In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY IN NATIONAL SCIENCE POLICY* THE PEOPLE'S WELFARE: HEALTHAND MEDICINE MAX TISHLER\ I was glad to accept Dr. Baker's invitation to be here today to discuss some of the problems and opportunities I see for research in the health sciences. The perspective I bring to the discussion is that ofa scientist who has devoted more than thirty years ofhis life to research carried out in the context ofa pharmaceutical industry laboratory. There are two fundamental points I shall make at the outset. The first is that the strength ofthe research effort in the United States derives from the breadth of its base. It involves government, academic, and industrial settings. It involves both public and private programs and support. Given its unparalleled record ofinnovation and productivity, it would be tragic indeed if national policy—or rather the absence of national policy—were to permit any one ofthe partners to be weakened to the point where it became essentially valueless in the research equation. The second fundamental point has to do with communication. We live in an era of strident voices, ofrancor without cause, ofpartisanship that obliterates the values of others. True, this is perhaps less characteristic of science than it is of campus confrontations. In science, we welcome and thrive on disagreement; we respect those who hold opposing views. But, as our public policy on science is shaped and reshaped, there are signs that mutual respect is giving way to mutual reservation, which in turn could give way to mutual distrust and disrespect—unless the channels of communication are kept open. That is why I applaud the purpose of this meeting here today: to give those who represent science in government * Address deliveredto Plenary Session, National Research Council, National Academy ofSciences, Washington, D.C., March 1969. f Senior vice president, Research and Development, Merck & Co., Rahway, NewJersey. Presently professor of chemistry, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut. 528 Max Tishler · Industry in National Science Policy Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Summer 1970 an opportunity to listen to some who represent science in industry and to respond. Since the value ofindustrial research in the health sciences is being attacked these days, I will briefly point to the record. No one can deny the early and continuing contributions of the American pharmaceutical industry through its research and development in the fields of vitamins, antibiotics, and steroids. Since World War II, we have led the world in the creation ofimportant new medicines that often represent revolutionary advances in therapy. From their industrial laboratories have come: the thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive agents, oral contraceptives, oral antidiabetic agents, new drugs effective against tuberculosis, the first prophylactic antiviral agent, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, the first antidepressants and the first tranquilizers, nonaddicting analgesics, a number of anticancer agents, vaccines for measles and mumps, and drugs for the treatment ofrare diseases, such as Wilson's disease, biliary cirrhosis, trichinosis , and others. It is worth noting that at least 90 percent ofthe major drugs made available to the physician since 1930 were discovered either by a collaborative program of research between university and pharmaceuticalresearch scientists or in a program ofresearch carried out almost exclusively in the laboratories of the pharmaceutical industry. Nowhere is the involvement ofgovernment, universities, and industry more essential than in health research—each is dependent on the contributions of the other two. If my observations touch on topics that may not seem germane to industry research, it is because I am deeply committed to the oneness ofscience—to the concept that whatever affects one ofits parts affects the whole ofscientific endeavor. I begin with the universities, the heart ofour national dedication to the acquisition and transmission ofknowledge. The frailty oftoday's mechanisms for support ofthe universities as institutions, in all oftheir functions, concerns me. Support ofuniversity sciencehas grown by leaps and bounds, with the multiple programs ofthe federal government the primary source offunds. What has emerged is a crazy quilt, not a pattern. The modalities of support have bred insecurity, not stability, dependence, not freedom. One must acknowledge the inescapable obligation to husband and account for each dollar of the taxpayer's money that is invested in research. But one must acknowledge, also, that too much...

pdf

Share