Silencing The Dissenters: An Unwise, Ignominious Move

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) should reverse its directive stopping the work of researchers Walter Stewart and Ned Feder, reassigning them, and impounding their files. No public interest is served by silencing voices that speak out when something is amiss. The work of Stewart and Feder has focused on two areas. The first is the study of how the principles of science should guide the professional practices of scientists; the second is providing advice and evaluation for scientists who believe they have witnessed scientific misconduct. After having supported this work for years, NIDDK recently declared it to be outside its mission. However, that the study of the professional practices of scientists falls within the mission of the National Institutes of Health is shown by NIH's mandate requiring those institutions receiving NIH funds to offer courses on precisely these issues. In fact, of all the subjects relevant to biomedical research, these are the only courses so mandated by NIH. It is a preposterous double standard to require all scientific institutions receiving NIH funds to study and discuss such matters, while at the same time shutting down the only scientists at the agency who are dedicated to doing this. To excuse this blatant double standard, the NIDDK press release announcing its move to shut down Stewart and Feder's operations cites "limited resources"--as it financial resources have not always been limited at NIH, and as if the time and resources of the teachers and students in these required courses were not also limited. The necessity of the second aspect of Stewart and Feder's work (providing advice and evaluations for scientists who believe they have witnessed acts of professional misconduct) is shown by surveys indicating that a significant proportion of those who say they witnessed serious scientific misconduct took little or no corrective action. This places both the interests of science and the interests of the public in jeopardy. There can be little doubt that one reason for this unwillingness to bear witness is the hositility that often greets those who raise questions. The principles of honesty, accountability, skepticism, and open debate have fueled the explosion of scientific knowledge. These principles took root as experience showed that they allowed us to unlock the secrets of nature. As scientists, we are obligated to follow the principles and to defend them. It must surely be true that protecting and advocating the principles responsible for scientific advancement fall within NIDDK's mission. Stewart and Feder have successfully used case histories in generating consensus-producing debate within the scientific community. And, following the traditions of science, they have promoted reaffirmation of the traditional principles of science. Several years ago, when I tried to get the authors of a paper to publish a correction of grossly misrepresented results, I was told by the authors and by others that it was not common practice to make such corrections, and that other researchers could eventually figure things out for themselves. Recognizing that important principles were at stake. Stewart and Feder engaged the authors of the study and the scientific community at large in a discussion of the case. As a result, there is heightened awareness that scientists should correct what they know to be incorrect, and that authors should stand accountable for their claims. According to a recent article in Science (C. Anderson, 260:288, 1993), the impetus for the NIDDK directive was Stewart and Feder's use of a computer program to generate support of plagiarism allegations made by others against Stephen Oates, a University of Massachusetts history professor. It seems to me arbitrary to deprive scholars in fields other than science of publicly supported technical advances made within NIDDK-- including those made by Stewart and Feder. If NIDDK disagrees, let is say so and provide a rationale along with a list of scholars who should be similarly deprived. NIDDK has implied that the work of Stewart and Feder will be continued at the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). But NIDDK is making the mistake of confusing two functions that must be kept separate: On one hand, Stewart and Feder work by studying cases and promoting free and open debate among scientists concerning ethical and technical issues. On the other hand, ORI determines whether an individual has violated the terms under which government funds were awarded. ORI is not--nor was it ever intended to be--a vehicle for raising consciousness or promoting consensus regarding matters of professional conduct. It is a scandal that NIDDK intends to impound Stewart and Feder's files. With NIH's knowledge and approval, witnesses have been consulting with them on the understanding that there will be no forced exposure to reprisals stemming from disclosures made against their will. Stewart and Feder cannot comply in good conscience with the NIDDK directive to hand over all information to ORI in violation of previously made agreements. To reach a wise decision, one must listen to dissenters. Allowing for dissent is no less important to the health of science than it is to other human endeavors. Undeniably, Stewart and Feder have been effective critics. It is tempting to try to silence critics, and silencing one makes others less willing to speak out. But when all the critics are silenced, who will be left to dissent? Stewart and Feder are a valuable resource. Immunologist Margot O'Toole, formerly a postdoc at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is currently a staff scientist at a Cambridge, Mass. biotech company.

Silencing The Dissenters: An Unwise, Ignominious Move

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of