ETHICAL DILEMMA 2 When good results are bad results Professor Ballistico is scratching his head. Looking at the results of last month's series of experi- ments has brought on a distinct feeling of unease. He has been sitting in his office for hours now trying to analyse the spreadsheets from every possible angle-but without success. He even had an argument with his research assistant, accusing her of having prepared the results incorrectlybut she had been right all along. Not that Ballistico is unhappy about the project itself. It is actually quite a successful piece of re- search looking at the various side effects of food additives in frozen food. The two-year project has already produced some very good publications; he has even been invited several times to give inter- views on television about the results. However, the latest round of results has got him wondering. The reason for Ballistico's unease is that, according to the results of the latest tests, two sub- stances involved in the study, called 'Longlife' and 'Rotnever', appear to significantly increase the risk of human allergies for long-time consumers of the additives. And however he interprets the results, his assistant really seems to have delivered solid work on the data analysis. Normally, such surprising results would be good news. Solid results of this kind would make for sensational presentations at the next conference of the World Food Scientist Federation. On top of that, 'Longlife' and 'Rotnever' are very common additives in the products of the large food multi- national Foodcorp, which is the market leader in frozen food in his country. His results could really make big headlines. There is one problem, though: Professor Ballistico is director of the Foodcorp Centre for Food Science at BigCity University. Three years ago, Foodcorp donated 2.3 million to BigCity University in order to set up the research centre and to fund its activities. The company felt that as 'a good corpo- rate citizen we should give something back to society by funding academic research for the benefit of future generations'. It also signalled that it saw this as a continuous engagement over time... and Ballistico is only too aware that the decision about the next 2 million funding will be imminent three months from now. Professor Ballistico has a major dilemma: if he publishes his results, Foodcorp might get into seri- ous trouble. He also knows that this will be quite embarrassing at the next meeting with his sponsor, and it will most certainly influence the company's decision to fund the centre further. And he hardly dares to think of his next meeting with the president of the university, who is always so proud of BigCity having such excellent ties to companies and scoring highest in the country in terms of its ability to secure external funding. Should he therefore just tell Foodcorp privately about his results so that it can take appropriate action to deal with Rotnever and Longlife, or should he go public with his findings? QUESTIONS 1. What are the main ethical issues for Professor Ballistico here? 2. What options are open to him? How would you assess these options? 3. How should Ballistico proceed, and what can he realistically do to prevent similar problems arising in the future? 4. What are the wider ethical concerns regarding corporate involvement in funding universities and other public institutions? 5. In light of this example, give a critical assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of cor- porations stepping into roles often played by governments, such as the funding of higher education.