Session Title and number: Conflicts of Interest in Research
Moderator: John Ahearne-Sigma Xi
Panelists: Garry Brewer-Yale University, S. Robert Jelley - Wiggin & Dana
Recorder: Linda Schmalbeck-Sigma Xi
Number of Attendees: 11
June 22, 10:45- 11:30 am in Blaustein 205
Part of the Special Symposium on Research Responsibility and Undergraduates

Panel Presentation and Discussion
Most people think of science as very objective, applying factual information to problem solving. Conflicts of interest may be evident, but they are rarely discussed as part of the process of science. However, much of science is not definitive. There are many unknowns and these areas of uncertainty are often used selectively to bolster a political, financial or personal agenda. Conflicts of interest arise because many of the issues that are have political or career implications or profit-making potential. Our students need to develop the analytical skills necessary to identify these conflicts and evaluate their impact on the objectivity of the science.

Several factors contribute to the confusion about conflicts of interest in science.

The process of science is often confusing to the public.

1) The science is not decisive
Medical research provides a number of examples. Research on aspirin therapy for heart disease is not definitive particularly with respect to dose. The lack of definitive advice opens up opportunities to pursue agendas other than truth.

2) The science is complex, and solutions are difficult to achieve.
The Kyoto Agreement presents a case where the science is tremendously complex. This complexity provides cover for social and political interests. Complexity was used as an excuse to do nothing about controlling factors that contribute to global warming. This lack of action is, in itself, a consequential decision. 

3) Scientists disagree about how to proceed.
Drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge presents a science driven case where scientists disagree about the impact of drilling. This diversity of scientific opinion combined with a clear political agenda results in conflict of interest.

4) Small number of scientists with expertise in a particular area of crisis.
Events surrounding the Exxon Valdez accident present a series of circumstances that left room for conflicts of interest to develop. At the time of the accident there were few scientists with specific expertise in the problems presented by this massive oil spill. Many of these scientists relied on industry funding to do their research and they quietly "sold out" to the oil industry interest in order to pursue personal research agendas. It took 15 years to come up with a reasonable plan for the Prince William Sound recovery and that happened after a new generation of researchers who had not been involved with the original investigation emerged. 

How did it happen that we confuse science methods and politics?
The changing role of scientists in political decision-making can be traced to military needs. During WW II scientists used to solve war problems - cryptography, weapons development, defensive systems like radar. The formation of the Rand Corp. a "think tank" to provide scientifically based advice began the cycle. During the Vietnam War and its aftermath, scientists were used to prove the safety of Agent Orange. There was suddenly a need for the armed forces to house its own corps of scientists. Since then, the public sector has proliferated "think tanks" that use science to justify a particular point of view. A feature of science that is here to stay but that generally is not discussed with students in science classes is the appearance of "public intellectuals" - academically credentialed media personalities that base their careers on publicly advocating a particular point of view. Examples include Alan Bloom, Laurence Tribe, Ralph Nader, Alan Dershowitz. Collectively they reinforce the growing view that science is not objective, but that rather, science is just another form of advocacy or marketing. The theater for these public intellectuals is characterized by lack of respect for other viewpoints and the selective use of information to support a particular point of view.

Policy Problem: What do we do? How do we teach science in this atmosphere?
When need to teach critical thinking skills as part of a general science curriculum.

1. Theoretical Assessment - teach students to recognize the underlying theory that is being used to simplify a position, identify assumptions and be aware of the ethical dimensions-what are the biases? What is being left out?
2. Technical Assessment - Where did the data come from? Assess the data quality. How is it used? A good unit to illustrate this point could focus on the abuse of graphical or visual information to mislead the public.
3. Ethical assessment - Teach students to identify multiple perspectives and collections of values, not just the best version. Students need to study data analysis, and focus their assessment on balanced presentations of information. Some journals and public agencies like the National Research Council provide models and materials for this approach.
4. Pragmatic Analysis - What are the political issues involved recognizing that doing nothing is, in fact, a decision?

What can we teach?

1. Case Studies that focus on the uses and misuses of science
2. Use real problems and mix student viewpoints. For example, a discussion about the Exxon Valdez accident could be discussed in a class combining Environmental Science students and Business students in order to get ensure different view points.
3. Institutionalize these values.
4. Rely on journals and other sources for balanced and analytical treatment of controversial science issues.
5. The rules for classroom discussion need to be clear. 
   • If there is some piece of information that is not known then that must be states. 
   • Differing viewpoints and differing disciplinary approaches must be respected. 
   • Information about methods used to obtain the data, the processes and any uncertainty in the data must be communicated whether or not they are favorable to the student's point of view.

Legal Issues

Definition of Conflict of Interest: At least two interests that pull in different directions. Science is touted as seeking the "truth" but there are clearly other interests at work. For example,

• Desire for publishable results.
• Securing and retaining sources of financial support for research.
• Family interests.
• Personal career status.

At the beginning of any project think about the problem and explicitly identify and list 

• Conflicts and potential conflicts 
• Sources of bias. 

Use that list during research program to check on how science is being influenced and include that list in the final report of the project. 

Group Discussion

• When we teach research we teach exactly the opposite of this last piece of advice. Part of the instruction focuses on the need to advocate your own position or work --- why is this research important, how does it better other research or go beyond other research. The product of research, the paper is not well structured to consider other points of view or to identify information or approaches that were left out. We need to think about how to reinsert these issues into a research class.
• Perhaps this is the subject for a 2nd level research class?
• Some ethicist advocate using different approach to assigning credit and responsibility in science papers. For example, developing a list of credits at the end of the paper that precisely describe each authors role in the paper. Perhaps this approach could be adapted to teaching research ethics.