Facing Ethical Dilemmas: Scientists Must Lead The Charge

Recent revelations of scientific misconduct and fraud have brought into question the claim of the science community to self-regulation. Treatises on research fraud and problems in "peer review" proliferate, and even the United States Secret Service reportedly has been enlisted in the search for fraud in scientific notebooks (Science, 251:1168-72, 1991). The old assumption that fraud inevitably will be revealed seems unacceptable. The stakes have become too high to rely on traditional mechanisms. Incidents of misconduct have alarmed not only the science community and its onlookers, but more significantly, the U.S. Congress, where some factions feel regulation is necessary. In 1988, the Institute of Medicine convened a workshop that produced 16 recommendations, some of which have been implemented by federal regulatory action, including establishment of the Office of Scientific Integrity and the Office of Scientific Integrity Review ("The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences," National Academy Press, 1989; The FASEB Journal, 5:2512, 1991). In addition to the establishment of these offices, adoption of policies and procedures to promote responsible conduct of research is now required of grantee institutions as well as internally by the National Institutes of Health. There is the fear in the science community that more restrictions, combined with the effects of competitive pressures, will further erode the morale of researchers and discourage young people from entering the science profession, to say nothing of hampering research productivity. What brought about this state of affairs? To fashion an adequate response requires a frank realization that the ethos of science has changed irreversibly. Research institutions now charge full cost to funding agencies and work to maximize market share. This has changed the nature of scientific research from lone enthusiasts doing a few experiments on the side to a first-class operation whose resulting output has major economic and social consequences. Increased Competition High stakes mean conflicting interests and the resulting incidence of scientific misconduct. We need to be aware of how institutions and organizations are responding. Can we as scientists adapt to this new and evolving situation? How can the science community or, more specifically, scientific societies respond in a constructive and proactive manner? The very success of scientific research has multiplied competition for research funds. Since only winners in a national competition (some cynics call it a "lottery") for funding receive the coveted rewards, competition means greater temptation to cheat. Competitive pressure means ever-larger research teams in order to take advantage of today's sophisticated instrumentation needed in multidisciplinary attacks on complex problems. Such teams are required to work their way along promising (read "safe") avenues in clearly feasible projects. But it is increasingly difficult for a scientist to master, let alone know in detail, the reliability of every phase of a large, multiple-author work. Thus, the individual scientist depends upon the integrity and competence of colleagues. Intense competitive pressure also tempts the senior investigator to exploit the junior researcher--that is, the graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. Thus, competition fosters self-protection and inhibits collegiality among investigators. Competition has also, in effect, increased regulatory pressure. All institutions receiving federal research funds are required to establish policies promoting responsible conduct and procedures for handling incidents involving alleged scientific misconduct. In addition, all institutions are required to establish procedures for controlling potential conflict of interest. In order to circumvent fraud and document priority claims, various institutions have promulgated new guidelines and policies for safeguarding and archiving primary research data. This is understandable in profit-making enterprises; and now, with the development of marketable products from academic research, such policies appear inevitable in universities as well. All these changes threaten to alter the very ethos of traditional scientific research into an ethos of technique. In an atmosphere of intense competition, what may well appear as conflict of interest is experienced by all parties with either a direct or indirect interest: assignment of research space, salary increases, tenure, prestigious committee assignments, positions of bureaucratic power, commercial or investment interest, political or sectarian ideology, as well as purely intellectual satisfaction. The search for truth becomes skewed by other motives. To avoid conflict, a reviewer is excused when considering a research application from the reviewer's home institution. But what about the case where an applicant is a competitor in the same or closely related field? This is not uncommon, since the most knowledgeable peers are one's close competitors. Thus, applicants fear revealing new ideas lest they be co-opted by a reviewer, however unintentionally. Prejudicial reviews can work either way--for or against. The problem is not whether conflict of interest can be eliminated, but how it is to be controlled. The Essence Of Misconduct In other areas of contention, the traditional political solution is to "let it all hang out." In cases of financial conflict of interest, all contending parties are required to reveal their biases and vested interests. All interested parties can then compete for the prize. In the past, scientists were not usually forced into such crass behavior, since the prizes were attractive primarily to those with intellectual interests in science. The affluence and hubris of science appears responsible for much of the pain in science today. But philosophically and existentially it is clear that the classic picture of a purely objective, disinterested scientist (Dr. Gottlieb in Sinclair Lewis's novel Arrowsmith comes to mind) is not merely fictional but mythic. In truth, each individual--even a Dr. Gottlieb--is led into science by deeper motivations that defy scrutiny and facile description. Within the strictly mechanistic world view of science, scientific misconduct is typically described in limited terms: fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other activities meant to deceive for the purpose of personal gain. A broader view seems advisable, since what exercises the sensibilities of the public goes beyond the narrow understanding implicit in ethics codes promulgated by scientific societies. The trend in bioethics and ethics in health care, for example, extends to the ethical dimension of what used to be called etiquette. How, then, can we define scientific misconduct, as it pertains to the actions of an individual, not a corporate body? (NIH's Office of Scientific Integrity excludes the term "fraud" from its definition of misconduct. [Science, 249:1227-8, 1990; "AAAS Professional Ethics Report," pages 4-5, 1990].) Broadly speaking, misconduct involves offending behavior toward self, others, animals, and things. Things would include material objects such as buildings, facilities, and instruments as well as information and intellectual property. Scientific misconduct is offending behavior in the context of scientific work. Performance of unacceptable work or treatment involving self, other humans, animals, or even living matter derived from humans, animals, or plants then falls in this category. Some scientific work involves other humans as subjects or clients, as individuals, as groups, or as institutions. Any activity that may endanger or jeopardize humans, future generations, animals, or the environment must be considered. Unauthorized use of scientific or laboratory animals, materials, instrumentation, or facilities would also be included. Honest and forthright handling of scientific data and information are required. Finally, personal interactions with scientific colleagues, coworkers, support personnel, and the general public must be one of integrity and appropriate decorum. For example, considerations of the political, social, or religious beliefs; activities; or status of a fellow scientist should not be permitted to become any part of the assessment of the scientific merit of the work or capabilities and valuation of that individual. Seeking Remedies Thus broadly defined, most working scientists have experienced or know first-hand some cases of misconduct. However, even if all parties were to agree upon definitions, difficulties remain. It is impossible to anticipate every situation that may involve conflicting requirements. Moreover, even if clear-cut standards are established, enforcement is difficult. A wide variety of players have vested interests in the question of ethics in science. These include administrative and legislative bodies or agencies at federal, state, and local levels; various private science funding agencies and foundations; educational institutions that train students in science and perform research at all levels; research institutes that employ scientists; commercial enterprises of all types; and professional scientific societies. In addition, various humanistic and social science-oriented academic departments and special subdivisions--particularly those devoted to the history, sociology, and philosophy of science--have a professional interest in these issues. Thus a broad variety of interested parties, beyond the practicing scientist, vie in the discussion of the issues. Despite difficulties, agreement on procedures may still be possible. Traditionally, informal peer judgments have operated and still do. A scientist's most valuable possession is his or her reputation, which, once lost--whether deservedly or not--may be virtually impossible to regain. Reputation includes notions of scientific acumen, reliability, and other personal character traits beyond questions of strictly ethical behavior. Thus, enforcement of ethical standards must include stringent procedures to ensure due process, confidentiality, and other safeguards in dealing with cases of reported misconduct--in protecting, for example, the status and treatment of whistle-blowers. The Office of Scientific Integrity has adopted two methods of handling cases of misconduct: a "scientific dialogue model" and a "direct confrontation model." The dialogue model emphasizes review of scientific issues, much as the editorial process in a scholarly publication. The effort is to evaluate claims against the evidence of data and its validity. The confrontation model emphasizes judicial due process. The "accused" is presented written "charges" in a quasi-judicial process and, represented by counsel, can confront and cross-examine the witnesses, present evidence, and so forth. (These procedures are being severely criticized and the issue is yet to be resolved [Science, 251:152-3, 1991; New York Times, Aug. 1, 1991, page A-14].) Use of animals in research is already strictly regulated to the point of micromanagement as each aspect of animal research protocols must be preapproved. Environmental and occupational hazard regulations covering toxic chemicals, biohazards, and so forth must also be followed in research laboratories. Other areas of research practice may soon follow--for example, date stamping and sequestering of lab notebooks. Data audits have been advocated to ensure reliability and authenticity of data, protocols, and procedures employed. Most recently, the majority of cases of alleged misconduct have been in biomedical research. This may tempt scientists in other fields to look down their noses at researchers in the less "well-disciplined" fields. Such an isolationist stance is an illusion--competitive pressures exist in all fields, and numerous examples have been documented (W. Broad and N. Wade, Betrayers of the Truth, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1982). Can the individual research scientist expect much help from his or her scientific society? Not really, since scientific societies are largely voluntary organizations, with limited resources. Most societies have traditionally published "codes of ethics," which for the most part are exhortations to ideal behavior. However, fear of suits either by individuals expelled for misconduct or by federal authorities for "restraint of trade" effectively eliminates most formal "self-policing" by scientific societies. Thus, beyond asking for more research funding, scientific societies have largely avoided a proactive science-policy stance. Few scientific societies include programs specifically for education of new initiates that inculcate the values behind scientific work. In addition to a better effort as tutors and role models, what might the scientific societies do? Beyond traditional concerns for academic freedom, professional rights, and the like, several possibilities come to mind: * Scientific societies can update their published ethical codes, since they do serve as guidelines or standards of conduct that should help the neophyte. One continuing issue is authorship of papers--for example, which researchers are to be included and in what order. Other guidelines may include suggested criteria for institutional procedures to ensure fair treatment of both an offender and a whistle-blower. * Societies can police the legal and ethical behavior of their own officers in the performance of their official duties. Since office-holding is a privilege, each society should ensure conformity of officials to ethical requirements with safeguards for due process, perhaps including outside observers. * Given the need for ethics training, and following the recommendations of the 1988 Institute of Medicine study group, scientific societies could help develop a range of curricula for ethics courses at all levels of professional training. (Can budding scientists be selected for moral probity, a vital process in medical training [C. Bosk, Forgive and Remember, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1981]?) * Scientific societies could devise mechanisms for participation in the drafting of governmental and institutional regulations governing scientific research. One subject the societies might look into could be data authenticity--should it be assured, and how? * These societies also must strengthen the self-regulatory practices in science. Criteria for what constitutes adequate refereeing (both for publication and grant review) could be established and prospective referees could be screened before acceptance. Workable certification, monitoring, and enforcement procedures could be devised. * Furthermore, scientific societies should encourage more scientists to enter political careers. While some Congressional Science Fellows appear to have played important roles, few members of Congress, with notable exceptions, have had significant experience working in scientific research. More efforts are required to give legislators at state and local, as well as national, levels a closer acquaintance with scientists and scientific research. Perhaps legislative science fellows who have political aspirations should be encouraged more intentionally. * Finally, since to reach consensus a lot of dialogue will be needed, scientific societies could take the lead in providing forums to include other participants besides research scientists--administrators and government officials, for example--for discussing these issues. Renewing Our Commitment In times of tranquility, we feel no need to institute efforts such as the above; but when a problem becomes acute, it may be too late to devise an adequate response and blunders become more likely. This has been one salient lesson from the attacks of the animal activists. The day of ivory-tower science, if it ever existed, is long gone (P.B. Medawar, Advice to a Young Scientist, New York, Harper & Row, 1979). Nevertheless, the reality of the strength and virtue of science as a noble human enterprise must endure in some form. No matter how trite such a sentiment might appear in this cynical, iconoclastic age, this virtue, at one level, lies in the search for truth for the benefit all of humankind; but the energizing personal commitment lies deeper--in the profound emotional satisfaction of scientific discovery, a transcendent, intellectual experience shared with fellow scientists in universal brotherhood (M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1958). The intrusion of regulatory legalisms into this process and the institution of new forms of doing scientific research threatens to alter the ethos of science into an ethos of technique-for-hire. Such forms may well squelch the intellectual passion and personal commitment of individuals for science. To reverse such a prospect and re-energize its commitments, the scientific community, as one player, must take the initiative and begin a process of self-examination and renewal. Renewal may well require new structural forms in the organization and economics of scientific research to promote both the reawakening and nurturing of its fundamental motivations, and the establishment of environments necessary for the birthing of tomorrow's paradigms. Tom Hoshiko is a professor in the department of physiology and biophysics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Facing Ethical Dilemmas: Scientists Must Lead The Charge

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of