Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct - Commentary by Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD (8-25-02)

VERACARE wrote:

  ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)

http://www.researchprotection.org

 
  Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
  212-595-8974
  e-mail: vera-ahrp@rcn.com mailto:vera-ahrp@rcn.com
 
  FYI
  Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That 
  Promotes Responsible Conduct
 
  This report and by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and two current 
  editorials in major scientific
 
  journals-the Lancet (Aug 17) and Science (Aug 23)-all reveal an 
  astonishing lack of resolve
 
  to hold scientists who have been found guilty of scientific 
  misconduct-including fraud-accountable for their 
  actions

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
the money, spread throughout, is too good]

  .
  The Lancet editorial states:
  "The IOM report recognises the multiple players involved: individual
  researchers

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
on med school faculties, government agents,
agencies--NIM, NIMH]

  ; institutions; funding agencies

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
NIH, NIMH]

  ; journals

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
editors, editorial boards, reviewers, all from
academia, government and non-government]

  ; scientific societies

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
headed by those from forgoing institutes,
institutions]

  ;governments; and the environment in which research is conducted,
  such as public opinion and sociopolitical priorities. The recent
  adoption by several journals, The Lancet included, of more
  transparency in conflict of interest
  disclosure was named as a positive step to influence research
  integrity, albeit indirectly. All these participants have complex 
  reciprocal relationships with one another

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
all inextricably connected, one
with the other]

  . The report rightly categorises the
  individual scientist as both the most influential and the most 
  unpredictable variable

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Not so. None act alone or anywhere near alone. We
speak here of all of scientific and medical academia, its journals,
editors, editorial board. Those who do not fit in are removed or
resign from the "club" never to be heard from again. The polution is
complete. Only complete cleansing will suffice, killing off all
presently in the "pond" and starting from scratch, introducing all
but the but the predators/pollutants]

  . But it places the
  responsibility for dealing with research integrity firmly on
  research institutions."

  [See, Lancet, Volume 360, Number 9332 17 August 2002.
  www.thelancet.com]
 
  Science editor, Donald Kennedy, turned his gaze away from the major 
  ethical lapses,
 
  writing instead, about what he calls, "Not Wicked, Perhaps, but Tacky" 
  ethical lapses.
  "So what we have here is a growing list of behaviors that, taken together,
  exemplify the gradual retreat from generosity and straight dealing in a
  community that is usually known for those qualities. Perhaps the core
  element of "tacky" in these examples is that they all eat away at the
  sense of community, shared understanding, and public trust that are 
  crucial to science."

  [ Science, Volume 297, Number 5585, Issue of 23 Aug 2002, p. 1237.
  www.sciencemag.org]

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Science,
throught the years has carried article upon article that would
legitimize scientific/medical non-entities such as ADHD and dyslexia,
creating medical diagnosis and treatment where there should be none;
making "patients" of entirely normal children and persons of all ages.
There is much more than "tacky" going on when we prescribe
addictive, dangerous drugs for millions of our own normal children,
when we make epidemics and whole medical marketplaces out of normal
children and especially out of preschoolers, an effort lead by the
journal Science, which covered and legitimized PATS, the Preschool
ADHD Treatment Study. Lancet too has been among the leaders in
legitimizing the wholly illegitimate "disease", ADHD.]

  The IOM and Lancet cannot bring themselves to recommend holding wrongdoers
  accountable-even when they have been caught violating ethical research 
  standards and despoiling the scientific body of knowledge with
  fraudulent reports.
 
  Neither the IOM

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
I have yet to see or hear a truly scientific
statement as to the legitimacy of ADHD from the IOM, and they know
fully, the Congress is consistently told that ADHD and all DSM
diagnoses are actual diseases, when none of them are]

  -a fraternity of scientists who protect their self-interest-nor Lancet
  editors offer anything more than vacuous statements about the need for 
  institutions to "develop and implement comprehensive and effective
  educational programmes to promote integrity." 
 
  By disregarding the fact that self-assessment and "peer review" have 
  proven ineffective in restraining wrongdoers-they pretend that these
  exercises and "accreditation" can restore the integrity of medical
  science.
 
  Why should scientists who commit gross scientific misconduct be 
  absolved from responsibility? 
 
  Why should scientists not suffer the consequences of their actions?  
  Is the scientific community demanding that its members be held to lower
  standards than corporate executives who are caught cheating for profit?
 
  The IOM Report: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084792/html/