Scientific Integrity

I came across two articles just this last week which, yet again, run amok with the Peer-Review system: Sex Bias in Science and Ghost Management.

The latter was of particular interest to me.

"There are many reports of medical journal articles being researched and written by or on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, and then published under the name of academics who had played little role earlier in the research and writing process. In extreme cases, drug companies pay for trials by contract research organizations, analyze the data in-house, have professionals write manuscripts, ask academics to serve as authors of those manuscripts, and pay communication companies to shepherd them through publication in the best journals. The resulting articles affect the conclusions found in the medical literature, and are used in promoting drugs to doctors."

This is not a new given and hardly surprising. Pharmaceutical companies are first and foremost businesses. It is only natural then, that they would explore all venues possible, to promote their products. A well-run business also strives for cost-efficiency, which in this day and age, generally means you outsource certain tasks to specialised companies. Scientific copy-writing is a specialised skill. Any academic knows how labour-intensive the process of writing and submitting a journal paper can be. Whilst the article above talks about "extreme cases", I would dare suggest this approach is the norm rather than the exception.

The article goes on to state: "Ghost writing and honorary authorship are not in and of themselves scientific problems, though they become so when they shape science to meet particular interests."

A fair point. As a Scientific Management Consultant, I spend about a third of my professional time on copywriting. Whilst I do this within my function as a Management Consultant, I am first and foremost a Scientist, motivated to communicate science to a variety of target audiences. However, scientific copywriting is by nature, an arena where commerce aligns with science. After all, a client raises a purchase-order with you for a specific document and you create this document according to your client's specifications. The key here is to safe-guard your scientific integrity. Your briefing may include a focus on certain marketing messages, but in the end, your responsibility is to create a scientifically balanced document.

I can't help but feel that the focus of articles such as the above, point their arrows at the wrong target. The influence of pharmaceutical companies on the integrity of our research and publications, is but a symptom of the underlying disease. The pressures on the scientific world are rising. For centuries, scientists were protected by an Academic Bubble that was subject to few, if any, external pressures. Scientists were relatively free to research whatever topics they were interested in and publish however frequently they saw fit.

The last few decades, the business world has taken an active interest in science. And Academics increasingly seize opportunities to cash in on their reputation and research efforts. The Academic Bubble pretty much burst from both inside and out.

Inevitably, the pressures on scientists are rising. Modern academics are measured not only by the quality of their work, but equally by the rate of their publications and the amount of funding they can generate for their research institutions.

It should be no surprise then that these pressures gradually erode the scientific integrity. Most of us remember the downfall of MIT Professor Van Parijs, who regrettably falsified study data, most likely after caving in to internal pressures to perform.

I think the target question here is: how do we, scientists, maintain our scientific integrity when faced with external pressures whose interests are differently focused. Blaming pharmaceutical companies for the downfall of scientific integrity seems tantamount to blaming Maccy D's for the obesity epidemic.

Scientists too, are subject to evolutionary principles: when faced with changing external pressures, we need to evolve, select the best new approach and amplify the approach that works. We've been protected by the bubble for too long. It is time the scientific community as a whole scrutinizes its own approach to these new challenges. Much like the medical profession has its medical oath and ethics, scientists would do well to create a new integrity frame for themselves to abide by. It will be impossible to avoid rogues amongst the pack, but we need to re-design our institutions and processes such that the opportunities for these individuals are minimised.

We could start by giving the Peer-Review system an overhaul. By severing links between Publishing houses and copy-writing agencies (Such as Elsevier and Excerpta Medica), and by bringing back the independent status of our Journals. We should redefine the standards against which our researchers are judged, to ensure scientific integrity and freedom within the new science-business merger.

Science and Business interests CAN co-exist. But it requires an intensive effort from our end, to define the framework within which this can happen. In the end, this will serve the purpose of the business world best by raising the credibility of their public image, and it will serve our interest by safe-guarding our intellectual integrity. The opportunities are immense. The pitfalls, dangerous. Scapegoat-ing will do little in terms of constructive efforts to maximise this new environment. Perhaps its time we turn our scientific methods on ourselves at last.