Rethinking the Threats to Scientific Balance in Contexts of Litigation and Regulation

BACKGROUND: Although existing literature does discuss difficulties of doing science in contexts of litigation and regulation, work to date reflects little first-hand experience in such contexts. This gap is understandable but also potentially troubling: Concerns that seem important from afar may or...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental health perspectives 2008-01, Vol.116 (1), p.142-147
Main Author: Freudenburg, William R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Actions and defenses
Analysis
Biomedical research
Business structures
Censorship
Committees
Conferences
Conflict of Interest
Conflicts of interest
Environmental health
fieldwork
Financial Support
Laws, regulations and rules
Litigation
Mini-Monograph
Prejudice
Public policy
Punitive damages
Q1
Science - legislation & jurisprudence
Scientific belief
Scientists
Social Control, Formal
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:BACKGROUND: Although existing literature does discuss difficulties of doing science in contexts of litigation and regulation, work to date reflects little first-hand experience in such contexts. This gap is understandable but also potentially troubling: Concerns that seem important from afar may or may not match those that are most salient for scientists actually engaged in such work. OBJECTIVES: Drawing on experience on scientific committees and in lawsuits, and using skills developed through doing qualitative fieldwork, I reanalyze past experiences and field notes from the perspective of the 2006 Coronado Conference "Truth and Advocacy in Contexts of Litigation and Regulation." Although I initially shared the kinds of concerns generally stressed by other scientists and science-studies scholars--emphasizing overt, relatively sinister efforts to limit scientific objectivity-neither the literature nor my initial instincts provided adequate preparation for more subtle influences, which actually created stronger pressures toward bias. Particularly unexpected pressures came from consistent deference and praise for independence and credibility. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The cases discussed in this article are by nature suggestive, not definitive; additional research is dearly needed. Future research, however, needs to focus not just on pressures toward bias that are easy to imagine, but also on those that are easy to overlook.
ISSN:0091-6765
1552-9924
DOI:10.1289/ehp.9988