Academia vs. Private Industry

[TZ]

So we have all heard the woos complain about "corporate science" as being not real science. Well, a discussion this morning got me

thinking..I have worked in both academia AND private industry and although there is a lot of stuff to criticize with corporations,

its been my experience that in private industry you have better compliance with regulations, better safety standards, and because

much much better quality control in general. In fact, almost every place I've been has had pretty active QA/QC departments..that

were much better than in academia. When I worked at NIH I saw more bad science than anywhere else. At NIH there was lax safety

standards, outright data manipulation, and a general lack of accountability/quality control/oversight. Woos seem to think that in

private industry the push for profit makes safety and quality not a priority but thats not really true. And even in places that had

an overly profit minded set they still managed to put out good product! But at NIH I saw really worrying stuff! In academia there is

just as much financial motives to push bad science as the competition for funding can be fierce!

I know that one high level Malaria vaccine researcher (which is what I was working on at NIH) got so frustrated with the

politicalization and bad science in the academic research that he left and founded his own (fairly successful) biotech company

dedicated to malaria research.

I was wondering if anyone else here has had experience in both areas.

..The other thing that woos always shriek about is people from private industry sitting on the FDA panels..well my take is that

people who do that probably weren't in a good situation in their company and left..I hear accusations of bias but I almost think that

a lot of these people might be biased agaisnt their own companies, because in my experience people leave to take government jobs

because they are unhappy with their company..I suppose a lot of this is the general paranoia (justified in many cases) about corporate misbehavior

[dropkickpa]

1. Academia here

And I think research in academia is plagued by exactly same sort of crap that one sees in other academic circles (scientists are still human!) due to being a part of academia. It's all politics. How many times does one hear english/journalism/history/philosophy professors complain about the politics in their chosen fields? All the time!

I know one world renowned surgeon who gets surgical residents to do all of his animal research by the simple expedient of refusing to mentor them in a clinical setting if they don't participate in his research. Do they gain both experience, skill, and other such things from doing this? Yes, but the fact remains that you can't get in with him without complying with his requirements, and those unwilling to do reserch for him (no matter how brilliant they may be in that surgical field) don't get his invaluable mentorship.

Also, a lot of research in academia is either more of the knowlege seeking/early stages type stuff, so they don't have as many regulations placed upon them, especially with novel vaccine/drug/etc type research. It's just the preliminary stuff in many areas. Because it is not tied to future possible profit, you don't necessarily have quite as much pressure to produce great repeatable results. I have found that those who are the biggest sticklers for regulations and such are also the ones that pull in more research $$ and do more stuff that is closer to becoming human work.

[rexcat]

2. I monitored a study at the NIH many years ago...

and will never take project if I have to go to the NIH. I saw more protocol violations (inclusion and exclusion violations) and was stunned at the attitude of the Principal Investigator and the staff. The sad thing was the Pharma company let it slide since it was the NIH.

I have also seen the same thing at MD Anderson in Houston. I was there last year working on a study and was reminded again why I don't like going their, besides having to go to Houston (yuck). The protocols seem to be a guideline, Good Clinical Practices (GCPs) are quaint ideas that don't need to be followed and the personnel are so overworked there that the Pharma companies have to pay extra to get the data entered. I don't know anyone who has monitored a clinical site there that really likes the place. I have also heard that the FDA looks the other way when it comes to MD Anderson so they pretty much do as they please.

As far as science in academia vs. corporate there are good places to work and bad places to work. I think either side has its good and bad points. My wife is a toxicologist for a major company in the Cincinnati, OH and for the most part the PhDs seem to be good. It is the dentists and MDs she has to watch at the company. Science seems to get in the way more time than not with the MDs and dentists. What is really bizarre where she works the PhDs are never referred to as "doctor" but the MDs and dentists are always addressed as "doctor."