When researchers feel the squeeze from lawsuits and government regulators, we all suffer

Steinzor, Rena I.

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

Rescuing Science from Politics

Digital Commons @ UM Law

RescuingSciencefr m PoliticsWhen researchers feel the squeeze from lawsuitsand government regulators, we all suffer.BY PROFESSOR RENA STEINZORo the casual observer, scientistsseem to be among the mostinfluential people in America.Demands that we use "soundscience" to make decisionsabout everything from global warming toVioxx are ubiquitous. Prominent decision-makers in the legislative, executive, andjudicial arenas have urged that scientists beelevated to the pinnacle of power, entrustedby the rest of us with the authority toresolve our most important and complexproblems. Why, then, do so many scientistsdeployed at the front lines of the most sig-nificant controversies feel not like anointedand omniscient saviors, but instead likehunted prey?The moment that scientists announcea discovery that has significant economicramifications, they reap a whirlwind.Beleaguered by scientific misconductcharges or threatened with breach-of-contract lawsuits if research is publishedover a private sponsor's objections, scientistsmust struggle to maintain their independ-ence and, equally worrisome, theirprofessional credibility. Such threats areso severe in some arenas that they havealready deterred the best and the brightestfrom entering the very disciplines with thegreatest potential to inform public affairs .. If such trends continue, scientificintegrity could be undermined to the pointthat we are deprived of the progress thatindependent and transparent research couldoffer on a wide range of pressing socialproblems. When scientists cannot controltheir own research agendas, because theyare preoccupied with responding to sub-poenas and data requests, when privatefunding comes only with long stringsattached, and when scientists are sanctionedfor communicating results that do not servethe interests of their sponsors, the corevalues that define science are threatened.Scientists unfamiliar with the politicalprocess generally assume that the pathof their research from the laboratory topolicymakers is straightforward. Researchresults enter the literature and the researchis judged on the merits by knowledgeablecolleagues. Well-designed studies withoriginal discoveries playa significant rolein formulating social policy, while studieswith evidence of bias or unclear method-ology are discounted. Scientists expect thatwhen policymakers are confronted withimportant questions regarding scientificevidence, they embrace a "weight ofevidence" approach, taking into accountthe inevitable weaknesses in individualpieces of research, but rendering a judgmentbased on the evidence taken as a whole.After all, judicial and regulatory institutionshave the same objectives as scientificinstitutions: improving social welfare.Yet scientists who have ventured out oftheir laboratories into legislative, regulatory,and even courtroom battles over the lastfew decades have learned that reality isdiametrically opposed to this idealized view.And that controversy is deepening. Thedramatic growth of the regulatory system,the expansion of liability for damages causedby defective products, and the continuingfailure of government to provide publicfunding for scientific research have workedsynergistically to amplify the pressure.Plus, the Information Age intensifiesthat synergy in ways not imaginable adecade ago. With the invention of theWorld Wide Web, adverse informationabout a product circulating in commercetravels rapidly, prompting rapid fluctua-tions in markets even without a findingJD FALL 2006 32- ..,.--of ultimate liabiliry,The Ii t f xienri t undermined by uchclash i a long as ir is varied. Dr. Tak hiHirayama was called on the carper by hissuperiors when he published research con-ne ling econdhand smoke wirh increa edlung ancer : mong non- mokers. Dr. PaulFi her wa forced to pay hi own legal [eesin a fruides effort to protect the idcnriryof the people he interviewed for a rudya our childh d perceprions of Joe amel.Dr. Herbert eedleman had no fewer thanthree sets of scienti IC misconduct chargesfiled again r him when he found thatlow level of exposure to lead cau e braindamage in children under ix; on e again,alrhough he was exonerated on all meignificam charge, he was compelled topay con idcrablc legal fee OIH of hi ownpocker. On rhe eve of publication. Dr.Berry Dong was forced [0 withdraw anarticle finding that generic thyroid m d-icarion was JUSt a effecrive as de ignerdrugs when her private ponsor hrearenedto uc her home institution, the Universityof an Franei co. nd, mo r recently, Dr.Tyrone Haye wa vilified as incomp remwhen he announ ed me results of experi-ment showing that very low dose ofarrazine, one of [he country' mo I widely---- -- ---u ed pesti ides, caused endocrine disruptionand infertility in frog.Arra ks like the e have genera edignificam con ern among the scientificcommunity, prompting profe ionalorganization to return to fir t principlesof s ience. Biomedical journal editor,for example. now require the di losureof po . ible conAi ts f inter t be rescientists are allowed [0 publish ciencificfinding or 10 serve peer revi wer. heUnion of on rned ci nri t ollecred$ignature rom hundreds of scientists.including dozens of obel Prize winner,in prote r 0 the poliri ized use of den eby che exe utive bran h. Even large andg nera.l.ly unflappable 0 ieties like theAmerican iati n of rhc Advancementof ien e ha eased re olurion . filedornrnenrs, and condu led panels on theincreasing problems of bia ed re earch andbia ed literature reviews.Thr e fundamental principles houlderve a a hield again t me worstthese abuIndependen e: cienrists must be ablendu I re earch with ur unju rifledresrri cion in luding undue intluen e byresear h span or .Honesty and ransparency: Researchersand tho e u ing their research musr becareful to a mar Iy represelll their indings,33in luding the limitation of [hat research.The dara and method of re ear h thatinforms regulatory decisions must be com-municared honestly an expeditiously to theresear h ommuniry and broader public.Public Funding of Basic cience:overnmenr uppOrt of ind pendenrresear hies enrial t produc di coveriesihar benefit me public good. In appropriatecir urn ran e ,p r re iew may erve animporranr role in as iring rhe govern-ment's decision-making, bur peer reviewmust nev r be us d t nsor research.At one level, the e principles an.' incon-trovertible: no one would argue char iencehould be dependent on pecial interests:no one would uggesr th ienu r houldufter retaliatory ana ks on heir profe -sional reputations: and no one would urgethe suppression 0 research that advance[he publi iruere l. Equally obviou , artie-waring rh e prin ipl and finding wayto irnplernenr them eftc Lively ar rw v rydifferent ching. Yet the debate on how roreinforce these prin iples i long 0 erdue,ienri r and policymaker an no long rafford to ignor the incres ing poliricizationo science.Rena teinzor is rh~jacob A. France Rrrmn'hPmfissor of LJIII.'fIlld Director of rb( boo! of /"1/1'1Enuiranmenral Law .tlllic. This article is derived/i'om the inrroduaion (0 Rescuing ience formPoliri ,which sht' co-edited wilb Proj~JSOr~l1t{Y~I*lgllt'r ojliJr Unit'asity ofTrxlU Law 'c/Jo(J/,pub-lis/It,d 11m summer by Cambridf,t' Unh'rrsiry Press.J 0 FALL 2006

Rescuing Science from Politics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

Digital Commons @ UM Law