Is Harmful Corporate Research Ever Justified?

By Anthony Wrigley, Keele University | February 1, 2018 12:24 pm
File 20180131 131744 hrdtsx.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1

The recent allegations that researchers funded by the German car industry tested the effects of diesel fumes on humans and monkeys has raised serious questions about research ethics in the corporate world.

These tests were carried out by scientists on behalf of the now-disbanded European Research Group of Environment and Health in the Transport Sector (EUGT), which was funded by Volkswagen, Daimler and BMW. The aim was to observe and record the pollutant effect of emissions from diesel cars using modern exhaust-cleaning technology.

Yet, even if the aim of the research was to show that diesel fumes are less harmful than previously considered, there still exists substantial evidence that diesel fumes are harmful to health. No one, not even car manufacturers, is claiming that diesel exhaust fumes are entirely harmless.

Ethically sound research brings huge benefits to society, saves lives and advances knowledge. But research always comes at a cost, ranging from resources and time used through to the direct risk of harm for subjects. So, the central ethical question is always: are these costs justified by the potential benefits of the research? When these costs become skewed too far, particularly where people have been exposed to unjustifiable harm, we end up with research scandal.


In the case of the diesel fume tests, the most pressing question is whether exposing monkeys and humans to harm can be justified against the benefits of the research. When administering substances known to be dangerous, the potential benefits would have to be significant in order justify such exposure. This can happen, for example, in cases where the research is therapeutic. Exposing volunteers to newly developed drugs that might end up hurting them can be justified on the basis that they might also benefit, or that society more generally will.

But in purely corporate research, these therapeutic aims are often absent. Instead, they often are replaced with a central aim of advancing profits. This does not necessarily mean there are not secondary social benefits in some cases. With diesel fume emissions, developing and testing technologies to reduce harmful emissions might be considered to have these secondary benefits in terms of improving public health and the environment.

Humans can volunteer. Animals can’t. (Credit: Shutterstock)

The amount of risk and the severity of the potential harm are also important factors. Even a significant future benefit might not offset serious harm. And in the case of the diesel tests, there are very real and severe risks associated with exposure to fumes.

Whether the tests exposed subjects to greater levels of fumes than they might otherwise experience (such as walking down the street in daily life) would be important to know in order to assess these levels of potential harm. A greater than normal exposure requires proportionally greater potential benefits. But given what we know about the harm from diesel fumes, it is unlikely that such extra risk could be justified by a modest potential improvement in public health.

Another way of justifying the exposure to risks and harms in research is to appeal to the consent given by the research subject. If you volunteer and you are properly informed about the risks then why shouldn’t you take part, despite the potential harm? You might see any payment you receive for volunteering as more valuable than being free from the risk. Or you might simply want to altruistically contribute to a greener world.

Yet in cases where potential harm is particularly severe, we might still want to limit people’s freedom to consent. There may be limits that we think we should not cross in society and that to ask someone to expose themselves to significant risks for the sake of research is a step too far. In corporate research, where participants motivated by how much reward they are offered rather than potential therapy or social benefit, allowing people to undergo harm may even be seen as devaluing them as human beings.

The ConversationCorporate research is very demanding upon our system of ethical decision-making because of the lack of focus on benefit to individuals or society. When the research involves substances that are known to be severely dangerous, it is extremely difficult to justify exposing people to them, even with all of the ethical arguments about benefiting the greater good and the right to consent. And because animal subjects can’t give consent, the research would have to have even more worthwhile aims to justify exposing them to risk and harm.


This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Health & Medicine, Top Posts
MORE ABOUT: personal health
  • Scott S.

    Research is research. Knowledge is neither good nor bad. As long as corporate research can be duplicated and corroborated by non corporate entities, why would we not want to add to our body of knowledge.

    • OWilson

      Why blame corporations?

      The moral question is, if one life can be forfeited to save the lives of many, would you press the button?

      If torture could reveal the location of your kidnapped family, before they are raped and killed by their captors would you approve it?

      The answers are to be found in philosophy and military history books, but nobody in this Kardashian Iphone generation is interested in THAT stuff! :)

      • Lakewolf Whitecrow

        Torture doesn’t work. Ask the Chinese govt.

        • Befuddling

          And the US.

          • Sharp

            According to Democrat head of the CIA under Obama, Leon Panetta, use of duress and enhanced interrogation directly contributed to finding Bin Laden

          • Befuddling

            A high-level spy said something that bolstered his job and his agency (and would hopefully help him were he eventually prosecuted for his crimes) and you simply believe what he said without any supporting evidence?

            I’ve got a bridge you may like to buy.

          • Lakewolf Whitecrow

            Exactly…but they’re doing it for the fun of it…not to get info.

    • stargene

      “Research is research. Knowledge is neither good nor bad”… It is so, how can I say this, ‘reassuring’ to see here the same bland, soulless moral giddiness claimed by ‘medical experimenter’ kommandants in the Nazi concentration camps we all know and love, those place names on the maps of hell. And it just gives me warm goosebumps knowing that the companies involved…Volkswagen…Daimler…BMW…were among those very same morally exalted German corporations which profited grandly
      from slave labor throughout that minor spat we call the Third Reich and WWII. Oh and guess what? Those upstanding corporate engines…excuse me…I meant to say “Persons!”… didn’t suffer more than a rap on the knuckles back then either.

      What is it they say: You just can’t keep a good Person down.

      • Sharp

        What nonsense. the studies conducted were lower amounts of diesel fume exposure than tens of thousands of people working on ships are exposed to.

        In fact tens hundreds of millions of people are exposed to these levels day in and day out.

        the science was about doing this in a controlled environment, and that is very important in such an ubiquitous exposure.

        • Maia

          You missed stargene’s point completely.

    • PhishPhace

      I wonder what Josef Mengele would think about this

      • Sharp

        Thanks for demonstrating Godwin’s law.

    • Maia

      And if people (and environments) are harmed, it’s just too bad?

  • Befuddling

    Can a subject ever truly give informed consent, given that they are being used by specialists to learn new things?

    I would argue that any ‘corporate’ research that may lead to human, animal, or social harm should be considered by an outside ethicist before going ahead.

  • Sharp

    This article is one red herring after another. Please avoid publishing articles from The conversation it is the most sensationalist junk science site out there.

    Yet, even if the aim of the research was to show that diesel fumes are less harmful than previously considered, there still exists substantial evidence that diesel fumes are harmful to health. No one, not even car manufacturers, is claiming that diesel exhaust fumes are entirely harmless.

    Drinking alcohol is harmful to health. is discovery saying studies to narrow down how harmful, are useless because “no one…claims it is entirely harmless”? We know having a person with an arrest record domiciled in a home greatly increases risk children will be murdered, raped or assaulted. Is it not helpful to look at what kind of criminals represent the most acute risk?

    Beyond that The Conversation author goes in the issue of exposing persons to harmful agents during scientific research. The author apparently does not know that almost every human is exposed daily to diesel exhaust fumes (and home heating exhaust fumes where most “heating oil” is diesel, power-plant fumes that use diesel generation and inside of any ship that is not nuclear or sail powered).

  • Dr Naveen Kartik

    Organ needed A+, B+, O+, blood group between the age of 17-65. Dr.Naveen Kartik Whats-app


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar