...... 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 XV NUMBER 4 Fall 2002 Conflicts of Interest and the False Comfort of “Full does not take money from business for advertising. Many Disclosure” other media outlets place restrictions on what journalists can do in order to maintain their independence. Universities place By Robert W. Hahn restrictions on how professors identify themselves when doing outside consulting and testimony. And when pursuing stories, Robert W. Hahn is director of the AEI-Brookings Joint the press often asks for similar kinds of disclosure. When I Center for Regulatory Studies, a resident scholar at the receive a call from the press about one of my studies, one of American Enterprise Institute, and a research associate at the first questions asked is who funded it. It is problematic Harvard University. A longer version of this article origi- that many journalists either don’t have the time to, or cannot, nally appeared in the October 2002 issue of Policy Review, evaluate the validity of studies. Instead, they simply take their and is available on the web at www.policyreview.org. cue from less important aspects, such as the funding source The Enron “scandal” has raised several issues about or the institutional affiliation. disclosure of information and potential conflicts of interest. The problem of assessing quality is not restricted to the press. For example, an accounting firm that receives consulting Even academic peer review has serious problems, albeit for fees from a company it audits may be less likely to report different reasons. In several instances, peer review has been financial problems with that company. Similarly, academics shown to be an unreliable indicator of a paper’s quality, and other commentators receiving monetary compensation accuracy, or integrity.1 Additionally, peer review cannot from a company may be more likely to give that company’s necessarily prevent or reveal dishonesty in academic work. policy positions a favorable review. An oft-proposed solution is “full disclosure” of all conflicts of interest. The costs and benefits of disclosure Unfortunately, this is easier said than done and may have unintended consequences. The benefit of more disclosure is that the media and public are given additional information about possible conflicts of Consider the problem of conflicts of interest in the context interest. When disclosure raises a red flag that makes an of funded research and opinions that are disseminated to editor or journalist examine arguments more closely, this is a the public by journalists, academics, and think tanks. “Full benefit. However, disclosure has real costs as well, including: disclosure” may be a laudable goal, but is difficult to define difficulties in monitoring and enforcement, difficulties in and, therefore, not very useful. The problem is not that defining an appropriate level of disclosure, and the impact on disclosure is bad—though it may occasionally lead to bad who provides information and how. outcomes—but that the media and the public often use partial disclosure as a substitute for critical thinking. Monitoring and enforcement. Providing incomplete informa- tion to the public tilts the playing field toward the side that is The nature of the problem viewed as “clean.” I think this bias is a very serious problem. The problem arises in part because the disclosure rules are There is no obvious place to draw the line on what needs to difficult to monitor and in part because they are not always be disclosed. In some cases in public life, full disclosure has enforced with the same vigor. Moreover, the penalties for not been interpreted to go beyond an individual to an disclosing are not that high in most situations. individual’s acquaintances or family. What constitutes all relevant information for purposes of disclosure? Firms, For example, many people write opinion pieces on a particular non-profits, and individuals have dealt with the problem of subject for direct compensation. Some disclose that informa- establishing credibility in a number of ways. For example, tion while many others do not. Editors at major newspapers Consumer Reports, which evaluates consumer products, ( Disclosure continued on page 2)

1 Professional Ethics Report Fall 2002 ......

(Disclosure continued from page 1) Impact on who responds and how they Letters to the Editor: The editors welcome are less likely to publish op-eds that come respond. Journalist Andrew Sullivan has comments from our readers. We reserve the with a disclosure statement because they suggested that an individual who right to edit and abridge letter as space per- do not want to be perceived as support- consults for a company should not write mits. Please address all correspondence to ing free advertisements for a particular about issues related to that company. He the deputy editor. point of view. This perversely creates an believes that individual’s journalistic reasonably well for scholarship published incentive not to disclose. independence has been compromised — in a scholar’s area of expertise. no matter how innocent or transparent the Difficulties in defining an appropriate consulting arrangement. Sullivan’s What to do? level of disclosure. We all have potential position, while extreme, has some conflicts of interest because most of us empirical support. When an individual Calls for greater disclosure will lead to work for a living. For academics and other consults for a company, she is more likely more innovative ways to circumvent professionals, it is not unusual to work to take on the perspective of that disclosure, which we should keep in mind for several companies, either giving company as a result of continued when crafting solutions. The current speeches or on other short-term con- interactions with a group of like-minded system of disclosure, for all its warts, is tracts. Over time, it can be easy to individuals. not a bad starting point. That system develop connections with businesses in generally requires a scholar to identify the routine process of making a living. Even stopping short of Sullivan’s conflicts that would not pass a political Not all of these connections pose a suggestion, calls for greater disclosure “smell test.” That is, if there is a reason to conflict of interest. When considering could be counterproductive. The pool of think that an average reader would be what to disclose, it is sensible to focus on potential experts on the subject may be suspicious if a scholar did not disclose activities that could pose a substantial reduced because some individuals will something, then she should disclose it. conflict. prefer not to disclose and not participate in the public discussion. Moreover, some The basic problem with the current While some disclosure is justified, it is may simply evade the requirements and system of disclosure is that it is incom- difficult to know where to draw the line. hope they don’t get caught. Still others plete. The media need to recognize this How should we deal, for example, with — the entrepreneurial types — will create and do a better job. Here are five concrete people whose firms link pay to visibility in “fronts” that make the probability of suggestions. the media? Why, in principle, should they detection less likely. be treated any differently from a business Suggestion 1: Place less reliance on consultant taking money in exchange for What kind of fronts might be created? A disclosure as a signal. Disclosure can writing an op-ed? Yet they are treated look around at how the various think provide a useful hint about a conflict of differently by the media — with the tanks operate can offer some food for interest, but several other factors should opinion of the business consultant being thought. Even the top think tanks, like be taken into account, including non- given less credence. AEI and Brookings, get much of their tangibles like “reputation.” money from — dare I say it? — business, or foundations whose wealth typically Suggestion 2: Apply rules for evaluating experts across the board. That means Editor: Mark S. Frankel comes from business. A typical founda- Deputy Editor: Kristina Schaefer tion will only provide support if it has a doing due diligence on all participants in Contributing Editors: Kevin Alleman, Mi- reasonable expectation of the kind of a debate, not just those where the celle Choi, Alex Liroff, Theresa O’Brien results that will be produced. conflicts are most obvious. Suggestion 3: Find out whether the The Professional Ethics Report is published The way think tanks deal with potential person is really an expert. The press quarterly by the Scientific Freedom, Responsi- conflicts is to introduce mechanisms that bility and Law Program in collaboration with should not give some people a pass, just help preserve their reputation for doing because they sound good. the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Re- quality work, including: hiring scholars sponsibility and the Professional Society Eth- who are interested in preserving their Suggestion 4: The media should think ics Group, American Association for the Ad- harder. The press needs to be more vancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue, academic reputations, peer-reviewing critical in an academic sense. There is no NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 326-6217; their major published works, such as Fax (202) 289-4950; E-mail: [email protected]; books, encouraging their scholars to substitute for actually reading some WWW http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/ publish in peer-reviewed journals, and reports to determine their quality. Leading sfrl.htm. Back issues of Professional Ethics diversification of funding sources. media outlets should hire people to Report are now on-line at http://www.aaas.org/ Admittedly, the competition for funds is support reporters who can think critically spp/dspp/sfrl/per/per.htm fierce, which may lead to greater emphasis about technical issues. on producing work that increases funding This newsletter may be reproduced without Suggestion 5: We all should think rather than on first-rate scholarship. Still, permission as long as proper acknowledgement harder. If more people learn to think at the leading think thanks and universi- is given. ISSN: 1045-8808 critically, this would help. ties, I think these mechanisms work (Disclosure continued on page 3)

Fall 2002 Professional Ethics Report 2 ...... (Disclosure continued from page 2) funding the study or could receive To qualify for California funds, stem cell What’s wrong with these recommenda- royalties from the results of the research. lines originating from surplus embryos tions? The media seem to be happy with In the rare occasion when such research used in in-vitro fertilization procedures the status quo, and for the most part, so is undertaken, universities are expected to must be accompanied by written consent is the public. The real story is that fully inform all human subject volunteers from the donor couple. Additionally, a disclosure has serious limitations, there of the nature of any financial relation- state ethics committee established by the are lots of major conflicts of interest out ships. new law must review and approve any there that don’t get reported, and the proposed research using embryonic stem press tends to tilt the playing field in Furthermore, the AAMC statement cells before funding can be approved. ways that have not been adequately advocates that university officials considered. disclose all institutional financial interests Furthermore, the law prohibits the for- and take notice of occasions where a profit sale of embryonic cells and is Full disclosure, far from being a panacea, funding corporation donates significant accompanied by a separate law, signed by could make things worse. My immediate non-financial resources to the institution Gov. Davis, which forbids reproductive suggestions for fixing the problem are a performing research. cloning, the process of cloning with the press that thinks more critically and a intention to create a human being. public that does the same. In order to fulfill these duties, the report recommends universities establish The California law may be the first in a 1 For a discussion of some problems with individual conflict-of-interest review series of similar laws challenging the peer review, see Linda R. Cohen and Robert committees responsible for informing the federal government’s policy on stem cell W. Hahn, “A Solution to Concerns over Public Access to Scientific Data.” Science, July 23, organization’s institutional review board research. A similar bill has already been 1999. Also, William Dewald, J. Thursby, and (IRB). These committees should be made introduced in the New Jersey Legislature, R. Anderson, American Economic Review 76, up of both members of the university and states such as New Mexico and 587 (1986), for a study that found errors in a community and unaffiliated public. Oregon are reported to be considering prominent economics journal that were not comparable measures. *AL caught by peer review. The full report is available online at http:// www.aamc.org/members/coitf/ HHS CHARTERS NEW ADVISORY IN THE NEWS 2002coireport.pdf. *AL COMMITTEE ON GENETICS On September 23, 2002, the Department of CALIFORNIA TO PERMIT EMBRY- Health and Human Services (DHHS) AAMC RELEASES SECOND REPORT ONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH approved the charter of a new advisory ON FINANCIAL CONLICTS OF A California law permitting embryonic group designed to monitor emerging INTEREST IN HUMAN SUBJECTS stem cell research will go into effect medical, ethical, legal, and social issues RESEARCH January 1, 2003. The law, authored by intertwined with revolutionary advances Universities should institute internal Democratic state senator Deborah Ortiz, in human genetics. The group, called the procedures to review financial conflicts of encourages the development of new Secretary’s Advisory Committee on interest in sponsored research utilizing embryonic stem cell lines from embryos Genetics, Health, and Society, was human subjects, according to a recent denoted by persons seeking treatment for established to counsel the Secretary of report by the Association of American infertility. California’s law flouts the the HHS on how such issues should be Medical Colleges (AAMC). The report, federal regulations set forth by President handled by the Department. entitled “Protecting Subjects, Preserving Bush nearly a year prior, leading Sen. Trust, Promoting Progress II: Principles Ortiz to state boldlyduring a September In particular, the Committee will focus on and Recommendations for Oversight of hearing of the Senate Appropriations the assessment of the integration of an Institution’s Financial Interests in Committee, “my law makes the Bush genetic technologies and health care; the Human Subjects Research,” was released policy on stem-cell research irrelevant in study of clinical, ethical, legal, and September 23, 2002. California.” societal implications of novel medical applications; the identification of research The crux of the report is its contention Current federal policy restricts the and data collection opportunities; the that institutions involved in research allocation of federal funds to research exploration of the utility of genetics in eitherfinanced by industry or with using a select set of embryonic stem cell bioterrorism; the examination of the potential for profitable gain maintain lines, created by August 9, 2001. How- current patent policy’s impact on technol- absolute separation between those ever, many scientists contend that only a ogy accessibility; and the analysis of the responsible for oversight of financial few of the 78 federally-approved lines are accessibility of personal genetic informa- interests and those in charge of volunteer actually available and fit for study. tion. subjects’ welfare. Additionally, the California hopes to bypass this problem authors of the report suggest that by allowing state or private funds to The Committee consists of a 13-member universities nearly always avoid perform- support studies using any embryonic core of authorities in the areas of molecu- ing research when the institution owns stem cells, provided the lines meet certain stock or stock option in a corporation restrictions. (News continued on page 4)

Fall 2002 Professional Ethics Report 3 ...... (News continued from page 3) teach responsible conduct. Many of The core message of the report is that lar biology, human genetics, health care, those in attendance stressed the need for every research participant deserves to be public health, bioterrorism, ethics, hands-on education outside of the treated with honesty and dignity. forensics, law, psychology, social classroom, in the research environment sciences, education, occupational health, itself. However, others worried about the The full report is available at http:// insurance, and similar fields. At least two feasibility of educating the large number www.nap.edu/books/0309084881/html/. of the members will be qualified based on of researchers working in the U.S. today. *MC their specialized knowledge of consumer RESEARCH MISCONDUCT AT BELL issues and public perspectives. All The full text of the report is available LABS members shall be appointed by the online at http://www.nap.edu/books/ On May 10, 2002, Lucent Technologies’ Secretary or his designee. The group will 0309084792.html/. *AL meet twice yearly at The Committee Bell Laboratories commissioned an charter will be subject to renewal every IOM REPORT CALLS FOR MORE independent panel to look into allega- two years from the date of its approval. HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTIONS tions of scientific misconduct by *AL The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently researcher Jan Hendrik Schön. The released a report commissioned by the panelinvestigated 24 allegations of IOM HOLDS TOWN MEETING TO Department of Health and Human Services misconduct and found clear evidence of DISCUSS “INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC assessing the current status of human it in 16 of these claims. The panel RESEARCH” REPORT research participant protections in the categorized the allegations into 3 groups: On October 10, 2002, the Institute of nation. The report calls for broader federal “data substitution,” “unrealistic preci- Medicine (IOM) held a town meeting to oversight to ensure the well-being of sion,” and “contradictory physics.” discuss the implications of its recent participants in research projects, regard- report, “Integrity in Scientific Research: less of funding. The IOM committee Schön had been credited with Creating an Environment that Promotes found major problems regarding conflicts groundbreaking research in several fields Responsible Conduct.” Several authors of interest, inadequate monitoring and including creating molecular-level of the report were present to answer oversight, and insufficient communication transistors and discovering supercon- questions from a group of scientists, with participants. The committee called for ductivity in organic molecules and was physicians, research administrators, universal standards for both privately and regarded to be at the forefront of his field. academics, government officials, scientific federally funded research programs as But several researchers raised questions society representatives, and the public. well as the establishment of Human regarding the validity of his research. For The discussion centered on the report’s Research Participant Protection Programs example, similar graphs appeared in recommendations and potential strategies (HRPPPs). The HRPPPs would ensure the separate papers published in the journals for their implementation. protection of individual research partici- Science and Nature. In addition, other pants through changes in current policy research teams were having great The report garnered particular commenda- and procedures. difficulties replicating Schön’s research tion for the its fresh approach. Instead of findings. focusing on the negative aspect of The report recommends that the mission misconduct in research, the report of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) be The panel’s report raised pointed stresses various ways that might be used refocused to concentrate on the ethical questions for the scientific community in to promote research integrity. The main review and oversight of research proto- terms of responsibility of co-authors in concerns raised at the meeting related to cols. As such, accountability for the publications as well as research integrity. the recommendations to promote integrity protection of research participants would Meanwhile, Bell Laboratories has since in research through the establishment of a be established at the highest levels of the terminated Schön’s employment and system of institutional accreditation and a research organization. The report further issued retractions for the papers contain- program of classroom education. The advocated that patient contributions and ing evidence of misconduct as deter- report advocates a system of accredita- concerns be adequately addressed by mined by the panel. tion through institutional self-assessment maintaining an ongoing dialogue through- The full report of the inquiry at Bell Labs and external peer review. While those in out the duration of the research project. is available at http://www.lucent.com/ the audience appreciated the self-reliance All research findings should be made news_events/pdf/researchreview.pdf. and freedom from government regulation accessible to participants in addition to *MC on the issue, many questioned the giving participants the opportunity to likelihood that organizations would have comment on the design and operation of SMALLPOX VACCINATION: AT ample motivation to police themselves the research. Also, adequate methods of WHAT RISK? without the threat of enforced conse- compensation must be established for The Bush Administration has responded quences. those participants harmed by the research. to concerns about future bioterrorist Last, criteria should be developed to attacks with plans to vaccinate people The report also recommends that institu- evaluate program performance and ensure against smallpox, but when and how tions set up educational programs to quality improvement. (News continued on page 5)

4 Professional Ethics Report Fall 2002 ...... (News continued from page 4) theory separate from science education. The crux of the guidelines is that “all these vaccinations will be carried out Intelligent Design, or ID, is the notion collaborators share some degree of remains a topic of contention. Smallpox is that the complexity and diversity of life responsibility for any paper they coau- a highly contagious virus that was forms can only be explained by the thor.” Depending on their level of declared eradicated by the World Health existence of an extra-natural intelligence, involvement in the research, the Organization in 1980. The only known rather than by evolutionary theories of coauthor’s responsibilities can range from samples are closely guarded by the US random mutation and natural selection. being responsible for the entire paper, as and Russia. However, there are growing ID is presented by proponents as an an accurate representation of the re- concerns that Iraq and North Korea, as alternative theory to evolution that search, to being responsible for only the well as various terrorist groups, may should be taught in the science class- very specific portion they contributed. possess samples of the virus and may try room. However, regardless of each author’s to modify it for use as a bioweapon. specific responsibilities, all collaborators However, recognizing ID as a belief must ensure that a there is an appropriate Early plans by the current Administration system rather than a scientific theory and review process in place to ensure the included “pre-attack” vaccinations for all that its presence in the science curriculum reported results are accurate and valid. In military personnel as well as for certain would create a confusing dichotomy, addition, the guidelines call for all medical staff who would be likely to come potentially detrimental to children’s collaborations to have a system for in contact with the virus. However, as education in science in general, the Board archiving and verifying data and for stockpiles of the vaccine were discov- resolved: enabling communication among partici- ered, the Bush Administration began pating scientists, so that all involved are planning to make the vaccine available to • That the lack of scientific basis for ID familiar with the work as a whole. all Americans. makes it inappropriate for the science classroom; The guidelines were adopted on Novem- Many experts urge caution in offering the • That AAAS urges people across the ber 10, 2002 and are available at http:// vaccine because it is manufactured from a nation to oppose the inclusion of ID in www.aps.org/statements/02.2.html. *KS live virus, vaccinia, which carries serious the science curricula; AOIR UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES risks. It has been shown that in persons • That AAAS asks its membership to INTERNET RESEARCH ETHICS STATE- being vaccinated for the first time, 15 out assist those involved in science educa- MENT of every million will face life-threatening tion policy to understand the nature of Voting members of the Association of Internet complications and one or two will die. In science, the current content of evolution- Research (AoIR) recently adopted a statement addition, much of the vaccine stock that ary theory, and why ID is inappropriate on Internet research ethics that took the AoIR ethics committee nearly two years to draft. exists has yet to be licensed and there is subject matter for the curricula; and The statement is intended to address the • That AAAS asks its member societies concern that, with the increase in people interests and needs of a wide audience, with compromised immune systems, to endorse the resolution and communi- including researchers, students, ethicists, including those with cancer and AIDS, cate their support to federal, state, and institutions, and educational organizations that the percentage of people experiencing local governments. actively participate in or are concerned about complications may be higher. This being Internet research. Further, the ethics the case, methods for compensating The initial press release on the Resolution committee, which is composed of ethicists those individuals experiencing complica- and links to related information can be and researchers from 11 countries, sought tions will need to be developed. found at http://www.aaas.org/news/ to ground the statement in philosophical releases/2002/1106idIntro.shtml. *KS ethics while making it accessible to Other issues requiring further deliberation individuals with varying backgrounds in include whether to make vaccination of AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ethics as a discipline. the general public mandatory or voluntary REVISES ETHICAL GUIDELINES as the risks associated with the vaccine The American Physical Society, largely in “For the first time, there now exists a are very high. In addition, the timing of response to recent scandals at Bell Labs relatively complete ethics statement the vaccinations must be decided upon, and the Lawrence Berkeley National tailored to the distinctive venues and as there is a four-day window after first Laboratory, has re-issued its Guidelines methodologies of Internet research, one infection during which the vaccination for Professional Conduct, revised and which – like the professional ethics codes would be effective. *MC expanded to include two new sections. of other disciplinary organizations – Both scandals involved publications and reflects the considered ethical judgments, IN THE SOCIETIES research of which a portion insights, and practices of those active in had been falsified by one researcher, the multiple fields of Internet research,” AAAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS unbeknownst to his coauthors. The new ISSUES RESOLUTION ON INTELLI- AoIR members were told in an announce- sections are Supplementary Guidelines on ment on the Association’s listserv. GENT DESIGN THEORY Responsibilities of Coauthors and On October 18, 2002, the AAAS Board of Collaborators and Supplementary Reflecting the diversity of disciplinary Directors issued a resolution encouraging Guideline on Research Results. policy makers to keep Intelligent Design and ethical approaches to Internet (Societies continued on page 6)

Fall 2002 Professional Ethics Report 5 ...... (Societies continued from page 5) potential to advance our understanding is Concerned that research in behavioral research, the statement is viewed as a the raison d’être for the pressing need to genetics might intensify the starting point, rather than the final word, examine the ethical, legal, and social “medicalisation” of normal populations on the ethical concerns raised by Internet issues in order to develop effective by encouraging people to selectively alter research. The announcement of the safeguards for when the research matures normal behavior through medication, the statement’s adoption by AoIR members and produces verifiable results. report recommends that the UK Depart- explained that “the ethics working ment of Health create a new agency to committee will continue to explore and The council’s report explores the scien- monitor and possibly regulate the use of debate how new experiences, issues and tific evidence for associations between future behavior modification drugs. insights affiliated with Internet research genetic variants and behavior, focusing Additionally the report addresses issues evoke ethical challenges and demand on behavioral traits thought to be raised by the use of genetic information ethically justifiable resolutions.” Modifi- common across all human populations, about behavior in the contexts of cations made by the ethics committee to such as intelligence, personality, antiso- employment, education, and insurance. elaborate and refine the document will be cial behavior, and sexual orientation. reviewed by AoIR members. These traits were specifically chosen Another area of concern addressed is the because they are considered to be within possible implications research in behav- The statement was approved on Novem- the “normal ioral genetics might pose for the criminal ber 27, 2002 and is available at justice system. One such area is indi- http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf range” of shared human behavior—that vidual free will and whether such informa- is, focusing on a range of behavior tion could be used as a “genetic de- RESOURCES variation that includes the majority (95 fense,” to help to explain crime and also percent) of the population by excluding to absolve an individual of responsibility GENETICS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR those with clinical disorders or abnormal of wrongdoing. In short, the report behavior. Considering the tendency for Know Thyself. This ancient injunction concludes that genetic variants in the media to hype certain scientific findings, inscribed on the Temple at Delphi is a normal range do not absolve an individual the authors found insufficient data to paragon by which humanity has strived from responsibility for a transgression. make any conclusive determination at this for self-knowledge, an endeavor bridging However, the courts can take into point that would associate a genetic many cultures to reflect on human nature consideration valid behavioral evidence variant as influencing intelligence, and identity in order to obtain self- during sentencing proceedings, but the personality, antisocial behavior, and mastery. For over three millennia, genetic factors and evidence must be sexual orientation within the normal humanity has attempted to rationalize the convincing and the tests accurate and range. nature of human nature in order to reliable. The determination of the validity elucidate, among other things, our of the evidence is left to the discretion of Additionally, the report takes into the judge. extensive patterns of behavior. consideration the future possibilities and effects that advancements in behavioral Research in behavioral genetics explores The media hype surrounding behavioral genetics might raise, such as selecting the genetic and environmental contribu- genetics, typically claiming that research- embryos and developing genetic tests for tions to individual variations in human ers discovered “a gene for X,” is largely selected behavioral traits and the way in behavior. Spurred in part by the progress exacerbated by the mistaken view that a which such information could be used to in, and promises of, the Human Genome single gene will be responsible for a predict or select these desired traits. The Project, behavioral genetics has advanced pattern of behavior. The authors note report concludes that extending preim- to the forefront of public conscience with that behavior patterns are much more plantation genetic diagnosis to the renewed vigor. On October 2, the Nuffield complex than single gene explanations selection of embryos based on informa- Council on Bioethics in the United purport. To help dispel this misconcep- tion about behavioral traits in the normal Kingdom released a report, Genetics and tion, the report recommends to those who range—i.e., selecting embryos that will Human Behaviour: the Ethical Context, report on, comment on, and evaluate such have an above average intelligence, or are assessing the correlation between scientific research to communicate heterosexual, or will have desired genotype and behavior, as well as the scientific findings in a responsible manner personality traits—is morally unaccept- ethical, social, and legal implications of by eradicating inaccurate impressions able. The report further calls for guide- such researchBehavioral genetics has that help drive the hype. lines to be instituted before any genetic been historically contentious, not least interventions proceed to enhance the The report of the Nuffield Council on because of past misuses of the scientific normal range of traits, in addition to the Bioethics is accessible online at: http:// validity to justify social eugenic practices. stringent monitoring and regulation of www.nuffieldbioethics.org/home/. * KA One of the authors went so far as to genetic tests for behavioral traits that preface the report with a cautionary note might be made available as over-the- acknowledging that, although research counter tests to the public. exploring links between genes and behavior are in the beginning stages, the (Resources continued on page 7)

6 Professional Ethics Report Fall 2002 ...... (Resources continued from page 6) The volume, edited by Vivian Weil of the scientific behavior and assessment more THE CONTINUING SAGA OF SCIENCE Center for the Study of Ethics at Illinois difficult.” However, she also discusses IN THE COURTS Institute of Technology (IIT), had its roles for scientists in the courts, and Trying Times: Science and Responsibili- origins in a 1997 AAAS Annual Meeting decides that the legal system is “learning ties After Daubert symposium, entitled “The Expert Witness: by doing” and we need to “give it time.” Professional Responsibility at the In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court, decided Intersection of Law and Science.” The volume, then, is not just for the the case of Daubert v. Merrill Dow Although each of the four contributions expert witness, but for anyone who wants Pharmaceuticals. This opinion set aside overlaps the others to some extent, they a primer on Daubert and its implications. the 70-year old Frye opinion that made also each take a piece of the post-Daubert Even those who have knowledge in this general acceptance by the scientific puzzle for examination: area may find something of interest, like community the standard for evaluating Jasanoff’s discussion of the “myth of scientific evidence for admissibility in the • Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein epistemological innocence.” The lengthy 1 courts. As one might guess, no one was (District Judge, Western District of bibliographies, one annotated and the really sure what “general acceptance” Washington*) provides an overview of other not, are wide-ranging resources for actually meant and the court was often the use of scientific experts as witnesses those who wish to conduct further left looking to the scientific community before Daubert and after Daubert, and research on their own. for an indication of what was generally the potential for a judge to use a court- accepted and, therefore, should be appointed scientific evidence to assist in The tenor of the volume is informative admitted. Sometimes general acceptance evaluating the expert testimony presented without the view of one author dominat- meant that new, or innovative, though not by the parties prior to applying the ing the others. The authors clearly necessarily unsound, scientific evidence Daubert standard. She finds Daubert to viewed each others contributions during (the type often proffered by plaintiffs) be a beginning, rather than an end, the preparation of the volume, and often was rejected because it lacked general leaving room for much evaluation and explicitly address the problems raised by acceptance. As a result, with the 1975 revision. their co-contributors and offer potential revision of the Federal Rules of Evidence solutions. Few, if any new issues are (FRE), including a more liberal guideline • Dr. Richard A. Meserve (Nuclear raised, and there are no startling revela- for admissibility of scientific evidence Regulatory Commission) gives a brief tions. However, as 70 years passed than Frye, federal courts often chose to history of science in the courtroom, between Frye and Daubert, it should apply that guideline rather than the Frye stating that science is more prevalent come as no surprise that ten is not standard, resulting in judges admitting than ever and is extremely influential in a enough for any conclusions to be made almost anything and leaving the jurors to court of law where it is presented to juries about Daubert, good or bad. That being figure it out, creating a venue for so- whose members most often have limited the case, volumes such as this one can called “junk science.” scientific knowledge; he ultimately perhaps be excused from criticism for concludes that Daubert is an improve- concluding, ultimately, that we just need Daubert was intended to address these ment over Frye and the FRE and is a form to “wait and see.” problems by placing control and account- of “healthy experimentation.” *KS ability over the admissibility of scientific evidence squarely on the judge’s • Professor Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard 1 Frye v, United States, 293 F.1013 (D.C. shoulders, making him or her the University) examines Daubert as more of Cir. 1923). “gatekeeper.” However, in spite of the a general standard to be applied at the 2 General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 fact that the Supreme Court has twice discretion of the judge, rather than a (1997); Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 2 elaborated on its Daubert opinion, as we bright-line rule. She highlights and U.S. 137 (1999). approach the tenth anniversary of the questions several “myths” about science decision, it is clear that neither judges, on which she believes the decision was *Correction, Jan. 3, 2003: Judge Rothstein nor attorneys, nor scientists have come to founded and which, depending on the was previously incorrectly listed as serving a consensus about the opinion and its judge, leave the door more or less open on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We impact — whether that consensus be for discretion and judicial prejudice to apologize for any confusion or inconvenience good, bad or indifferent. Its impact in exacerbate the pre-Daubert problems of this error may have caused. -- Eds. some sense should be immeasurable, but, science in the courts that the Daubert ANNOUNCEMENTS in fact, it is more likely simply not court was attempting to alleviate. measurable as no one seems to be able to Call for papers — Boston College is say what the impact has been. An • Dr. Ullica Segerstrale (IIT) concludes inviting papers for its Computer Ethics — examination of this state of uncertainty the volume with an in-depth look at the Philosophical Enquiry (CEPE 2003) and inconclusiveness regarding scientific difference between science and law, conference to be held from June 25-27, evidence is the work of four experts in between scientists and lawyers, and 2003. The theme of the conference is science and the law in the volume Trying evenbetween some judges and other Computer Ethics in the Post-September 11 Times: Science and Responsibilities After judges, saying that “sometimes the very Daubert. presence of lawyers may make normal (Announcements continued on page 8) 7 Professional Ethics Report Fall 2002 Professional Ethics Report Non-Profit Org. Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program U.S. Postage Paid American Association for the Advancement of Science Washington, D.C. 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 Permit No. 1400

(Announcements continued from page 7) work together to promote the well-being Applications are due February 28, 2003. World. Deadline for submission of papers of research animals. Online registration More information is available at WWW is January 8, 2003. More information is and more information are available at www.iit.edu/departments/csep. available at WWW http:// www.primr.org. csethics.uis.edu/inseit/CEPE2003.htm. Case Studies — Dr. Todd Freeberg Call for Proposals — The National (University of Tennessee) and Dr. Bill Fellowship — Princeton University’s Science Foundation is now accepting Rowland (Indiana University) are inviting Center for Human Values is accepting proposals under the Societal Dimensions input and assistance in developing case applications for the Harold T. Shapiro of Engineering, Science, and Technology studies of ethical dilemmas that arise from Postdoctoral Fellowship in Bioethics. (SDEST) program. SDEST accepts using animals as subjects in behavioral The goal of the fellowship is to support proposals for research and education research as part of the Research Experi- research in the ethical issues arising from about the interactions of engineering, ence for Undergraduates program at developments in medicine and biological science, technology and society. The Indiana University. Please contact Todd sciences. Applicants should have next deadline for submission is February Freeberg at Department of Psychology, completed all requirements for the Ph.D., 1, 2003. The program’s home page is Austin Peay Building 303A, University of M.D. or other appropriate professional WWW www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/sdest/ and Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, 865-974- degree by June 1, 2003. The initial term of more information about submitting 3975, [email protected]. the fellowship is one year starting proposals is available at WWW September 1, 2003, with possibility of www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf01152. Research opportunities — The Online extension for two more years. The Ethics Center for Engineering and application deadline is January 8, 2003. Workshop — The Center for the Study of Science at Case Western Reserve For more information visit WWW http:// Ethics Across the Curriculum workshop University has funding available for junior www.princeton.edu/values/. from June 24-July 1, 2003 in Chicago on scholars working with international how to integrate professional ethics into collaborators. OEC can also assist those Conference — PRIM&R and ARENA technical courses and emphasizing who have a project idea, but no partner. announce their annual IACUC confer- practice, rather than theory. Participants The projects should result in Web ence, “IACUC Actions: Making Ethically will be expected to integrate what they’ve materials that will be available online at and Scientifically Informed Decisions,” to learned into their own technical courses. OEC and provide scientists and engineers be held from March 29-April 1, 2003 in Funding from the National Science with an international perspective on San Diego, CA. The conference will Foundation will cover most expenses for science and engineering ethics. The examine how animal welfare science and participants, with some assistance from deadline for project completion is the end laboratory animal science can begin to the participant’s home institution. of 2003. For more information, contact Dr. Caroline Whitbeck, Director, OEC, Support From the Following Societies and [email protected]. Organizations is Gratefully Acknowledged: American Anthropological Association Email list — Large and small educational American Occupational Therapy Association and research institutes, professional American Psychological Society societies, private research-related American Society for Engineering Education companies, and federal agencies are American Sociological Association invited to participate in an email list for Botanical Society of America the planning and creation of the Respon- Council of Science Editors sible Conduct of Research Education Fed. of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences Consortium (RCREC). Interested parties National Society of Professional Engineers can add themselves to the email list, as well as review a draft charter and business plan, at http://rcr.ucsd.edu/rcrec/.