Avian Flu Diary: When Scientists Behave Badly

Stereotypical `mad scientist’ of the 1930s Movies

# 8418

In recent years the reputation of both science and scientists has seriously eroded in the public’s eye. In another blow, today’s newspapers are filled with reports of a new alleged research scandal (see Washington Post Rising Japanese scientist fabricated heralded stem cell research, lab says), which sadly, is simply the latest in a long line of such stories.

One only has to look at the public’s distrust over climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, nuclear power, and genetically modified food crops to realize the toll breaches of trust like these take on society.

Roughly two weeks ago JAMA Internal Medicine published the results of an online poll, conducted last fall, that asked 1351 people their opinions regarding popular `medical conspiracies’. Many of these theories are actively promoted by websites and/or celebrities.

Among the `conspiracies’ asked about:

The FDA is deliberately preventing the public from benefiting from `natural remedies’ that cure cancer, and other ailments, to protect the financial interests of `Big Pharma’
Health officials are covering up evidence that proves cell phones cause cancer.
The CIA deliberately infected African Americans with HIV
GMO foods are deliberately designed to dramatically reduce the world’s population
Doctors know that vaccines cause autism, but continue to promote them
Fluoridation is really a secret way to dump toxic chemicals into the water supply

Amazingly, while levels of agreement with these conspiracies ranged from a low of 12% (GMO foods, Fluoridation & Deliberate infection with HIV) to a high of 37% (FDA suppressing natural cures), in all but one scenario (Deliberate HIV infection of African Americans), less than half disagreed with these theories.

Meaning that while they might not buy into a theory, but they at least found it plausible. And the HIV conspiracy theory narrowly missed the cut, coming in at 51% disagreement.

The study is available at this link, and an NPR summary appears at Half Of Americans Believe In Medical Conspiracy Theories. This backlash against science and scientists is driven, at least in part, by revelations of scientific misconduct such as reported this morning in the Washington Post.

Lest anyone think this is an isolated problem, in a presentation made in March 2012 (see Dysfunctional Science) before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, journal editors Arturo Casadevall and Ferric C. Fang warned that the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold over the last decade, while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%.

And in early 2013, in mBio: Gender Analysis Of Scientific Misconduct, we looked at an analysis written by written Joan W. Bennett, Ferric C. Fang, and Arturo Casadevall, that examined the rise of Scientific misconduct - which includes fabrication, falsification or plagiarism – over the past decade.

As a child of the space age, and raised on the science writings of Willy Ley and Isaac Asimov, I am about as `pro-science’ as one can get. So I find self-inflicted wounds such as these are particularly distressing.

Science and technology, which are truly our best hope for a better future, are seriously at risk of losing the public’s support.

Three years ago in a BBC Horizon special Science Under Attack, Nobel Prize winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse explored some of the reasons why science, and scientists, are increasingly coming under attack. While he cites many factors (including irresponsible bloggers, and tabloid journalism), he also faults scientists for their failure to communicate with the public.

A brief quote from near the end of the program:

“Scientists have forgotten that we don’t operate in an isolated bubble. We cannot take the public for granted. We have to talk to them, we have to communicate the issues. We have to earn their trust, if science really is to benefit society.”

Add in the parade of FDA approved drugs that we’ve seen withdrawn for safety reasons after years of use, allegations of biased industry funded clinical trials (see RCTs: All That’s Gold Standard Doesn’t Glitter), and a long list of scientific advances that proved to be `bad ideas’ over time:

Adding Lead to paint & gasoline
Using asbestos in ceiling tiles, insulation, and cigarette filters
Painting clock dials with radium paint
Using growth enhancing antibiotics for livestock
Building nuclear reactors in a seismic fault zone

And you have ample precedent for the public’s wariness over scientific assurances of safety or efficacy. As a science geek it pains me to admit it, but much of this tarnish to science’s reputation has been at least partially earned.

Yes, most scientists and researchers are diligent and honorable.

But they live and work in a system that rewards `big discoveries’ with academic laurels or promises of wealth, and that expects them to attract large donations to their institutions, both increasing their stress levels and inviting the occasional `shortcut’ to success.

Topics covered last year in an hour-long Science Live Chat: Are We Doing Science The Right Way?

Every day the world becomes more dependant on technological solutions to solve our growing list of social, economic, and environmental problems. The need for the public’s trust and confidence in the scientific process has never been greater.