GMW: Three faces of science fraud

[Guest guest]

GMW: Three faces of science fraud

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:30:03 GMT

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

 

 

 

EXCERPTS: scientific fraud carried out by both industry and government

is not uncommon in the United States. Similar behavior in the academic

community may also be growing...

 

....the type of scientific misconduct perpetrated by some industries

and the Bush administration is much more serious and has led to

extensive human suffering.

 

The plant biotech industry has repeatedly made false claims about the

safety of their genetically engineered, or GE, food crops and has

tried to discredit scientists who publish manuscripts showing that

they are harmful.

---

 

 

 

Three faces of science fraud

By Prof David Schubert

The San Diego Union Tribune, February 16, 2006

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060216/news_lz1e16schuber.html

 

There has recently been a great deal of media attention directed

toward Woo Suk Hwang, the Korean scientist who fabricated results

concerning a technical advance in the field of stem cell research.

While this sort of behavior is indefensible, it is perhaps the least

harmful among the different types of scientific fraud that are

currently taking place.

 

The reason for this is that in the world of academic science to which

Hwang belongs, incorrect new claims are rapidly discovered and

discarded because other laboratories cannot reproduce them. However,

if fraud is defined as the creation or manipulation of data to achieve

a specific end, then the type of scientific misconduct perpetrated by

some industries and the Bush administration is much more serious and

has led to extensive human suffering.

 

The goal of academic science is both to develop a rational

understanding of the world and to create ideas and technologies for

human benefit.

The product of this work is usually data published as manuscripts in

scientific journals. Scientists send a manuscript describing their

work to a journal, the editors then forward it to two or three expert

reviewers, and a judgement is made as to whether the conclusions from

the data are correct and of sufficient interest to publish.

 

In reality, publication is more complicated because of the goals of

the scientists and the perceived eminence of the journals. Although

the major interest of most scientists is the creation of knowledge,

for others it is primarily self-promotion. The latter group, which I

assume includes Dr. Hwang, puts more pressure on the high-profile

journals to publish their work because these journals receive more

media attention and are seen by science administrators as being more

prestigious, leading to better jobs and more research support for the

scientist.

 

However, irrespective of the scientist's goal, if the work is

important, it is going to be repeated by other laboratories. In the

case of Hwang, the techniques that have led to his notoriety could not

be substantiated and the fraud was rapidly detected.

 

In contrast, the type of scientific fraud that is carried out by some

industries and biotech companies, whose only goal is to sell a

product, is often not rapidly self-correcting. The government

regulates commercial entities that have the potential to make harmful

products, but there is continual pressure on politicians and

regulatory agencies to reduce regulatory requirements. The

well-orchestrated procedures to use fraudulent science to sell a

product were first developed by the tobacco companies, and the success

rate using this technique has greatly accelerated with our current

administration in Washington.

 

If there is opposition to the introduction of a product from a

consensus of scientists, usually in the form of proposals for

increased government oversight, then companies will employ their own

scientists to publish manuscripts in an attempt to discredit the

consensus. These manuscripts frequently contain experiments that only

have an illusionary relevance to the problem, but are used in PR

campaigns to create scientific uncertainty about the science in order

to block the regulation.

 

There are several recent examples of the success of this approach. The

chemical industry used it to persuade the Environmental Protection

Agency to roll back regulations that require companies to notify

neighborhoods that are being exposed to toxic waste that most

scientists say is dangerous. The plant biotech industry has repeatedly

made false claims about the safety of their genetically engineered, or

GE, food crops and has tried to discredit scientists who publish

manuscripts showing that they are harmful. For example, several years

ago Dr. Arpad Pusztai showed that GE potatoes cause serious health

problems in rats, resulting in the harassment by the plant biotech

industry and ultimately in his dismissal from his academic position.

Since then, several other scientists have shown that different GE food

crops cause similar problems, and it was discovered that one of the

companies that tried to discredit Pusztai withheld their own data

showing that GE corn is toxic to animals.

 

As a result of this disingenuous behavior of the chemical and plant

biotech industries, there is a moratorium in many European countries

on the cultivation of GE food crops and a requirement that all new

chemicals that are consumed or reach the environment be extensively

tested for safety.

 

An even greater impact of fraudulent science on human health arises

from the control that the White House is now exerting over regulatory

agencies such as the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration. In the

past, these agencies have operated as independent entities, and their

decisions were based upon the best science available. Recently,

however, these agencies have been forced to bend the facts of science

to fit the political agenda of the Bush administration. Examples of

this behavior abound, from the rewrite of an EPA study on global

warming to the recent report that Jay Slack, a senior member of the

Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, deliberately faked

environmental impact data that allowed the development of a housing

development in the Everglades.

 

For this well-documented political manipulation of science, he was

promoted within the department. Finally, fraudulent statements have

appeared on government Web sites claiming that some birth control

medications and devices are either carcinogenic or ineffective. The

global extension of these positions will be disastrous for the Earth

and have already increased death and suffering due to AIDS and

overpopulation in African countries, where U.S. policy has reduced

access to contraception.

 

The examples outlined above demonstrate that scientific fraud carried

out by both industry and government is not uncommon in the United

States. Similar behavior in the academic community may also be growing

in proportion to the increase in the number of scientists and the

competition for limited funding and job opportunities. However, the

consequences of industrial and government fraud are far worse than

academic misconduct, for the former are often neither self correcting

nor reversible until a great deal of damage is done.

 

Schubert is a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

 

 

---------------