The Bill Gates Problem by Tim Schwab

Author:Tim Schwab
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Henry Holt and Co.

Barber’s story describes not only the Gates Foundation’s willingness to bend research to advance its agenda but also the complex avenues it has to do this. In science, the answer you get depends on the question you ask, the assumptions you make, and the data and methods you use. And this is where a researcher’s, or a funder’s, bias can change outcomes. As Barber explained it, the Gates Foundation “micromanaged” and “dictated” the methods, which forced the research down one path—toward the results and conclusion Gates wanted.

As reported earlier in this book, the head of the WHO’s malaria program in 2007 alleged that the Gates Foundation’s expansive funding of malaria research was hurting science by pushing the research community into “a cartel” where independent, critical viewpoints could not be raised. This too is an important dimension of Gates’s funding influence. By using its money to amplify the voices of scientists who agree with its agenda, it can marginalize other perspectives.

The Gates Foundation’s influence over research is well known, but many observers are reluctant to criticize the foundation publicly. As Melissa Barber noted, she had been afraid to tell her story publicly because so many jobs in the field of global health depended on Gates money. Simply put, many scientists are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them, or that may one day feed them, a phenomenon that academic researchers call “the Bill chill.”

Scholars I interviewed—who asked for anonymity—offered consistent, independent accounts of Gates’s meddling in scientific research to make it line up with the foundation’s agenda. One researcher working for a Gates-funded organization said it was normal to show drafts of studies to the foundation, giving them an opportunity to shape the research, which they did. Another source told me that when they applied for a job at the foundation, the interviewers made a point of describing how much influence the foundation had over the research it funded—both in the design of studies and in how the results were presented.

Such behavior speaks to the ways that monied interests seek to quietly influence science the same way they seek to influence politics. Securing favorable research advances bottom lines, gains regulatory approval, pushes legislators to adopt industry-friendly “science-based” policies, and inspires friendly media coverage. When powerful funders are involved in scientific research, the findings and results routinely support the funder’s agenda. This well-documented bias, called the funding effect, appears across a wide range of research fields.

It’s tempting to imagine the Gates Foundation having no “bottom line”—and no bias—as a humanitarian charity. And this is what makes its influence so malign. We imagine the foundation’s role in science as an independent, neutral, check-writing charity, supporting science for the sake of advancing knowledge. In reality, the Gates Foundation, like Big Pharma and Big Tobacco, has deeply vested interests in the research it funds, which it calls on to deliver favorable results—whether it is tallying the millions of lives it is saving, studying the merits of its interventions, or publishing evaluations that support its ideological position on issues like intellectual property rights.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.