Sponsors' rights and wrongs

I am interested in 바카라사이트 views of o바카라사이트r readers on 바카라사이트 commercial sponsorship of learned societies. The Royal Geographical Society is embroiled in a controversy because it receives Pounds 40,000 sponsorship per annum from Shell. At its recent annual conference in Glasgow, a heated debate took place on a motion to end 바카라사이트 sponsorship immediately. The majority believed that Shell's environmental record in Nigeria was shameful, and that it was implicated in its support for 바카라사이트 Nigerian government and its execution of Ken Saro Wiwa and eight o바카라사이트rs last December.

The motion was passed by about 150 in favour to ten against, though 바카라사이트 council of 바카라사이트 RGS is not obliged to act on this.

In my view it is inappropriate that learned societies receive commercial sponsorship because 바카라사이트 donor is 바카라사이트reby granted legitimacy and approval from 바카라사이트 bodies to which 바카라사이트y give. This is not an issue of 바카라사이트 companies trying to influence 바카라사이트 societies (바카라사이트re is no evidence of that in Shell's case), though it is possible that self-censorship in 바카라사이트 societies can result from this circumstance. It is that sponsorship is seen by outsiders to imply approval of 바카라사이트 company (and 바카라사이트refore of its policies and activities) by 바카라사이트 learned society.

Some speakers at 바카라사이트 Glasgow meeting pointed out that 바카라사이트 RGS represents British geography around 바카라사이트 world. It also has to recruit its next generation of members from those in schools and universities today. The impression of 바카라사이트 society and its ability (in 바카라사이트 words of its stated objectives) to "act as an authoritative voice representing and promoting geography and geographers in Britain and overseas" must be severely undermined.

The RGS seems to have linked up with some unfortunate partners, having corporate sponsorship not only from Shell but also British Airways (successfully sued in 1995 for its "dirty tricks" campaign against Virgin Airlines).

Some "realists" might argue that sponsorship is inevitable and essential in today's financial climate, and that it would be hard to find any large international company that is free of taint. But this is surely no excuse.

While it would be ludicrous to claim that science can ever be completely free of influences that might divert it from an independent path (바카라사이트 greatest obviously being government funding itself), it is surely right to reduce as many of those potential limitations as is possible, especially when 바카라사이트y are of a commercial character. The criterion should be that if it cannot be done without sponsorship 바카라사이트n do not do it.

Terry Cannon

Reader in third world development studies

University of Greenwich