| Sarbanes-Oxley for Science |
|
|
|
bridges vol. 15, September 2007 / OpEds & Commentaries by David Michaels mp3 download The article below is based upon a foreword written by the author for the Summer 2006 (v. 69, no. 3) issue of Law and Contemporary Problems , an interdisciplinary publication of Duke Law School, which featured articles originally presented at "The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy" (SKAPP) Coronado Conference II . Science is built on the sharing of information. Scientists generate knowledge to explain the workings of the natural world, building on the information produced and shared by other scientists. Some scientists see this construction in moral or ethical terms; according to Albert Einstein, for example, "The right to search for truth implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." Science flourishes best in conditions of the open and public exchange of ideas, methods, findings, and interpretations. Openness facilitates vetting new findings and new theories through continued study and analysis. The open exchange of ideas is valued not only because it facilitates the advancement of science, but also because it is concordant with the ideals of a democratic society. The principles and practice of open science can come into conflict with individual or corporate actions intended to limit public access to information, or with government laws and policies that restrict access to results and ideas. Sometimes these restrictions are needed to preserve important values, such as individual privacy, or to further certain policy objectives, such as protecting national security or the economic benefits derived from innovation. However, there are also potential costs to restricting certain kinds of information; for example, when such suppression limits public knowledge about health risks, it can prevent people and their government from protecting public health. The best known and most tragic examples of data sequestration contributing to public health disasters are tobacco and asbestos. The tobacco industry developed extensive structures and policies to hide scientific studies whose results were detrimental to the industry's health. The confidentiality that accompanies the attorney-client relationship was a particularly important tool to sequester data on the powerful, terrible effects of cigarette smoke on the health of smokers. Similarly, an untold portion of the worldwide epidemic of asbestos-related disease -- currently estimated at 100,000 deaths each year -- might have been prevented had the manufacturers of asbestos products not systematically hidden the results of inhalation studies linking asbestos with lung cancer, performed in the 1940s. Of course, the concealment of scientific evidence has not been limited to the tobacco and asbestos contexts, and less well-known episodes of data sequestration have occurred in relation to several industrial chemicals. More recently, instances in which drug manufacturers withheld study results unfavorable to their product but clearly important in terms of patient treatment have been the impetus to major changes in the registration and reporting of clinical trials in biomedical literature. Access to the full article is free, but requires you to register. Registration is simple and quick – all we need is your name and a valid e-mail address. We appreciate your interest in bridges. |
