【正文】 o achieve shortterm goals. Weatherall concluded that many scientists and universities were naive and too easily exploited, and suggested that review panels be set up to monitor all scientific research to protect both science and the public it served.The issue of scientific research only promising immediate or shortterm economic henefitS was also tackled by another delegate, environmentalist and political activist George Monbiot. He laid the blame on governments for encouraging this attitude. He also argued that mercial bias was evident in terms of which areas of research were selected for funding, referring to this as the radon factor. The chemical element radon is the only pollutant known to occur naturally and not as the result of industrial or agricultural activity, and Monbiot suggested that scientific research on radon pollution was more likely to be funded than research on any other kind of pollution simply because radon pollution does not occur as a result of human activity. Similar bias, he asserted, was demonstrated in the way that public funds were allocated for research on biotechnology in agriculture and medicine while research on the possible dangers of genetic engineering was clearly neglected. Monbiot contended that scientists were too eas訴enticed by business funding without due consideration for public needs. He urged a dramatic change of course by academicsa revolution in the laboratory”.The need to promote understanding of critical public scientific research was a further point delegates raised. Similarly, the need to ensure that science was accountable to society was highlighted in various presentations. The pilers of the conference report, Peter Saunders and MaeWan Ho, concluded: It is not just the individual freedom of scientists to tell the truth that is at stake, important.,though that is?！眎s their independenc and their freedom to work for public good that must be restored and maintained (Hon amp。 Saunaers, 2001).A different viewpoint on the argument over links between scientific research and business interests in the USA is presented in an article by Harvard Business School economist Gary Pisano (Pisano, 2006). He explains that by 2006 a great deal of money (some $300 billion) had been invested in developing biotechnology in the belief that it could transform healthcare in the USA. Originally, the idea was that promoting new forms of entrepreneurial activity would in turn promote basic scientific medical research that would be profitable for investors. However, none of this had yet happened. Pisano blamed this failure to be profitable on the structure of the biotechnology industry. He said an industry model that had been used successfully with puter and software panies was inappropriate when applied in a biotechnological context. Pisano39。s view was that there was a conflict between, on the one hand, how industry manages and rewards risks and how businesses are funded, and on the other hand, the research and development timetable required to create new drugs. Basically, opportunities for learning through trial and error and through sharing of knowledge between scientists representing a plethora of disciplines are frustrated when individual panies closely safeguard intellectual prouerty rights. Venture capitalists have a time horizon of about three years for a particular investment, which is much less than the average time most panies take to get a new drug on the market. Meanwhile, the period taken to confirm the safety and effectiveness of a newly developed drug is lengthy, involving a process of trial and error, which does not sit easily with much mercial or political planning.12