To Ensure Accountability, A Whistleblower's Bill Of Rights

The stakes for scientific research integrity have never been higher. Since World War II, a surge of scientific breakthroughs has geometrically increased the profession's benefits and corresponding risks to society. At the same time, federally financed research funding is under the deficit-cutters' microscope. Well-publicized scandals have shaken public confidence that scientific conclusions can be trusted, and that taxpayers are getting their money's worth. Until the perception of integrity is restored, the flow of federal funding for research is in danger of drying up to a trickle. Since last July, a congressionally mandated Commission on Research Integrity (CRI) has been holding public hearings to prepare recommendations for Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala on how to achieve this goal. The only realistic way for universities and research institutes to preempt a disastrous political backlash is by adopting credible structural checks and balances for accountability. In an era of decreasing federal regulation, funding cutoffs are a much more likely scenario than stepped-up government oversight. As a result, institutional breakthroughs in integrity and accountability must catch up with the profession's scientific achievements. How institutions treat "whistleblowers" will be the litmus test of whether the profession has heard this message in time. Whistleblowers are those who exercise freedom of dissent to challenge perceived professional misconduct. They are witnesses whose testimony is inherently relevant for the public interest. Everyone pays lip service to the ideal that science is the search for truth and scientific integrity is a concern for all. But whistleblowers actually live those values. They personify the duty of scientists to freely communicate with each other, and to publicly air their concerns in the free market of ideas when institutions suppress the truth or exhibit the "don't want to know" syndrome. As the human factor that is essential for quality assurance in science, whistleblowers are the Achilles' heel of bureaucratic corruption. Institutions should welcome, listen to, and sometimes heed their warnings. At a minimum, institutions are not blindsided when whistleblowers feel free to work within the system. At best, whistleblowers can prevent indefensible consequences from avoidable misconduct. Unfortunately, whistleblowing is synonymous with the sound of professional suicide. And whistleblowers often are described as people who "commit the truth" after being treated as if they had committed a crime. Even reluctant witnesses to misconduct can expect retaliation. The kill- the-messenger syndrome is alive and well. More than 20 CRI witnesses have testified to censorship, professional termination, academic expulsion, retaliatory investigations, denial of access to their data and laboratories, and even threatened deportation or physical harm. The inevitable consequence of this repression is secrecy. Numerous vindicated whistleblowers testified that they might remain silent and could not counsel others to endure harassment if faced with new breaches of research integrity. The public-policy risks are too high to tolerate deception bred from secrecy. Testimony before the commission has described suspect research on breast cancer, immune system responses, mental illness, neurological disorders, Alzheimer's disease, babies born with drug addiction, anorexia, bulimia, arthritis, and lead toxicity, as well as concealment of possibly fraudulent scientific research from patient subjects and diversion of funds that prevented vital research from getting started or completed. The track record for government science entities is no better than that of private institutions. National Institutes of Health scientists Walter Stewart and Ned Feder told the commission of being locked out of their laboratory for two years and gagged from discussing evidence of misconduct received from more than 100 confidential sources. Issues gathering dust include allegations of: manipulation of data in research that already has affected public policy on an environmental toxin; forgery and coverup connected with discovery of a new therapeutic drug; financial conflict of interest in tests of a therapy with questionable value and possible connection with patient deaths; records falsification in testing a diagnostic method for cancer detection; fraud and related misconduct in developing an AIDS vaccine; and falsification and suppression of evidence on a discovery to prevent a deadly and previously untreatable microbial disease. Charges of this gravity must be responsibly resolved to protect the public, whistleblowers, and the accused. A smokescreen to distract from issues that matter is to focus on a whistleblower's motives, personality, or background. In fact, motivations range from the most courageous and noble to self-interest or neurotic revenge. It is not realistic to predict who will become a witness-- many never intended to blow the whistle. Whistleblowers range from top executives to support staff who find something they are not supposed to discover while cleaning up an office. An Intersection Of Values What whistleblowers have in common is finding themselves at the intersection of valid but conflicting values that are fundamental to society. To illustrate the conflicts: We do not like troublemakers or naysayers, and value team players. But we also do not like bureaucratic sheep, and value rugged individuals who are unafraid to take a stand. We do not like prying busybodies, and value people who know how to mind their own business. But we also do not respect those who see no evil and hear no evil, not wanting to get involved in the absence of self-interest. We cherish the right to privacy. But equally significant is the public's right to know--the foundation for a free society. There is a wrenching conflict between the duty of loyalty to family and employer ("Don't bite the hand that feeds you"); and duty of loyalty to professional standards, the law, and our society. Patriotism is only one example of the latter duty. No choice among these values is wrong in the abstract. But choosing can be extremely painful for those who witness scientific misconduct in tangible situations. Understandably, resolving these types of value conflicts in high-stakes settings creates unprecedented stress. Under the circumstances, it would be abnormal not to react eccentrically. What matters, however, is the reliability, accuracy, and significance of the information whistleblowers seek to contribute to the marketplace of public ideas. To further ensure the free flow of information, CRI is developing a Witness Bill of Rights to protect the scientific community, all of whose members have a duty to disclose their reasonable belief of research misconduct. The Bill of Rights would be the criteria to assess the adequacy of proposed federal whistleblower regulations, as well as institutional commitments and structures. Tentative provisions include: The right to communicate. This basic principle of science is essential to prevent the need for whistleblowing. The right to be part of an institution whose leadership makes integrity the cornerstone of scientific research. Unless matched by the institutional leader's deeds, rhetorical commitments in speeches and memoranda can foster cynicism and actually be counterproductive. The right to due process. Witnesses to scientific misconduct alleging reprisal must have a fair hearing to defend themselves against the harassment and confront those whom they perceive to have retaliated. This permits a credible resolution benefiting both sides in the dispute. The right to information. Sufficient information must be available on the record for whistleblower quality control--to permit responsible dissent and to hold accountable those who make irresponsible allegations. Access to expertise for a second opinion on a whistleblower's concerns also serves a valuable screening function. The right to make a difference, by submitting misconduct concerns to a forum that is realistically independent from conflict of interest. This is indispensable to thaw the chilling effect in suspect environments. Three civil service studies have surveyed why would-be whistleblowers remained silent after witnessing serious misconduct. Consistently, the perception that they wouldn't make a difference surpassed fear of reprisal as the primary reason. While complete independence is not always realistic, scenarios in which accused serve as their own judge and jury have little credibility. The right to an expedited, timely decision when exercising legal rights. When cases drag out five to 15 years, the conflict itself--rather than the point of the professional disagreement--becomes a way of life. The right to interim relief while legal proceedings run their course. Some witnesses cannot afford to wait for final completion of even comparatively streamlined legal proceedings. The right to accountability for those who retaliate. Punishment sometimes is essential to deter retaliation. Without consequences, those who engage in harassment have nothing to lose. At worst, they will not get away with it. The right to be made whole through relief for the tangible and intangible wounds of retaliation. This ranges from direct on-the-job consequences and blacklisting to indirect impact such as medical bills that often accompany the stress when one's career and professional identity face apocalypse. The right to vindication. This incorporates "sunshine for the public," expressed through appropriate public disclosure of alleged misconduct that has been verified, as well as associated retaliation. It also permits public recognition for those who make significant contributions to scientific integrity by taking the risk of applying that principle in practice. Secrecy has been the mechanism to shield science from accountability, a premise that neither the profession nor the public can afford. The axiom that sunlight is the best disinfectant applies to scientific misconduct. The Witnesses' Bill of Rights can bridge the gap from science's dark side to the sunlight of scientific freedom. Thomas Devine is legal director of the Washington, D.C.- based Government Accountability Foundation and a member of the Commission on Research Integrity.

To Ensure Accountability, A Whistleblower's Bill Of Rights

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of