transcriptforthevideo.docx
Good morning. For the past three years, I was a researcher at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, where I examined corrupting influences and hidden biases in their pursuit of knowledge. During this time, I conducted in-depth interviews with professors from medicine, business, law, the natural and life sciences, as well as the humanities and social sciences. My goal was to try to understand the everyday life of scientists and professors across all the disciplines. In the end, I ended up with close to 10 thousand pages of interview transcripts. Today, I would like to share with you some of the ethical dilemmas that professor's face, in particular, whether they experience an increased risk of bias depending on who is funding their research. Now, why should we be concerned about the ethics of knowledge production? When I first started university, I had this idealistic and perhaps naive view of science. I believe the scientists inquired about the world, practice the scientific method with integrity, and made new discoveries that drive progress forward. But close examination of how scientists conduct research reveals that what we can know depends not only on the scientist, but also on the structures and institutions that gives scientists the means to pursue knowledge. As I interviewed scientists and professors and began to uncover patterns of scientific distortion, or what some might call the corruption of knowledge. However, the majority of these distortions were not produced by bad people behaving unethically or illegally. Although this does happen. But rather by good people, like the people sitting beside you right now, your friends and your family, who in response to the daily pressures of work, may simply begin to rationalize to themselves little ethical lapses here and there. Now. By ethical lapse, I mean scientific integrity lapses that appear to be very small or inconsequential at the time. One of the most common examples of this involves a scientists thinking. Maybe I won't ask question a when pursuing my research because my funder who may be relying on the results of the study to obtain regulatory approval for potential commercialization may not be too happy with a higher risk of a negative result, which might also affect my future funding. Maybe instead, I'll self censor myself and ask a different question of the data, where the possible outcome will most likely not ruffle too many feathers. And that will then answer that question honestly and with scientific integrity. Now, these types of rationalizations, these little compromises where we convince ourselves in the moment that what we're doing is okay, help to neutralize any guilt we might experience and our ethical decision-making. However, over time, the accumulation of these little ethical lapses is leading to a broader system of knowledge production that is becoming increasingly distorted and more difficult to trust. I want you to think about that word for a moment. Trust and how it plays a role in your daily activities. For instance, plastic water bottles. They're so common that when we pick one up, we're probably not thinking anything other than, I'm thirsty. We don't ask ourselves, who does bisphenol a or BPA, a common compound used in hard plastic products lead to cancer, behavior disorders or reproductive problems? No, of course not. We take a drink, we go on with their day. We trust that drinking from the water bottle can't be bad or at least bad enough to worry about. While on the one hand, you can feel safe. Because every study performed by scientists funded by the industry concludes no harm from BPA. In other words, it's okay, you can trust BPA. But at the same time, 93% of the non industry funded studies show that there might be cause for concern. And that may be, we should be a little less trusting the next time we pick up a hard plastic water bottle. So who do you trust? And how is it possible that the industry funded scientists studying BPA or so certain that there is no harm, is it's simply because they're better. Scientists have bigger data set and know the compound better. Maybe, perhaps. But we see this pattern, often called the funding effect across many different areas of research. From cell phone safety to climate change to soft drinks. In each case, scientists funded by the industry or industry supported think tanks reach conclusions that overall tend to deny or downplay any harm. While non industry funded scientists. Overwhelmingly find evidence of harm. Among the professors I interviewed in food and nutrition. There was acknowledgment of this funding effect biased. One food scientists said, there is a tendency for people in my discipline to develop, sympathize with the food industry. And to say, yeah, this is definitely safe. Rather than to say, okay, here's this research study and this research study. In this research study. When I interviewed another professor who was also an editor of a scientific journal in nutrition. He said the following to me. So we get some manuscripts that are industry sponsor. And one senses that their story is a little slanted towards the benefit of whatever it might be, their product ID. This, never mind that it didn't do ten other things. The most frequent scenario, it's not that the study is done poorly, but that the questions themselves are kind of selective. Now, if a funding effect bias does exist, then surely the regulatory bodies who look out for our safety must be aware of it, right? For instance, what about our prescription drugs? Pharmaceutical companies must first obtain regulatory approval for their products, right? Yes. However, many of the Drug Evaluation and Research Advisory Committee members who vote on whether a drug should be granted regulatory approval also have financial conflicts of interest with the same drug companies. These voting members often serve as consultants and have ownership interests in the same drug companies seeking approval. They also sit on their advisory boards and even receive funding from these firms for their own individual research. In other words, they might be experts, but they're not independent experts. As you know. In 2008, the world suffered a major financial crisis. The Oscar winning documentary Inside Job suggested that economics professors were being corrupted and blinded through their consulting relationships and conflicts of interest with the financial sector. He was so serious that even an upset Queen of England visited the LSE, the prestigious London School of Economics, and sternly asked her top economics professors if the problem was so widespread than why didn't anyone notice it? To Director of the LLC's Management Department who was standing beside the queen at the time, said you are. At every stage, someone was relying on somebody else and everyone thought they were doing the right thing. In my interviews with business and economics professors, it was observed as it was with professors across all the disciplines, that a lack of independence can distort the production of knowledge. One economics professor, researchers, private equity finance told me during an interview, the only way to get the data is to get the private equity firms to give it to you. If you then say These people don't know what they're doing, are they only make returns by taking excessive risks. Then there is the potential. You simply will not get data going forward and you will be forced to leave the field of economics. So you have to worry that the research that comes out is more favorable to the private equity industry than otherwise, it would be. Now, despite all these cautionary examples of corrupting influences and hidden biases, some of you out there, I'm certain, are still thinking to yourself. Okay, Gary, I hear what you're saying. But I would never distort my work and no conflict differentiates would change how I pursue my research. Fair enough. Many of us do believe that we can manage any conflict of interest and still maintain our own personal integrity. However, we should never forget that the power to rationalize our own little ethical lapses is remarkable. Consider this everyday example. Statistics demonstrate that there are disturbingly high rates of accidents and deaths due to cell phone related distracted driving. Yet, despite knowing this, many of us will continue to use cell phones when we dry after we leave here today. Studies show that more than half of us believe that when we use cell phones and drive, it makes no real difference on our own individual driving performance. Yet, we switch from being the driver to the passenger. 90 percent of us now will suddenly stay. I would feel very unsafe if I observe my driver using a cell phone. So saying you have integrity is easy. Practicing integrity is not easy. And recognizing our own little ethical lapses and rationalizations is even more difficult. So what does this all mean in the context of knowledge production? First, we should be aware that funders increasingly want more influence over what questions scientists can ask, what findings that can share, and ultimately what kind of knowledge is produced. So ask yourself, what are the strings attached when we accept funding? Or the strings visible where the scientist is told that she cannot publish your work until given approval to do so by the funder? Or does the funder require that the data remains confidential so that the research conclusions can never be verified within the scientific community. Are the strings invisible? Increasingly, scientists and professors are self-censoring their work in order to appeal to funders. And in so doing, our sidestepping important questions that may be critical to the public good and society as a whole. My interviews made clear that the funding effect bias is real. And if left unchecked, will continue to have a real impact on what we can know. So next time you pick up a book or a research article, check to see who is funding the author's work. And pay close attention to the author's affiliations. In order to be informed in this information age, we need to take extra measures to vet the legitimacy of the content that we rely on to develop a critical eye for independence and to value scientific integrity above anything else. Information and knowledge requires science, unfettered and unbiased. And it's time we all take measures to demand it. Thank you.