...... Professional Ethics Report Publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program in collaboration with Committee on Scientific Freedom & Responsibility Professional Society Ethics Group

VOLUME XVI NUMBER 1 Winter 2003 Best Statistical Practices to Promote Research experienced official of the University of Illinois — explained why she felt Integrity the research misconduct definition “will not work.” In her experience, institutional colleagues are generally reluctant to brand any actions as By John S. Gardenier “research misconduct” even when they are recognized as immoral, disgusting and scientifically wrong. Absent a finding of “research miscon- Dr. John S. Gardenier is a researcher, ethicist, and guest lecturer in duct,” any deficient scientific practice such as incompetence, sloppiness, Research Ethics. He can be reached at [email protected]. misleading reporting or abuse of colleagues may be excused as “honest error” or acceptable academic conduct. We need a more robust concept of “The statistician’s role in a biomedical research project is to drive the responsible conduct in scientific research than the dichotomy between a p-value below 0.05" finding of research misconduct and a presumption of total innocence. Generally accepted practice? Research misconduct? Both? Such a concept is entirely compatible with the IOM’s 2002 report, Integrity The Concept of Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Over the 20th century, there developed an expanding notion of things Conduct. Among other conclusions, that report finds that “No established that are unacceptable in science. Deliberate hoaxes were seen as moral measures for assessing integrity in the research environment exist.”7 The failures early in the century, but differential treatment of human subjects proposal herein seeks to address those aspects of an environment that seek of research based on race, ethnicity, or intelligence were often accepted. to avoid misuses of statistics and to promote best statistical practices. The Nuremberg Trials and the Helsinki Universal Declaration on Human Rights contributed to a sea change.1 That change continues in the A Taxonomy of Statistical Practices in Science evolution of Institutional Review Board (IRB) practices. Separately, a concept of definable “research misconduct” developed late in the As noted by Sigma Xi in 1997,8 “No scientist can avoid the use of such century.2 It was, arguably, limited to *fabrication or *falsification of [statistical] techniques, and all scientists have an obligation to be aware of data plus *plagiarism of exact wording without permission or attribu- the limitations of the techniques they use, just as they are expected to tion. These asterisked items are collectively known as FF&P. Some know how to protect samples from contamination or to recognize inadequa- dissenters argued that mere FF&P leaves ample room for malfeasance. cies in their equipment.” In 2000, a common federal definition emerged to include broadened concepts of FF&P plus whistleblower protection.3 This taxonomy is anchored at the high end by the concept of “best statistical practices” and at the low end by the common federal definition of “It Will Not Work.” “research misconduct.” Best statistical practices are easy to define, at least in concept. They involve professional expertise in statistical theory, At a Town Meeting on the then-proposed definition of research methods and ethics as well as in the subject matter specialties of the misconduct held at The National Academies on November 17, 1999, all research at hand. (Not all such expertise need reside in one person, of scheduled speakers praised the definition as a virtually optimal solution course.) In addition, researchers or research teams must apply themselves to any remaining problems of research integrity. Some scientists in the with diligence to assure: a thorough understanding of the research issue(s) audience, especially those from biomedical research disciplines, found it and prior results, the relevant data, relevant sampling principles, the most excessively harsh with regard to inclusion of matters of omission, 4 applicable statistical methods, rigorous design and conduct of the data protection of whistleblowers and standards of proof. Others felt it was collection and analysis plus careful interpretation of results, and full and insufficient. I noted that it did not clearly prohibit deliberate misuse of open reporting to support peer review and replication. Finally, the statistical methods to present false results. When I quoted the aphorism researchers should demonstrate adherence to ethical principles and on p-values (above), the reaction of that auditorium full of distinguished applicable best practice definitions, both in statistics and in the subject scientists was to laugh, despite the clear contempt for statistical matter discipline(s).9 honesty. This is dangerous because misuse of statistical methods can be harder to detect than falsification of data and thus be more tempting and The full taxonomy can be outlined as follows: less risky to the perpetrator.5 If caught, one can always claim “honest error” due to a mistaken understanding of the statistical methods. • Best Practices – which still may be challenged either properly or (Institute of Medicine (IOM) member, John C. Bailar III, has long improperly deplored the varying effects of bad statistics on biomedical research; personal discussions with him over several years have greatly influenced • Strict Honest Error – when bad things happen to good, honest my own thinking.) and diligent statistical practitioners* *Competent “statistical practitioners” include, but are not C. K. Gunsalus, a member of the Ryan Commission that recommended a limited to, competent statisticians. greatly revised concept of research misconduct6— and an ( Statistics continued on page 2)

1 Professional Ethics Report WINTER 2003 ......

Statistics continued from page 1) • Gross Negligence – Funding sources, Letters to the Editor: The editors welcome • Looser Honest Error – when bad both public and private, can be comments from our readers. We reserve the things happen to good and honest guilty of this to the extent that, right to edit and abridge letter as space per- researchers who, nonetheless, could for example, they demand literature mits. Please address all correspondence to have been more diligent. For citations indicating p-values less the deputy editor. example, they may use data than 0.05 in prior related work, but prepared by others without fully fail utterly to assess the credibility algorithms used by their software understanding the definitions, the of those values before awarding and assure that the algorithms sampling plan and the processes grants. Similarly, journals may compute properly. used to prepare the data for require such p-values in papers but As for the Rest of Us analysis. neglect any competent review of the credibility of those numbers. In Ultimately, we as scientists can never rely on • Honest Negligence – when bad fact, such practices create a climate the “authorities” to make things right, can we? things happen predictably due to of incentives to cheating – as long as We all share a responsibility for critical more marked deficits of competence the cheating is “merely” statistical. thinking and critical appraisal. We all have to or diligence. For example, failure to understand at least the elements of statistical verify assumptions about the data • Research Misconduct – duplicitous theory and statistical thinking and apply them or to conduct sufficient exploratory misuse or misreporting of statistical to what we read as well as to what we do. data analysis tend to indicate lack of methods through intent to Recognize that bad statistical work is seldom due diligence. deceive or through culpable truly attributable to “honest error,” and it can negligence. Interestingly, no practice sink to the level of actionable research • Generally Accepted, But Incompe- that is “generally accepted” can be misconduct. Do not accept inferior statistical tent, Statistical Practices – typically “misconduct,” by definition. work from colleagues, publications, or seen in researchers who need help Recommendations for Improving Research ourselves. Never be afraid or embarrassed to with their statistical work, but fail Integrity in Statistical Practice ask for statistical help when needed. to obtain it. Included here are: the collection of data without a In keeping with the thrust of the IOM report Above all, we must recognize that sound statistically valid sampling plan,** on research integrity and in employing the science can never result from unsound failure to consider and adjust for taxonomy above, here are recommendations statistics. confounding factors, or orienting for steps to be taken by research institutions, statistical work toward an outcome funding sources, journals, and statistical References (e.g. p-value less than 0.05) rather software makers. These would contribute to 1 Department of Health Education and than toward methodological validity. improving the overall climate of research Welfare, The Belmont Report (1979) http:// ** Applies to prospective studies integrity. ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/belmont.php3 but not necessarily to retrospective 2 • Institutions – Define expected NAS, Responsible Science, Vol. 1 (1992) studies. standards of research quality, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309047315/html 3 including references to statistical OSTP, Federal Policy on Research practices and ethics. Provide initial Misconduct. http://www.ostp.gov/html/ education, training available to junior 001207_3.html 4 FASEB, letter to OSTP, December 13, 1999 Editor: Mark S. Frankel and senior researchers alike, and http://www.faseb.org/opar/letters/1999/ Deputy Editor: Kristina Schaefer remedial training when standards are francis.html Contributing Editors: Kevin Alleman, Joanne not met. 5 Feigenbaum, S. and Levy, D. M. “The Chan, Brent Garland, Brandy Pratt, Miguel Technological Obsolescence of Scientific Prietto, Deborah Runkle • Funding sources – Pay attention to the credibility of statistical Fraud,” Rationality and Society , 8(3), 261-276 (1996) The Professional Ethics Report is published competence, methods, and prior 6 DHHS, Integrity and Misconduct in quarterly by the Scientific Freedom, Responsi- results within grant application Research: Report of the Commission on bility and Law Program in collaboration with proposals. Do not accept pub- Research Integrity (1995) http:// the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Re- lished/claimed p-values unless they gopher.faseb.org/opar/cri.html sponsibility and the Professional Society Eth- have been credibly peer reviewed. 7 The National Academies Press, Integrity in ics Group, American Association for the Ad- Scientific Research: Creating an Environment vancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue, • Journals – Provide for competent That Promotes Responsible Conduct, Report NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 326-6217; statistical, as well as subject matter, of the IOM Committee on Assessing Integrity Fax (202) 289-4950; E-mail: [email protected]; peer reviews and encourage authors in Research Environments (2002), p. 3 WWW http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/ to assure that data and study 8 Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1997) sfrl.htm. Back issues of Professional Ethics designs be available to statistical and 9 E.g., American Statistical Association, Report are now on-line at http://www.aaas.org/ other peer reviewers. Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice spp/dspp/sfrl/per/per.htm • Statistical Software Makers – Cease (1999) http://www.amstat.org/profession/ ethicalstatistics.html This newsletter may be reproduced without any claims that their software will International Statistical Institute, permission as long as proper acknowledgement provide valid statistical analyses in Declaration on Professional Ethics (1985) is given. ISSN: 1045-8808 the absence of user understanding ofthe statistical theory and methods http://www.cbs.nl/si/ethics.htm being applied. Document the

WINTER 2003 Professional Ethics Report 2 ...... SPECIAL FEATURE archetype of a scientific paradigm shift. As research, uninterrupted by anyone. IN MEMORIUM such, she has left a mark, or more precisely a hoof-print on the sands of time, as an “For the university to fulfill its obligations to DOLLY THE SHEEP: embodied artifact dressed in sheep’s clothing. academic freedom and to intellectual develop- DEAD AT SIX For Dolly “D” sheep will not simply be ment, it must provide a forum in which by Kevin Alleman relegated to remembrance, a relic of the past. individuals and groups can advocate their Rather, she will be visible to all, as she is to be views,” the statement stated. “It must assure stuffed for display in the national museum in an environment for civil discourse to take Edinburgh, perhaps as a monument immemo- place free from violence and intimidation.” rial to the public interest: as Scotland’s very The statement by AAU can be found at: http:/ own “Dollywood.” /www.aau.edu/resources/aaustate1.15.03.html. *MP Quiescat in pace agnus Dei. NIH RELEASES STATEMENT ON Dolly is survived by her six lambs and her SHARING RESEARCH DATA estranged suitor, David, the Welsh mountain ram. In late February of this year, the National (Photo Courtesy of Edge Foundation, Inc. - Institutes of Health published its final http://www.edge.org) IN THE NEWS statement on sharing research data. The Dolly “D” sheep, the first mammal cloned statement is a result of a NIH review of the AAU STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC from an adult mammary somatic cell by comments regarding the draft statement, which FREEDOM DURING TIMES OF HEIGHT- nuclear transplantation and whose birth began in March of 2002. ENED TENSIONS heralded a breakthrough in molecular biology The final statement differs from the draft that incited consternation over the morality of On January 15, 2003 the Association of cloning life, died February 16 at the Roslin statement in three instances. The first change American Universities (AAU) released a pertains to the effective start date of the Institute in Edinbugh, Scotland after suffering statement urging academic institutions not to from progressive lung disease. She was 6. policy changed from January 1, 2003 to lose sight of their commitment to academic October 1, 2003. freedom as America prepares itself for war. Since her birth on 5 July 1996, Dolly ewe-d Second, applicants seeking $500,000 or more and awed scientists and the public the world This statement entitled, “The Responsibility over with her sui generis pedigree: a genetic in direct costs in any year of the project of Universities at a Time of International period are expected to contact NIH program facsimile of her Fin Dorset sheep “mother.” Tension and Domestic Protest,” voiced the Like the country music star she was named staff prior to submission and to include a data concern that, “Supporters of various causes sharing plan in their application. The plan after—Dolly Parton—one could say that and points of view seek adherents and vehicles Dolly (“D” sheep) was destined for stardom. should state how they will share their data, for their messages, including our universities and if data sharing isn’t possible, an explana- themselves.” It stressed the importance of Although her birth was unconventional, Dolly tion of why that is so. university protection of free speech and the appeared not so different from other little maintenance of open environments for learning lambs. On the contrary, she lived anything Third, in response to objections by several during times of war. Also, the statement urged but a quiet life, reaching celebratory status as groups and individuals to the sharing of universities to further their responsibilities in evinced by international headlines. And like research data prior to publication, NIH has two additional areas in order to prepare their most Hollywood celebrities she grew up in modified the definition of “the timely release campuses for possible adverse events. front of the camera, always on display for an and sharing” to be no later than the acceptance admiring public. Her august presence was the for publication of the main findings from the First, AAU suggested universities should final data set. This change was made to focus of the limelight, though almost eclipsed actively promote informed dialogue, analytical by the birth of her first lamb, which convinced recognize the effort of the investigators who thought and exemplary arguments via collect the data, but NIH insists that investiga- doubters that cloned mammals can reproduce appropriately guided information sessions. “It vibrant offspring the natural way. tors may not benefit from prolonged exclusive is incumbent upon the university to offer the use of data. expertise and experience of its faculty and Her life, however, was not all glamour and staff members to broad audiences on campus glitz. While narrowly escaping the devastating Public sharing of research data is a long- through fora such as teach-ins and seminars,” foot-and-mouth disease that swept through standing policy of NIH, which believes that the statement said. the United Kingdom in 2001 by quarantine, the practice is essential for advancing research Dolly’s health was failing. She was diagnosed results and improving human health. However, Second, AAU would like to see universities NIH recognizes that the rights and privacy of with arthritis and later progressive lung establish clear boundaries for public protest, disease that ultimately led to her termination. research participants in NIH-sponsored being particularly careful to outline the research must be protected at all times and Was the proof in the pudding—that her unique consequences for illicit disruptions such as genetic dossier was to blame for the pangs of that data be free of identifiers before it is violence, prevention of class, takeover of shared. premature aging? No one knows just yet, as buildings, and email fraud, all of which should the postmortem investigation is ongoing. be prohibited. For additional information on NIH data Nonetheless, the world anxiously awaits the sharing, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/ results. The statement asked university presidents, data_sharing/ . *BP faculty, and students to reaffirm their For better or for worse, Dolly will be underlying reasons for being on campus: the remembered by history’s pages as the work of learning, teaching, scholarship and (News continued on page 4)

WINTER 2003 Professional Ethics Report 3 ...... (News continued from page 3) the practice of concealing the identities of any products derived from cloned embryos. THE NIH-RAC CONVENES ON THE peer-reviewers and authors have little or no The bill authorizes a study by the General SECOND SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENT IN effect on the outcome of the quality assess- Accounting Office (G.A.O.) to assess the THE STUDY OF TRANSFER ment process. need for possible amendment of the ban, TRIALS IN X-SCID considering such factors as developments in Similarly, in an attempt to address current medical technology, the need for research On February 10, 2003, the RAC met and questions pertaining to the benefits of the cloning in medical advances, as well as current discussed the findings that a second child editorial peer-review process and public public attitudes and ethical views. The involved in the X-SCID study had developed concern regarding reliability of scientific G.A.O. would be required to report back leukemia. Dr. Alain Fisher, who began this information in the media, the Royal Society, within two years. The Senate has a compan- study nearly three years ago, joined the Britain’s leading academic scientific institution, ion measure 4 to the bill passed in the House conversation briefly via a teleconference will investigate the peer review process of that would similarly make both reproductive voicing his concern for those children still scientific literature. It will consider possible and research cloning illegal, but it is uncertain remaining in the study and for the future of failings in the current mechanism for peer as to whether it will reach a floor vote. 5 gene transfer therapy in general. At the end of review, explore alternatives, and provide the day, the RAC concluded that the gene direction for the general public on judging the The Senate also has a bill (the “Human transfer was a cause of both leukemias, noting significance of a report on new research. Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research that there could be other causes as well. The Protection Act of 2003” or the Hatch- RAC suggested, pending further data or The Society will also address concerns relating Feinstein bill), as it did last year, that would extenuating circumstances that retroviral gene to research results leaking to the media before ban reproductive cloning, while explicitly transfer for X-linked SCID be limited to undergoing peer review. The culmination of the permitting human research cloning to move patients who have failed identical investigation will result in two chief docu- forward. 6 The Hatch-Feinstein bill sets a haploidentical stem cell transplantation or ments – a set of guidelines outlining proper limit on the number of days that a cloned for whom no suitable donor can be methods of releasing results of scientific embryo could develop in vitro—no more than 14 days. 7 Additionally, the Hatch-Feinstein identified. They found that resumption of research and a “Science Brief” offering bill provides for G.A.O. oversight reports on non-X-linked SCID gene transfer studies practical advice to the public on interpreting the importance of scientific results. the actions of the Attorney General of the may be justified contingent upon U.S. to enforce the bill, on actions of state appropriate informed consent and An abstract of the Cochrane report is posted Attorneys General, on coordinated federal- monitoring plans. Finally, they concluded at http://www.cochrane.org state enforcement actions, and on interna- that there is not sufficient evidence at this tional laws related to human cloning. The The Royal Society can be found at http:// time to warrant cessation of other Hatch-Feinstein bill, which specifically www.royalsoc.ac.uk *BP retroviral gene transfer studies, which defines “human cloning” as reproductive 8 would be contingent upon appropriate cloning , is framed in its very title as a way to specifically allow and protect human stem- informed consent and monitoring plans as ETHICS, LAW AND cell research, as research cloning is likely to well. PUBLIC POLICY play a substantial role in developing new stem More information about the RAC and cell lines. about the X-SCID gene transfer studies EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN: can be found at http://www4.od.nih.gov/ CONGRESS, CLONING, AND THE NEED It seems unlikely that the Congress will come FOR REGULATION to a compromise agreement on research oba/rac/meeting.html *MP cloning this term, despite some two years of By Brent Garland hearings and repeated proposed legislation. VALUE OF EDITORIAL PEER REVIEW The gulf in perspectives between those who QUESTIONED Brent Garland, M.S., J.D. is a Senior Program seek a total ban and those who support Associate with the Scientific Freedom, research cloning efforts is too substantial to Despite its widespread use and costs, the Responsibility & Law Program at AAAS. The be overcome without significant compromise Cochrane Collaboration has found that “there opinions expressed in this column are his own, on both parts. Those who would propose to is little empirical evidence to support the use and do not reflect the official policies or ban cloning often invoke a “parade of of editorial peer review as a mechanism to opinions of AAAS. horribles,” including the commodification of ensure quality of biomedical research.” the human body, the destruction of embryos Editorial peer-review is used world-wide as an The U.S. Congress, which considered but for profit, the potential for contamination of quality assessment instrument in the selection failed to pass a law regarding human cloning the human gene pool, and the likelihood that of submissions to biomedical journals. last year1, has again taken up the issue of what rogue reproductive cloning will occur if to do about one of the most controversial and research cloning is permitted. Supporters of The Cochrane report titled “Editorial Peer contested areas of research in the U.S. Similar research cloning, on the other hand, tend to Review for Improving the Quality of Reports to the course of events last year, the House of invoke a “wealth of possibilities,” including of Biomedical Studies” reached this conclusion Representatives has passed a bill (the “Human substantial advances in the understanding of after reviewing the effects of the processes of Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003,” or the , embryonic development, and cellular editorial peer-review on original research Weldon-Stupak bill) that would outlaw all differentiation mechanisms, all of which will studies submitted for paper or electronic human cloning, both reproductive and research theoretically result in an array of medical publication in medical journals. cloning2, and provide for both civil and treatments and cures for disease. The rhetoric criminal penalties. 3 In addition, the Weldon- often turns pointed, portraying research Results show that factors such as a referee’s Stupak bill would prohibit the importation, supporters as amoral “bio-zealots,” driven by training, electronic communication media, and shipping, or receiving of cloned embryos or on (CLONING continued on page 5)

4 Professional Ethics Report WINTER 2003 ...... (CLONING continued from page 4) The time for regulation is now, and the human life is a given for all sides in this greed and the technological imperative 9; while scientific community should lead the charge in debate. The battle is really between those who those opposed to cloning are cast as establishing an on-going and inclusive dialogue want to use the gifts of human reason and “technophobes” and “bioluddites” who fear that results in a framework for sensible and human compassion to ameliorate illness and 12 the unknown. 10 effective regulations. death and those like Kristol and Rifkin who counsel fatalistic acceptance of the manifold 1 The scientific and policy communities, in See, “Human Cloning Attempt Prompts cruelties randomly meted out by nature.” consultation with a broad range of public Governmental Reactions,” Professional Ethics 11 constituencies, should vigorously work to Report, Volume XV, Number 1, Winter 2002. Research cloning opponents often challenge bridge the gap between the “pros and cons” the idea that the U.S. would lose scientists, 2 and press for rigorous, comprehensive and Reproductive cloning is cloning done in an arguing that a ban presents a clear moral or enforceable regulation of research cloning. The attempt to create another human being, ethical line, and that only “rogue” scientists issue of timing is compelling, and the case for whereas research cloning includes all other would leave to conduct the research. Such an the need seems clear. basic and applied research approaches, such as argument assumes a hegemony of belief that seeking to understand more fully various does not exist, as demonstrated by the ongoing Timing is an issue because this research is cellular processes and mechanisms, embryonic debate itself. In addition, it minimizes the currently going forward in other countries development, and the potential to develop moral agency of the scientists themselves, with governmental approval, most notably in medical treatments and therapies. suggesting that scientists are not likely to the U.K. and China. While some research come to a different decision about the 3 cloning may be going forward in the U.S. in H.R. 534, sponsored by Reps. Dave Weldon acceptability of the work themselves, and then the absence of regulatory actions, the ongoing and Bart Stupak, was passed 241-155 on go to where they might best use their debate and potential for a ban may prevent February 27, 2003. education, training, and talents. researchers, institutions, and investors from 12 4 S. 245, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback. AAAS convened a meeting on “Regulatory making serious investments of time and capital Issues Surrounding Human Cloning” on March until the matter is resolved. Such delays may 5 See, for example, “Cloning Debate Undimin- 11, 2003, which sought to identify some of place the U.S. is in the unenviable position of ished Despite House-Passed Ban,” CQ the issues that must be considered in either falling behind in this area of science, or Weekly, March 1, 2003, at p.508, stating that developing a regulatory scheme. A report from of losing significant scientific talent to those the bill “does not have enough votes to the meeting is available at http:// countries where the research is being con- withstand a filibuster, and it is unclear if it will www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/issues/ ducted. 11 reach a floor vote this year.” cloningreport.pdf The need for regulation, on the other hand, is 6 S. 303, whose primary sponsors are Sens. evinced by the tenor, furor, and sustained Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein. nature of the debate itself. The fact is that IN THE SOCIETIES both sides have legitimate points. There is the 7 The 14-day rule is also the current limit in potential for significant scientific advances the United Kingdom, as governed by the AAAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS ISSUES that could substantially ease suffering and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of RESOLUTION ON FEDERAL ADVISORY improve the lives of many. Likewise, there is 1990, which was amended in 2001 to include COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP the risk that some abuses may occur, and that cloning research. some unforeseeable risks lay beyond the On March 3, 2003, the AAAS Board of horizon. 8 That is, any attempt to transfer a cloned Directors approved a joint Board-Council embryo into a uterus. resolution regarding membership on Federal Neither side can demonstrate a clear majority Advisory Committees. This resolution view. Regardless, the nature of our representa- 9 See, Kass, Leon R. “WHY WE SHOULD addressed the importance of federal agencies tional democracy means that the beliefs of the BAN HUMAN CLONING NOW. Preventing receiving scientific, technical, and medical minority are not run over roughshod by the a Brave New World.” The New Republic, May advice representing diverse views in order to beliefs of the many, and never is that more 21, 2001. “Some among us are delighted, of make decisions based on the best available true than with contested issues of ethics and course, by this state of affairs: some scientists scientific knowledge as per the Federal morality. That neither side has been in a and biotechnologists, their entrepreneurial Advisory Committee Act, which requires such position to make the forceful case for its backers, and a cheering claque of sci-fi committees to be “fairly balanced” in the position leaves us in this legislative impasse. enthusiasts, futurologists, and libertarians. points of views represented and the functions There are dreams to be realized, powers to be performed. For supporters of research cloning, the need exercised, honors to be won, and money—big for compromise and regulation should be clear: money—to be made.” AAAS believes that a “fair balance” pertains a single disaster in an unregulated field of to competence, disciplinary focus, and research could shut the entire field down, leave 10 See, Bailey, Ronald. “Anti-Cloning political and/or institutional allegiance, among the public demanding accountability, and Disinformation? Desperate opponents try to other components. As a result, the organiza- possibly set the science back for years to frighten lawmakers with bogus scares.” tion feels that the selection, removal, or come—essentially affecting the same result as Reason Online, March 13, 2002. “Kristol and replacement of committee members and the a ban. For those opposed, the case is equally Rifkin fabricate a bogus ethical dichotomy disbanding of committees based on criteria clear: the attempt to enact a ban has been a pitting “utilitarians” against those who unrelated to stakeholder interests or scientific, failure, and if the research goes forward allegedly “believe in the intrinsic value of technical, and medical issues compromises the without regulation, the risk of the “parade of human life.” Despite their invidious moral integrity of the committees receiving expert horribles” is increased, checked only by posturing, Kristol and Rifkin do not have a advice. The resolution calls for the federal market pressures and individual conscience. lock on ethical rectitude. The intrinsic value of (SOCIETIES continued on page 6)

WINTER 2003 Professional Ethics Report 5 ...... government to follow the Federal Advisory poor science of The Bell Curve); and with the uses these documents to help provide a Committee Act in obtaining expert scientific, Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Working historical and cultural context for the technical, and medical advice to ensure its Group of the . development of current concepts of academic accordance with of the democratic principles ethics. of governance.*JC Beckwith has produced a book for scientists, ethicists, and anyone who isinterested in In his analysis, Hamilton lays out a frame- RESOURCES gaining insight into the life of an accomplished work for considering the ethical behavior of scientist and committed social activist. In academicians, focusing on the right of the SCIENCE AND SOCIAL CONSCIENCE, addition, for scientists, Beckwith’s book faculty to free speech, peer review, and shared IN AN INSPIRATIONAL MIX serves as a model for how a scientific life can governance, and the duties of professional include and inform a political life, and competence and ethical conduct. Hamilton by Brent Garland illuminates the possibilities for interaction follows this analysis with chapters that between the worlds of hard science and social borrow the “case method” of business and Distinguished geneticist and microbiologist activism. legal education. Each chapter contains has written a unique and numerous vignettes (which Hamilton terms Beckwith, Jon. Making , Making informative memoir that skillfully inter- “problems”) that pose ethical questions for Waves. Harvard University Press, 2002. weaves two of the most prominent threads of those involved, followed by series of discussion questions. The chapters are his life: science and social activism. The core TOWARDS A BROADER VIEW OF organized by the types of problems they story in Making Genes, Making Waves ACADEMIC ETHICS begins, after brief comments on how present in Hamilton’s framework: the duties Beckwith began his studies of science, with by Brent Garland of individual professors; the rights of the history of his early work with lac genes in individual professors; the duties of professors E. Coli, and with his groundbreaking work in The privileged position that academics hold in as a collegial body; the rights of the collegial gene cloning. But this is primarily a non- modern American society carries with it body; and the rights of students. technical book aimed at a general audience. corresponding professional responsibilities, Although Beckwith covers the major and Neil Hamilton has done the academic Hamilton’s choice to use a “case method” milestones of his scientific career, he also uses community a significant service with his new format should be effective for maximizing the memoir format to give insight into the book on academic ethics. While many discussion, and is a real asset in helping to career and culture of science-the personalities, academicians receive substantive training in provide numerous examples of potentially the institutions, and the continuing excitement the ethics of their discipline (science, problematic situations. The questions that that science inspires in him. engineering, law, etc.), too often the ethical follow each “problem” serve to identify and issues of life in the academy are all but frame key ethical issues present in each The developing social activism aspects of his ignored. Many young faculty receive a day or vignette. scientific career come to the fore in 1969. two (or if lucky, a week) of training at the Following the “case method” chapters are a Concurrent with the publication of a seminal beginning of their careers that is related to rich and useful set of appendices that contain paper on genetics in Nature, Beckwith and appropriate interactions with students, the AAUP and AGB documents relevant to two of his colleagues held a press conference administrators, and colleagues. All too often, the initial part of the book. Provision of these to warn of the potential dangers of genetic the “ethical lessons” are boiled down to three texts are a useful tool for the reader who manipulation. As Beckwith notes , this press points: don’t plagiarize, don’t have sex with wishes to consider Hamilton’s analysis in a conference was reflective of the joining of his your students, and don’t steal from your grant more full context, or for faculties seeking to political and scientific lives. The publicity funds. While these points are undoubtedly draft their own statements on similar academic storm that followed, along with the critical good advice, the failure to provide substantive ethics issues. reactions from fellow scientists, may have education on the ethical practices and been Beckwith’s first experience as the focus principles of academia as a whole does If this book has one weakness, it is that of public controversy, but it would not be the students and faculty a grave disservice. Hamilton’s chapters on “problems” consist last. Graduate students, new professors and solely of that: problems, followed by experienced faculty alike can benefit from questions, with no additional analysis or Indeed, while Beckwith does an admirable job Hamilton’s thought-provoking analysis of the commentary by the author. Given Hamilton’s of tracing his major discoveries and the ethical duties and correlative rights of expertise and deep thinking evinced on the development of his scientific career (and in a academics, both as individuals and as a subject in the initial chapters, readers could general, non-technical style that makes it fully collegial body. accessible to any one with a basic knowledge likely benefit more from his knowledge if he offered some model analyses of a subset of the of science), the most compelling parts of the Tightly organized in a format that makes it problems presented. That said, Hamilton’s book are the ones chronicling his social ideal for a graduate seminar or an ongoing book is a valuable resource to anyone with activism and often, the resulting uproar. faculty discussion group, Hamilton presents either a scholarly or practical interest in Beckwith’s involvement with scientific ethics first an analysis of the duties and rights of academic ethics. concerns reads almost like a history of faculty, supplemented and illuminated by modern science, including work with the comparisons among some relevant documents, Hamilton, Neil W. Academic Ethics. Problems social and political ramifications of genetics; including the 1915 General Declaration of and Materials on Professional Conduct and with documenting the difficulties of being a Principles of the American Association of Shared Governance. American Council on scientist in Cuba; with the effort to educate University Professors (AAUP), the 1940 Education/Praeger Series on Higher Education, scientists about the horrible legacies of AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic 2002. eugenics; with challenging the misuses of Freedom and Tenure, and the 1998 Statement genetic science, behavioral genetics and on Institutional Governance by the Associa- sociobiology (for example, in debunking the tion of Governing Boards (AGB). Hamilton (Resources continued on page 7)

6 Professional Ethics Report WINTER 2003 ...... (Resources continued from page 6) a child for them, a woman who For more information see ARE WE CREATING A WORLD WE was a surrogate for them on a www.backbonemedia.org/bloodlines. DON’T WANT TO INHABIT? previous occasion and who has also been a surrogate for other On May 14, at 4 p.m., Bloodlines, along with A by Deborah Runkle couples. Pregnant with twins, the Question of Genes, a previous PBS documen- surrogate learns that the couple is tary from the same producer, will be presented This is but one of many questions asked in having marital difficulties and at AAAS headquarters. Portions of the videos Bloodlines, a video due to appear on PBS on intends to place the twins in foster will be shown, with reactions from legal and June 10, 2003 (check local listings). Produced, care. The surrogate wants to find a bioethical scholars. written, and directed by Noel Schwerin of permanent, adoptive home for the Backbone Media, Bloodlines presents a series twins. Does she have any rights ANNOUNCEMENTS of case studies that examines what happens regarding what happens to “her” when life science technologies raise ethical, babies? social, and legal dilemmas. The video is Meeting — The American Association for divided into three scenarios presenting real life The second scenario asks What Is Human? the Advancement for Science and the situations. The actual personae in these This scenario presents two provocative cases Hastings Center are hosting “Can We Talk? situations tell their stories, with commentary that illustrate the ethical and legal difficulties A Public Conversation About Behavioral by legal scholars and practitioners. that can arise with technologies that allow the Genetics and Society,” May 2-3, 2003, in combining and crossing of species. Washington, DC. This meeting will explore The first scenario asks Who Is a Parent? some of the central controversies surrounding Reproductive technologies intended to help • A developmental biologist has filed research on the association between genes and infertile couples have a baby are now a a patent application on an embryo behavior, from devastating mental diseases to familiar and widely accepted practice. that is a chimera, part human and aggression and personality. Leading scientists Nevertheless, the various permutations of part chimpanzee. Increasingly in the field, ethicists, legal scholars, patient donor sperm, donor egg, and donor uneasy about the directions in advocates, and journalists will examine issues uterus pose continuing challenges for which research in his discipline are ranging from what science can really tell us family law, challenges that are playing out heading, he has taken this action to regarding genetic explanations for behavior, to in courtrooms and in the lives of adults force a public review of the notions of “free will,” to the use of research and babies. The cases presented in this patentability of living organisms. findings in the criminal justice system, to how segment address the following dilemmas: Stated simply, how many cells to foster conversations on these controversial does it take to make an organism matters between scientists and the general human? public. The meeting will employ a number of • The baby with five parents: A married couple with fertility strategies to engage the audience, including the • A man desperately ill with showing of the video, “Genes on Trial,” the problems is unable to have a Parkinson’s disease agrees to a use of audience response technology, and a baby of “their” own following procedure that implants pig cells roundtable featuring scientists, journalists, and six attempted in vitro fertiliza- into his brain. Although his medical policy makers discussing the roles and tions and six surrogates. They condition is dramatically improved, responsibilities of various parties in communi- eventually “conceived” a baby what does it mean to have the cells cating scientific information to the public. For with donor sperm, donor egg, of another species functioning in more details and to register (it’s free!), visit and a surrogate mother. his body? the conference web site at http:// www.aaas.org/spp/bgenes/cwt. However, during the preg- The final scenario asks Who Has Rights? nancy the husband decides to While genetic testing holds great promise for Symposium — The National Human divorce his wife, renouncing all improving our lives, our society has yet to Genome Research Initiative is holding a parentage and responsibility reach a consensus about when such testing is half-day public symposim entitled “Bringing for the yet-to-be-born child. Is useful, even desirable, and when it is harmful the Genome to You” on April 15, 2003 in he the legal father with or poses an intrusion into an individual’s Washington, DC. Registration and informa- concomitant responsibilities? privacy. Two railroad workers, along with tion are available at WWW http:// more than a hundred of their co-workers, file www.genome.gov/About/April/Public. for workman’s compensation due to carpal • The babies with two mothers: Wishing to have a family, a tunnel syndrome that they claim is a result of the repetitive motions required by their jobs. Conference — The Institute for Applied and lesbian couple “conceives” Their employer takes blood samples and, Professional Ethics at Ohio State University three children using eggs from unbeknownst to the employees, conducts announces its third Student Conference on one partner and the uterus of genetic testing on the blood. Who has a right Applied Ethics to be held April 26-27, 2003. the other, plus donor sperm. to our genetic information and how can they The keynote address will be “Cheating” by Do the two “mothers” have use this information? Bernard Gert of Dartmouth College. For equal legal rights and responsi- details, visit WWW http://www.ohio.edu/ bilities in relation to “their” Bloodlines offers no easy answers to these ethics. children? questions, but it does provide an opportunity for viewers to ponder them. This series of Conference — The National Patient Safety nd • The twins whose “parents” ethical, social, and legal dilemmas will best be Foundation will hold their 2 Annual Clinical change their minds: An infertile used in classrooms and other educational Research Conference on Integrity and settings. couple hires a surrogate to bear (Announcements continued on page 8)

7 Professional Ethics Report WINTER 2003 ...... Professional Ethics Report Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005

Accountability in Clinical Research on May 6- Director, International Programs, The Institute of Technology will host Ethics 8, 2003 in Washington, DC. Symposia include Hastings center, 21 Malcom Gordon Drive, Across the Curriculum, a Practical Workshop Preservation of Privacy and Dignity of Garrison, NY, 10503, 845-424-4040; fax: 845- on how to integrate ethics into technical Research Subjects and the Impact of 424-4545; email: courses from June 24-July 1, 2003 in Chicago, Bioterrorism on Clinical Research. For more [email protected]. IL. Application consists of a) a short letter information, see WWW http:// describing reasons for wanting to take the www.saferesearch.org. Conference — Boston College, Loyola workshop, applicant background, and the University, Chicago, Holy Cross College, and courses applicant will be teaching next fall; b) Institute — The Ethics Institute at St. Louis University are co-sponsoring the a CV; c) a letter of commitment from the Dartmouth College, in collaboration with Sixth Annual Ethics and Technology Con- appropriate administrator indicating that the Howard University, is offering three sessions ference from June 27-28, 2003 in Chestnut applicant’s institution will pay its share of the of a Faculty Summer Institute on Teaching the Hill, MA. The theme of the conference is $2000 stipend if accepted. Deadline for Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked application has been extended. Contact of the Human Genome Project (HGP). Dates World. For more information, visit WWW Michael Davis, Center for the Study of Ethics are June 15-21 at Dartmouth, July 6-12 at http://www.bc.edu/ethicstech. in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Howard, and August 10-16 at Dartmouth. For Technoloy, Chicago, IL 60616-3793; (312) more information, visit WWW http:// Conference — Western Carolina University is 564-3017; fax (312) 567-3016; Email: www,dartmouth.edu/artsci/ethics-inst/ holding a conference on The Science, the [email protected] elsi_index.html. Law, Ethical and Social Implications: A Policy Modeling, from April 2-3, 2003 in Call for Articles — The Center for the Study Workshop — The Hastings Center is Asheville, NC. For more information, email of Ethics of LaRoche College is inviting offering an intensive workshop on science and Karen Nicholson at articles for its next issue of Sensibilities. The social responsibility on June 20-23, 2003 in [email protected]. topic of the issue is “Ethics and Sports.” Garrison, NY. The project is intended to Deadline for submissions is August 15, 2003. examine issues related to the societal impact of Workshop — The Center for the Study of Articles should be submitted to Casey science that have developed in recent years Ethics in Professions (CSEP) at the Illinois Kutcher at [email protected]. For more and to create a network of young scientists Correction: In the December issue of PER, information, visit WWW http:// who work in these areas. Interested parties the review of the book Trying Times intranet.laroche.edu/external/ethic or contact should send a letter describing their research incorrectly stated that Judge Rothstein serves Michael C. Brannigan, Executive Director, experience in dealing with issues of science on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She Center for the Study of Ethics, LaRoche and social responsibility and indicating if they serves on the District Court for the Western College, Pittsburh, PA 15237, 412-536-1209, will need full or partial financial support. The District of Washington. We apologize for any email: [email protected]. letter should be sent to Daniel Callahan, confusion or inconvenience this error may Call for Papers/Conference — The ELSA have caused. -- Eds. National Research Program is presenting a Support From the Following Societies and conference on Perceptions and Evaluations of Gene Technology from December 4-5, 2003 at Organizations is Gratefully Acknowledged: Linkoping University in Sweden. The focus of American Anthropological Association the conference is the the ethical, communica- American Occupational Therapy Association tive and sociological issues in relation to American Psychological Society individual and public perceptions of gene American Society for Engineering Education technology. Abstracts (500 words or less) American Sociological Association should be submitted by ordinary mail and Botanical Society of America email to Professor Lennart Nordenfelt, Council of Science Editors Department of Health and Society, Linkoping Fed. of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences University, 58185 Linkoping, Sweden, email: National Society of Professional Engineers [email protected]

8 Professional Ethics Report WINTER 2003