On Their Own: Stewart And Feder Persist With Misconduct Inquiries

Walter Stewart and Ned Feder -- forced into new jobs at the National Institutes of Health in April 1993, ending their decade-long careers as self-styled scientific misconduct investigators -- have quietly but persistently continued their inquiries into research wrongdoing. They do so now, however, on their own time and with non-governmental resources. Should Stewart and Feder be reinstated in their former jobs? Many people familiar with their case -- even some who respect the role Stewart and Feder have played as scientific whistle-blowers -- voice doubts that their old positions at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) were appropriate ones for their activities. "They started out as scientists," notes Kenneth J. Ryan, chairman of the federal Commission on Research Integrity-- which heard testimony recently from the two men--and a professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School. "They then became individuals who were interested in the whole matter of scientific integrity and, on their own, created that interest for themselves. "Whether or not they should be doing that, rather than a division of the [HHS] assistant secretary's office, under ORI, is one of the things the commission may be thinking about and discussing. A lot of whistle-blowers come forward in good faith, and I would put Stewart and Feder in that category." Ryan adds: "They were, in effect, a self-appointed conscience. That irritates people." --F.H. "We've used our off hours as effectively as we could," says Stewart. "It's focused our attention wonderfully to have so little time." In a provocative recent move, the two scientists made the full text of a major, as yet unreleased, congressional inquiry--into alleged scientific misconduct by HIV researcher Robert C. Gallo at the National Cancer Institute- -freely available on the Internet. Stewart's World Wide Web home page, an interactive information service, is currently the only publicly accessible source for the report (see access instructions on page 5). The three-year investigation was conducted by the subcommittee on oversight and investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce while under Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who lost his chairmanship with the Republican takeover of Congress last month. To date, the committee has announced no plans to release the report, which finds that Gallo's actions constituted misconduct and that NIH and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), participated in a coverup of the matter. Documents pertaining to a number of other scientific misconduct cases are also available on Stewart's home page. Feder, too, is testing the power of online communications with a dial-in bulletin board called Sunshine, created to encourage scientists and others to discuss misconduct issues (see page 5). In addition, the pair have assisted university investigations by providing the services of their so-called plagiarism machine -- a computer system to compare texts for similarities -- given talks to academic audiences on research misconduct, and testified before a federal commission on the importance of whistle-blowers to science. Meanwhile, a General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into the reassignment of Stewart and Feder as a possible violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 -- which prohibits retaliation -- has faltered. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who announced the investigation last February, charged in letters to HHS secretary Donna Shalala that she has impeded the inquiry. In particular, Grassley alleged, Shalala failed to make HHS general counsel Harriet Rabb and members of her staff available to GAO investigators. On January 13, Grassley wrote Shalala to complain about the department's failure to cooperate. HHS officials have responded that many high-level employees have indeed been made available to GAO and urge that the investigation be drawn to a close. So far, GAO has turned up little to suggest that HHS retaliated against Stewart and Feder in reassigning them, and it is unlikely the pair will be able to get their old jobs back on that basis, reports a Grassley aide who requests anonymity (see box on page 4). Walter W. Stewart's World Wide Web home page provides an archive of documents that pertain to specific cases of scientific misconduct and that discuss research integrity issues. Web browsers, such as Lynx or Mosaic, should be pointed to: http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~wstewart/ Ned Feder's dial-in bulletin board, called Sunshine, provides access to some documents, too, but also provides the opportunity for scientists and others to exchange messages discussing scientific misconduct. The server uses a software package called FirstClass, from SoftArc Inc. in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, which provides a user-friendly graphical interface when used with the client portion of the package. The client portion can be downloaded for free from a number of sources, including the Sunshine server itself, which can be reached--using a computer, modem, and communications software--by dialing (301) 530-5859 and logging in as "guest" or any other identification; no password is needed. Stewart can also be reached by E-mail at: wstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu --F.H. While Stewart and Feder have their supporters -- within NIH, in Congress, and among scientists -- they also have their detractors, some of whom characterize them as little more than self-serving science vigilantes. "One of the real problems is that they have quickly devolved into zealots, and zealots tend to lose sight of the facts," contends Robert P. Charrow, a lawyer with the firm of Crowell and Moring in Washington, D.C., which has defended Gallo and other scientists accused of misconduct. "They are too willing to ascribe evil intent, too willing to find misconduct." The result, Charrow charges, is that they have wrongly injured the reputations of a number of scientists in the pursuit of self-serving publicity. "I think they cause harm," he says. "They have developed one talent -- I will hand it to them -- the talent of flakking themselves. That's to their credit, because it's enabled them to attract attention, which I think is their primary objective." The two men counter allegations that they are merely publicity-seekers with the assertion that open discussion-- in the press and here -- is the best approach to resolving the problem of scientific misconduct. "Part of the solution is encouraging people to talk about it, not doing what [NIH and others] have tried to do to us, which is to stop us from talking about it," says Feder. Supporters contend that the watchdog role Stewart and Feder play is a crucial one for maintaining the vigor of the research enterprise. "They're brilliant, honest, obsessive, exasperating, and relentless," maintains Thomas Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project, an independent, Washington, D.C.-based organization providing support to government and industry whistle-blowers. "In short, they're the kind of people who change history." The jobs to which Stewart and Feder now report have little to do either with the snail genetics they once studied at NIH or with scientific misconduct research. Feder is an administrator for grant applications at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), helping to set up study sections, arranging for proposal reviews, and then summarizing the results. Stewart works in NIDDK's Office of Program Planning and Evaluation as a support staffer and describes the bulk of his work as "typing." In addition, however, Stewart recently was asked to help develop an NIDDK Web server, and, in December, the institute's home page, providing public information about research and other activities, became accessible on the Internet (http://www. niddk.nih.gov). In tandem with this work, Stewart also developed his own home page, devoted to providing scientific misconduct information. One of the criticisms leveled at Stewart and Feder before their reassignment was that their unauthorized investigations of scientists were a misuse of government resources, including computers. Mindful of this, Stewart chose to put his home page on a computer called Nyx located at the University of Denver. According to Andrew Burt, the system administrator, the name is derived from Greek mythology--Nyx is the spirit of the night--and reflects the fact that similar Internet servers are used mostly at night. Nyx is a free, public-access system maintained by volunteers and supported through donations from users and others. Burt considers Nyx to be a kind of public resource, to provide Internet access to users who otherwise might not have it. Stewart's home page is organized around specific cases, such as the one involving Nobelist David Baltimore. In that case, Margot O'Toole, a postdoctoral fellow, alleged that central data supporting a 1986 paper coauthored by Baltimore (D. Weaver et al., Cell, 45:247-259) had been faked, leading eventually to a finding of data fabrication by the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) against Tufts University immunologist Thereza Imanishi-Kari. Imanishi-Kari has denied wrongdoing and requested a hearing before the HHS departmental appeals board. Statements, testimony, and other texts involving that case and others are available on the home page. Early this year, Feder established a dial-in bulletin board called Sunshine at his home using an aging Macintosh computer. Again, no government resources are involved. Some of the same documents available on Stewart's home page are also posted here, and Feder hopes the system will serve the additional function of facilitating a kind of ongoing conversation among scientists concerning research misconduct. A recurring theme emphasized by Stewart and Feder is that scientists and their institutions should police themselves. Although the duo contend that science has thus far failed to do that adequately, they say that the answer to the problem of scientific misconduct does not lie in a series of new laws or a greater reliance on authorities outside of science. Central to this view, they maintain, is the necessity for scientific whistle-blowers to, at the least, be protected from retaliation, and even be honored for their moral courage. In a self-regulating profession, whistle-blowers are the primary way that misconduct will come to light, Stewart and Feder argue, and they deserve the respect of their peers. Instead, they contend, whistle-blowers are often disbelieved, reviled, and subjected to retaliation. "What's needed is a change in the field of science in how whistle-blowers are perceived," Stewart says. "If they're perceived as helping the profession and carrying forth the values of getting at the truth and acting responsibly, I think that would be a sea change." In November, Stewart and Feder were invited to testify before the Commission on Research Integrity, established by Congress in 1993 to review ORI. They were joined by a group of other whistle-blowers to address the problems faced by those who bring misconduct or fraud in science to light. According to commission chairman Kenneth J. Ryan, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, the group was assembled to suggest effective protections for whistle-blowers. This was one of the goals specified in the legislation creating the commission, Ryan notes. "Whistle-blowers play a very important role in science, technology, and our society today," Ryan says. "If people are afraid, because they're retaliated against, you create a chilling effect on the willingness of people to come forward." Based in part on the testimony presented by the whistle- blower panel, the Ryan commission is now drafting a so- called whistle-blowers' bill of rights, according to Devine, a member of the commission. The object is to create legal protections for researchers, students, or anyone who challenges fraud in federally funded research. In doing so, Devine adds, the commission will be building on the legal foundation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. "It will be a landmark for all those connected with university and other institutional scientific research to have defensible free speech," he says. In investigating a number of plagiarism cases, the University of Illinois has sought technical assistance from Stewart and Feder, according to C.K. Gunsalus, associate vice chancellor for research. A computer system developed by the two men compares 30-character strings in different texts for matches. "We have used their software in cases here," Gunsalus says, "both to substantiate and to refute allegations of plagiarism." Stewart and Feder were also recently asked by Lawrence S. Sturman, director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research, Albany, N.Y., to participate in a series of presentations as part of an ethics course at the center. As they have done before, they used a case history--the Baltimore case--to address misconduct issues. Sturman set up a panel of scientists to question Stewart and Feder to ensure there would be sufficient discussion. This proved unnecessary. "We had more discussion after those sessions than after any seminars that I can recall," Sturman recounts. "There were strong feelings and interest, and it was very stimulating." "It was very exciting to us to see these issues being debated by scientists," Stewart says. "We've always tried to advance the idea that scientists should consider this as part of their working professional lives. We need a social response from scientists saying these sorts of things aren't right." "If the situation improves," Feder agrees, "it's likely that it won't be because the government sets up tighter rules. It's likely that it will be because the academic community finally figures out what it really has to do about it."

On Their Own: Stewart And Feder Persist With Misconduct Inquiries

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of