While some scientists may enjoy their new role as political activists, it is bad for America and ultimately damaging to science when those who are supposed to be purveyors of the impartial truth destroy the public confidence by parroting messages that may be popular in some circles, but are not supported by the facts and are quite distant from the truth. The problem is that when scientists get caught misrepresenting the facts, confusing empirically derived knowledge with convenient supposition, or presenting opinion as if it is fact, they erode the very trust upon which they depend so greatly. In order to preserve the integrity of science, it is critical that research and political advocacy remain separate and distinct.
The most recent trap in which scientific misrepresentation has been snared came in the form of a DC federal judge who revealed the truth about restrictions on the use of NIH dollars to support human embryonic stem cell research. During the Bush years, countless numbers of scientists, not to mention movie stars (you know, because they are so well versed in science and the law) and well-funded lobbying groups, wrote articles, gave speeches and launched large media campaigns condemning the president for “shutting down” the promising field of embryonic stem cell research. We were told that cures for Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease and spinal cord injuries were just around the corner if only it weren’t for George W. Bush. It was as if a thriving area of scientific investigation had just been shut down, with vast amounts of taxpayer dollars now going to waste, and the private sector prohibited from finding that imminent cure to some horrible disease. With George Bush out of office, we were told, all restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research would be removed and scientists could pursue their research, unencumbered by government interference. Meanwhile, nothing could have been farther from the truth.
Despite what the scientists told us, the truth is that President Bush was the first president to chart a path forward that would both advance science and comply with current law. He didn’t shut the door on human embryonic stem cell research, but instead cracked it open, recognizing that Congress had put a safety chain steadfastly in place. Industry, in the meantime, was allowed to conduct and support human embryonic stem cell research without restrictions on the cell lines used, and universities were allowed to accept funding from industry to work with cell lines not included on the NIH list. As we have now learned, despite President Obama’s genuine commitment to further expanding the allowable uses of NIH dollars, he lacks the power or authority to rewrite the law through executive order. Article I of the Constitution still confers that authority upon the Congress of the United States, and restricts presidential power to that of the veto pen and the regulatory regime through which the law is implemented.
The restrictions on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research predate President Bush and go back to the time of the Clinton Administration. In 1995, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment was added to the appropriations bill that funds the National Institutes of Health, henceforth disallowing the use of federal funds to create embryos for research purposes, or to conduct research in which human embryos would be destroyed, discarded or manipulated in a way that would not be authorized for the treatment of fetuses in utero. In other words, from 1995 until 2001, not a penny of NIH money could be used to support human embryonic stem cell research of any kind.
In 2001, recognizing the importance of biomedical science, and utilizing the regulatory authority of the Executive Branch, President Bush instructed the NIH to provide federal support for embryonic stem cell research as long as that research was restricted to cell lines that were already in existence. He argued—without challenge from the courts—that since the “life or death” decision regarding the embryo had already been made, the use of stem cell lines that pre-dated 2001 would uphold the law while allowing science to move forward, admittedly at a limited and cautious pace. He also called upon the scientific community and the NIH to increase their focus on the use of adult cells to derive pluripotent stem cells, which is a scientifically robust (but not perfect) solution to an unsolvable ethical debate and a law set firmly in place. To be sure, there were people on both sides of the issue who were disappointed by President Bush’s policy decision, and many of the stem cell lines that existed in 2001 are no longer viable, but clearly his policy neither encouraged the destruction of embryos, nor shut off federal funding for stem cell research. Beyond that, his policy did not exceed the authorities conferred upon his office by the Constitution.
In fact, many of Bush’s earlier critics now see the wisdom of his policy and understand the opportunity it created to advance this nascent field of study while staying within the clear boundaries set forth by Congress. So much for all of the rhetoric that made for earlier headline news not only in the popular press, but also at scientific professional meetings and in so-called peer reviewed journals. As a scientist, I was appalled by the willingness of one of the the most well-respected journals in the U.S. to deviate from the facts and get caught up in propaganda, but then again, a senior member of that organization had a long history of political activism, and during the stem cell debate, was serving as an advisor to a Bush challenger. One can see how the lines between science and advocacy can become opportunitistically blurred, especially when scientists pretend to be wearing the hat of impartiality while at the party of political advocacy.
Unfortunately, the court’s recent decision has revealed that, once again, scientists exploited their position of trust to misrepresent the truth for political gain. Whether or not you like President Bush or agree with his policy doesn’t really matter anymore. And whether or not the law or the policy is good or right isn’t the topic of this blog. Frankly, I’ve heard compelling arguments from both sides and realize that this is not a debate which will be settled easily or quickly…or by science. What does matter, though, is the damage that is done when scientists tarnish their reputation and erode our confidence by propagating half truths and outright lies in order to advance an agenda, be it a political agenda, a policy agenda, or a funding agenda. Along those lines, where are all of those science jobs that young people have been promised since the 1980′s and that still don’t exist?
We do need scientists to inform the debate by explaining clearly and honestly the realistic benefits and limitations of embryonic and adult stem cell research, to provide reasoned and rational estimates of the time it will take to bring stem cell-based therapeutics to market, and to explain honestly the technical challenges that make this a very difficult and developing line of research. Scientists must also recognize that they can neither ignore nor bully their way past the ethical debate, nor can they resolve it through the collection of data. Science cannot yet tell us when life begins, and advances in medical science and neonatology have only further complicated an already delicate and complicated issue.
Scientists would be wise to learn from the mistakes of journalists who were once the source of unbiased and impartial facts, and are now the deliverers of politically motivated half-truths, selective data, and incomplete stories that the public is no longer interested in buying. The next time you use the platform of “trust me, I’m a scientist” please remember that our trust is not conferred upon you along with your doctoral degree, but instead that you must earn our trust by providing us with the truth, even when the truth doesn’t support your opinions, hypotheses, and political ideologies.
13 Responses to Is Scientific Integrity a Thing of the Past?
goxewu - September 4, 2010 at 10:20 am
Some questions:1. What scientists (names please) are misrepresenting what facts (specifics please)?2. Why is the issue of the use of Federal funds for human embryonic stem cells in scientific research not resolvable by science, or at least a cost/benefit projection regarding those funds?3. If there’s a legitimate ethical issue with the use of human embryonic stem cells in scientific research, why is private industry allowed to conduct it?4. How does the fact that “many of the stem cell lines that existed in 2001 are no longer viable” square with the putative wisdom of President Bush’s decision to limit embryonic stem cell research to lines created before 2001?5. Why is it desirable for science in the area of embryonic stem cell research to move at a Presidentially “limited” pace (“cautio[n]” would seem advisable in all areas of science), whereas in other areas of science, e.g., robot missions to Mars, it’s not? 6. What is the name of that “one of the most well-respected journals” which “deviate[d] from the facts and [got] caught up in propaganda,”and what is the name of that senior member of its team who “had a long history of political activisim” and “was serving as an advisor to a Bush challenger during the stem cell debate”? (Since the journal’s alledged deviation from facts and its propagandism were presumably contained in things it published, why the reluctance to name it and that senior member of its team?)7. What is wrong with that senior member serving as an advisor to a Bush challenger? Is only the incumbent President allowed to have scientific advisors during an election campaign?8. What, exactly, is the difference between the “half truths and outright lies” put forth by those against the Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, and the “compelling arguments” Ms. Auer Jones says also come from that side of the debate? (A link to one of each would help.)9. What does the alleged absence of “all those science jobs that young people have been promised since the 1980s” (i.e. the Administrations of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, Geroge W. Bush, and Obama) have to do with the debate about embryonic stem cell research?10. Exactly how are scientists trying to “bully or ignore their way past the ethical debate” concerning embryonic stem cell research?11. If science “cannot yet tell us when life begins,” what field can, and what are the qualifications of those in that field to do so?12. Do “the mistakes of journalists who were once the source of unbiased and impartial facts, and are now the deliverers of politically-motivated half-truths, selective data, and incomplete stories that the public is no longer interested in buying” come primarily from the putatively liberal establishment media (e.g. The New York Times and the Washington Post) or from openly conservative Fox News and other Rupert Murdoch outlets, or proportionately evenly from both?
trendisnotdestiny - September 4, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Diane,As Goxewu chronicles, this brief article makes some large assumptions and embedded beliefs are not clear.Scientific Integrity??? Neutrality???? Unbiased Research?????You have got to be kidding here. When corporations comprise 70-80% of the funding resources, scientific integrity is a cheap phrase used to describe the strengthened alignment between researchers and corporate funders (see the pharmaceutical industry’s history)… In a de-regulated world, few forces with power are concerned with integrity (other than a point of selling legitmacy); institutional forces want profits first… Also, the idea that scientists are neutral participants in the research process is childish. We all come to research questions from a personal level and possess biases. To falsely portray the researcher as unconnected to business interests (neutral) in one vein and to laud them with the plaudits of research grantmanship in the other is highly disingenuous. The issue is not be about the yippy dog barking about scientific integrity, but more about making research clear about the researchers role, positionality, interests and connections to the implications of the findings (industry)… We all have bias; this needs to be addressed overtly instead of institutional avoidance…
deanette - September 4, 2010 at 11:29 pm
This writer is here as a joke, clearly.
slowlearner - September 5, 2010 at 2:20 am
What a wretched piece of writing. Who was this aimed at?
aricia2010 - September 5, 2010 at 10:47 am
This is a bizarre post. Goexwu’s questions illustrate how this essay, despite its high word count, offers only a paucity of precise arguments. Does Diane really think that scientists should only sit quietly in caves and perform measurements with no thought to their implications?Television pundits get paid quite a lot to broadcast their (uninformed) opinions to society. People should want, rather, to hear from others who, although they are imperfect, approach problems with an open mind and have spent careers investigating particular, pertinent research questions. Scientists are irresponsible and lacking integrity if they don’t, with appropriate caveats, forcefully present the implications of their work for everyday life.
livefreeordie2 - September 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Goxewu #1 – Good questions, for the most part. However, in asking some of them, you are consciously ignoring the obvious answer – that there are questions of morality involved that affect the spending of tax dollars. The use of tax dollars was limited for embryonic stem cell research for the same reason that tax dollars are not used to fund abortions – it’s not a politically viable position when the majority of Americans oppose it. People will tolerate the fact that abortions are legal or that embryos are destroyed as long as they feel that they aren’t helping to pay for it to happen. And note – I’m not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of this, only mentioning that it is true – and you probably know it.That said, it has been liberal orthodoxy that “Bush stopped stem cell research.” Of course, that was never true – it was simply an attempt to play politics. The author is right in saying that Bush opened the door to “taxpayer funded” embryonic stem cell research. It’s not something, however, for which libs will ever give him credit.As for the credibility of scientists, one has only to look at the second hand smoke debate or the global warming debate for additional examples of scientists who allow their political beliefs to inform their scientific research. In 1998, the WHO withheld a study from publication that found no link between ETS and cancer. In 1999, a federal court found that the EPA played fast and loose with scientific facts regarding smoking and ETS. And of course, more recently, we have the climate-gate scandal that still isn’t resolved. Without arguing the facts of either case – or the one at hand – a strong case can be made that some scientists have allowed political opinion, grant sourcing, or other factors to influence their findings. The author is absolutely correct in identifying this as a potentially serious problem for scientists in the future when credibility may be important. Trendisnodestiny seems to think that honest science cannot come from corporate financing. I agree with that as long as we add in government financing as well. In fact, sadly, his words on scientific integrity are right on target. . . and his solution is a starting point.For the author – Too funny! You stuck a pin in at least 3 or 4 balloons of the liberal belief system. For the most part, there are two types of liberal response – ad hominem attacks and dismissiveness for those who dare disagree and back-slapping for those regurgitating liberal dogma. Comments 3# and #4 demonstrate that pretty clearly. (How could she say these things? Oh, the horror! It must be a joke! What horrible writing!) That said, I, too, would like to see an answer to Goxewu’s question #6.
nordicexpat - September 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm
@livefreeordie2 (and the author of the blog),I think you are both being intellectually dishonest here. The reason why “liberals” (and I think we should be careful throwing that word around in this context, because a lot of scientists I know are more libertarians than what you call liberals) said Bush stopped stem cell research was because of his declared opposition to NIH guidelines concerning the funding of such research that were released in August 2000 (for those with short memories, August 2000 was before Bush was elected). So both you and the author are playing a little loose with the facts by saying that Bush “opened the door for stem cell research.” Yes, technically it might be true, but it does omit some important context. To be honest, I was expecting this blog to reveal something equivalent to the problems in the IPCC report about the melting Himalayans. This blog does no such thing. The author’s “argument,” if there is one, is that Lamberth’s decision proves that anyone arguing against Bush’s policy were not only wrong but distorting scientific truth for political gain. The connection between these two is pure innuendo (I’ll grant livefreeordie2 that his(?) examples would be much better evidence of what the author’s argument, but livefreeordie2 can’t prove the author’s point in this case by introducing evidence that has nothing to do with the facts at hand). If anyone is peddling “politically motivated half-truths, selective data, and incomplete stories,” it is the author. Claiming that the original 2000 NIH guidelines were better than Bush’s (and this is what this debate is about) is not “misrepresenting the truth,” and a district court decision does not constitute proof that they were engaging in such actions. I doubt livefreeordie2 believes that Susan Bolton’ injunction means that “we now know” that anyone in favor of Arizona’s immigration bill is peddling “politically motivated half-truths, selective data, and incomplete stories” for political gain. If the author has evidence that the scientists testimony about the benefits of stem-stell research was false, inaccurate, or otherwise misleading, I wish she would tell us what it is. But I get the feeling she has no such evidence, so she is more or less involved in a smear campaign.How and what types of research the government funds is as much a policy as a scientific question, so ethical considerations do play an important role in such decisions. It would have been nice to have a thoughtful reflection on the issue. However, there is nothing highminded about this blog. This is pure politics and score settling, and is prime example of Nietzsche’s warning about the dangers of fighting monsters. More than anything, I’m stunned by the overall lack of standards exhibited in Chronicle blogs by those on both the left and the right. Since most of the bloggers here are academics, I was expecting a bit more.
bonobo - September 7, 2010 at 9:39 am
@nordicexpatMs. Auer Jones is not an academic, she is the head of a policy think tank who held several political appointments within the G.W. Bush administration, most recently under Margaret Spellings at the Dept. of Education. She is a former community college faculty member with an MS in Applied Biotechnology, and worked at Princeton as their head of Governmental Affairs. She also worked as a program officer at NIH. Identifying her as either an academic or a scientist should be considered at least half true, but certainly not as an unqualified truth.
nordicexpat - September 8, 2010 at 1:17 am
@Bonobo,Thanks for the CV, but I’m not really sure what the point is (and I did say that “most” of the bloggers were academics). By the by, it is Ms. Auer Jones who characterizes herself in the post “as a scientist” without any qualification.
jw_slc - September 8, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I believe Ms. Auer Jones’ central argument to be factually incorrect. Judge Lambert based his ruling on the point that Dickey-Wicher prohibited government-funded researcers from using any lines that had been generated via the loss of embryos. This would include the small number of lines allowed under the Bush policy, although Judge Lamberth himself may not grasp this point:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=lamberth&st=cseBeyond this apparent factual inaccuracy, the conclusion reached by Ms. Auer Jones — that stem-cell scientists acted as dishonest spin-artists — is itself hyperbolic and dishonest. As noted in Comment #1, to exactly which “lies” is Ms. Auer Jones referring? The “lie” that embryonic stem cell research has great promise? The “lie” that our position of leadership in this area will be eroded if restrictions are continued here but not in other countries?
pallen661 - September 8, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Some how I missed something. Where’s the “integrity” or lack there of demonstrated in this post? This is as undocumented a tirade as that the author is accusing of un-identified scientist. Integrity is not any more present or absent in the scientific community than elsewhere. I see no issues of integrity in the issue at hand, let alone this post. Instead scientists are upset that funding promised to them is being cut without warning.
davi2665 - September 9, 2010 at 11:25 am
The stem cell scientists who vocally promote use of embryonic stem cell research are no different than the gene therapy scientists. They wildly overinterpret the “breakthroughs” that are “just around the corner” and conspicuously ignore the myriads of significant scientific stumbling blocks that still are not even close to being overcome. That, of course, does not mean we should abandon the research. But the scientists in the field should present an honest, balanced, and non self-promoting view to the public. Instead, they deliberately overhype and overinterpret the science, make irresponsible predictions, and somehow choose to ignore the fact that their search for the holy grail of more grant money is a self-serving impetus driving their proclamations. And of course, some of these scientists so hate Bush that they would say or do anything in their attempt to discredit him. These scientists have become biopoliticians and political advocates, feeding at the public trough. Unfortunately, they pass themselves off as dispassionate scientists, and the press continues to promote their clearly biased views by portraying them as objective scientists. So the stem cell researchers have achieved one of their goals- multiple billions of dollars from California and elsewhere to feather their own self-serving nests (at taxpayer’s expense), at the actual expense of other scientific fields with far more immediate impact and applicability to human disease. Start showing some real results, indicating that the use of embryonic stem cells (and ONLY embryonic stem cells- not adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and other choices) can actually make a difference in ameliorating or treating a disease, without provoking tumor development or other of the many unwanted side effects), and people might actually consider the field more for its scientific impact than for what now appears to be its appeal to the doctrinaire political crowd.
goxewu - September 11, 2010 at 9:44 am
Re #12:davi2665 simply reiterates Ms. Auer Jones’s post in all its unsubstantiated accusations (e.g., “…they deliberately overhype and overinterpret the science, make irresponsible predictions, and somehow choose to ignore the fact that their search for the holy grail of more grant money is a self-serving impetus driving their proclamations”) and baseless ad hominem attacks (“…some of these scientists so hate Bush that they would say or do anything in their attempt to discredit him”).Morever, the claim that “stem cell researchers have achieved one of their goals- multiple billions of dollars from California and elsewhere to feather their own self-serving nests (at taxpayer’s expense), at the actual expense of other scientific fields with far more immediate impact and applicability to human disease” could be leveled against ANY group of scientists who’ve attracted “multiple billions of dollars” (if that much) to their causes, be they Mars rovers or new radiation therapies or undersear exploration. And those alleged billions of dollars flowing to stem cell research must have come from grant applications and requests to foundations that were carefully examined for merit by personnel capable of evaluating them. Or were the funds awarded by left-wing billionaires who just want to stick it to George W. Bush?One notices that Ms. Auer Jones, who has been known to reply to commenters, has still not divulged the name of the top-of-the-line journal or its senior team member who so “appalled” her by deviating from the facts into propaganda. You’d think she’d want to warn us off reading such a partisan, unreliable publication.