no problem with industry funding research. I do, however, have a problem with the trend of government using 'linkage' type schemes to get out of directly or solely funding research more and more these days.
Or the increasing focus universities and governments increasing focus on short-term research commercialisation instead of base research that may only demonstrate benefit many years down the track.
Applied research is incredibly important, but so is basic research. Both probably equally so in the long term.
Simon Batterbury
(Associate Professor at University of Melbourne)
The issue for me is, as a reseacher engaged a small bit with mining, what happens if you step over the line? What happens if your research points to the unavoidable conclusion that company activities should cease and the minerals should be kept in the ground due to terrible environmental and social impacts? The environmental impacts could be high emissions from brown coal for example. Social impacts have at times been so severe that mine closure or suspension has been recommended - as in eastern…
show full comment