« The Edith Stein Project | Main | Truth and Lies »
January 17, 2006
The Unholy Lust of Scientists
An essay published in the San Francisco Chronicle, no less, by British philosopher David S. Oderburg. It presents, in a more detailed, scholarly way, my perpetual question of those who accuse critics and questioners of the ethical standards of some scientific research as simply being religious fanatics who want to pollute the purity of scientific inquiry with religion and/or politics. Are there no ethical standards in scientific research? If so, what is their source?
It may be inviting poison e-mails to say it, but I venture to suggest that contemporary science is now so corrupted by the lust for loot and glory that nothing less than root-and-branch reform can save it. For a start, although I distance myself wholly from his anti-rationalism and methodological anarchy, I share the late philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend's demand for a separation of science and state, or at the very least a radical curtailment of public financial sponsorship of scientific research. How could the millions thrown at scientists be anything other than a veritable inducement to misconduct? When you combine it with the innumerable honors and awards that await the next would-be secular savior of humanity, one wonders that fraud is not even more common than it appears to be.
This is egregiously so when it comes to medical and other clinical research that has potential direct benefits to life and health. When we look at embryonic stem cell research, however, the matter becomes even more acute. For not only are there the temptations already mentioned, but the research itself is inherently ethically flawed and so invites dissimulation, for instance, in the case of sourcing human eggs -- as we saw at the outset of the Hwang debacle.
It would be an act of utter folly and of contempt for honesty and integrity were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's beloved California Institute for Regenerative Medicine now to go ahead. Were a bishop to be caught doctoring the Gospels, I doubt any scientists would be rushing to approve the Church's latest request for help to build a new cathedral. Why it should be any different for the secular bishops of science is difficult to discern.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834a14efe69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Unholy Lust of Scientists:
Comments
I understand where funding would come from for "practical" science... things that people believe will shortly lead to products and (hopefully) cures. If we separate science and state for the "practical" stuff, there will be funding from industry and rewards and accolades both from industry and the public. But where will funds come from for "pure" science? By which I mean the underlying years and years of experiments that expand scientific knowledge?
Posted by: scotch meg at Jan 17, 2006 11:13:58 AM
David Oderburg writes something that I've been pondering for some time now. In my experience, most scientists lust after fame rather than money. It is a competition of who can be the most clever. This is driven by our system of "peer review", which I've found to be another name for the GOB (good ol' boy) network. Science is also a pyramid scheme in a sense: those who have will always get more. This makes sense in a capitalist economy, but I don't believe that it makes sense when we're dealing with the public's money. Of course, smart scientists should be rewarded with more funding; however, I've read too many awful papers arising from these scientist's laboratories that were clearly published based upon their reputations.
What causes the lack of integrity about which Oderburg's article is written? Science today is a hyper-competitive field. We are trained to grasp at any and every lead so that we might one day get that hallowed professorship. Many of my colleagues work long hours for megalomaniacs that pay them very little. For a scientist that wants the professorship and a lab, she/he must produce something novel, interesting and relevant. Thus, I think that the truly abyssmal training settings coupled with the pressures of achievement allow for young scientists too "fudge" data. Or at least to find some reason to exclude any data that point away from the hypothesis being proven.
Should we stop govt. funding of scientific research? This is no solution, unless we are okay with a huge rise in morbidity and mortality in the US. Also, if you think that drug prices are high now, just wait and see how high they become when the NIH is dissolved.
No, unfortunately separation of science and state is completely and wholly untenable. What can be done? Well, first of all, scientists really have scant training in ethics. We actually have a small requirement now, but it's usually "fluff". There needs to be more ethical training period. We also have the office of scientific integrity (OSI) run by the NIH, but it only regulates research performed by govt. funded entities.
Ultimately, I think that we need to experience a conversion away from our egotistical strivings for fame. We need to dial back our competitive natures and focus more on designing good experiments. We need to not worry so intensely about getting and keeping our jobs so that we might do good work.
As with any conversion, it will not be easy and many will fail. However, conversions are directed toward a closer relationship with God, and ultimately, it is this that will make us the happiest. As for most of my colleagues who are atheists, I don't know really what to say other than, "Strive for professional as well as personal integrity".
Nathan
Posted by: Nathan at Jan 17, 2006 11:59:07 AM
I think that maybe this is another example of the polarization that is going on in our world. Both spirituality and science seem to be under attack, and it shows up in some of the strangest places. I have noted for years that "hard" science fiction has just about vanished from the book shelves and has been replaced by fantasy. Amy might comment on the spiritual side, but I suspect more and more of the "Da Vinci Code" genre of books have made their appearance on the "spiritual" book shelves.
At the same time consumerism drives both markets harder and harder. We now have bigger and bigger televisions screens, faster computers, more antibiotics, and the herbal health suplements grows by leaps and bounds. We have more and more books on how to better meditate, how to find peace, how to practice yoga more effectively, how to decode da Vinci :). What has the world lost?
Scotch Meg is right, much of the basic research that expands our knowlege of God's universe is becoming very expensive and with short term profits driving the stock market, many companies are reluctant to invest in it. But this isn't new. Remember it was DARPA that funded the research the generated the internet, which seems to be pretty practical. It was the government that dumped tons of money into developing digital computers, first to break codes in WW II, then NASA dumped more into computers in order to caluculate orbital predictions, which today give us our satellite communications.
So when you throw your state supported science out the window, throw your laptop with it, and dispose of all your blogs.
Posted by: Mike L at Jan 17, 2006 12:18:47 PM
Journalism, of course, bears some blame for hyping anything new. But perhaps more than a few lab directors realize how they can use this hype to secure more funding. Hence all the "study finds more studies are necessary" reports.
And when the hype is revealed to be premature, it either goes unremarked in the press or it is papered over by reminding everybody that science is a self-correcting area of study and that we need to break thousands of eggs to make the perfect omlette.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Jan 17, 2006 1:37:10 PM
Speaking of "pollut[ing] the purity of scientific inquiry", much of government-funded science is funded by politicians whose job is to get re-elected. Pork-barrel projects which benefit the voters at home, and/or the special interests can certainly influence the progress of science.
Compare the funding of heart disease research to the funding for AIDS research. Heart disease is by far the biggest killer. Both diseases are largely lifestyle-related and thus somewhat preventable. But AIDS receives the most funding.
An influential constituency is the coalition of the aging, who want to see treatments for age-related illnesses; influential celebrities, such as the late Christopher Reeve; left-leaning media and talking heads who support abortion and its industries; and the unknowing, who believe the self-serving predictions of success from embryonic stem cell research. It's no wonder that California created a $3 billion embryonic stem cell research pool. This is despite that fact that somatic stem cell research is producing better results without the ethical "problems".
To answer Scotch Meg's question, "pure science" was able to proceed long before government funding, just like artists were able to create before the NEA. Private laboratories such as the Palo Alto Research Center pioneered in computer science innovations which were far from practical at the time, but have led to practical implementations, such as graphical user interfaces driven by mice.
Posted by: Crispy at Jan 17, 2006 3:14:38 PM
Nathan -- I'm not sure how stopping funding would cause morbidity and mortality to RISE rather to NOT CONTINUE FALLING.
I think that undercutting the triumphant narrative of heroic science and medicine is all to the good. Realism about human motivation is fine. That doesn't mean that I want to cut government funding of the sciences particularly, but I would like to see it demystified a tad.
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Jan 17, 2006 3:39:29 PM
Michael: Semantics are important, I agree. You are correct in that a halt in NIH funding would not cause a rise in M&M but rather a halt in the decline of M&M.
Point well-taken. Distinctions are important.
Yet, semantics won't mean very much when people begin dying of Staphylococcus aureus infections because of resistance to the most current cephalosporin.
We have rhetoric on all sides. I just think that Oderburg's mention of the separation between science and state was ridiculous.
Demystification is a must, without a doubt. However, fewer people want to learn about biology, geology, or physics these days. We have some of the worst science education in the world if you look at secondary school students. We just don't make teaching an important component of science. We make "getting grants" the most important thing. It's unfortunate but it's true.
Posted by: Nathan at Jan 17, 2006 5:51:49 PM
