0:00:05.235,0:00:08.235
(audience applause)

0:00:10.446,0:00:11.696
- Good morning.

0:00:13.446,0:00:16.222
For the past three[br]years, I was a researcher

0:00:16.222,0:00:18.310
at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

0:00:18.310,0:00:22.233
at Harvard University, where[br]I examined corrupting influences

0:00:22.233,0:00:25.500
and hidden biases in the[br]pursuit of knowledge.

0:00:25.500,0:00:27.468
During this time, I[br]conducted in-depth interviews

0:00:27.468,0:00:30.715
with professors from[br]medicine, business, law,

0:00:30.715,0:00:33.527
the natural life sciences,[br]as well as the humanities

0:00:33.527,0:00:35.863
and social sciences.

0:00:35.863,0:00:38.991
My goal was to try to[br]understand the everyday life

0:00:38.991,0:00:43.134
of scientists and professors[br]across all the disciplines.

0:00:43.134,0:00:45.943
In the end, I ended up[br]with close to 10,000 pages

0:00:45.943,0:00:48.207
of interview transcripts.

0:00:48.207,0:00:50.973
Today I would like to share with you

0:00:50.973,0:00:53.682
some of the ethical dilemmas[br]that professors face.

0:00:53.682,0:00:57.156
In particular, whether they[br]experience an increased risk

0:00:57.156,0:01:01.323
of bias depending on who[br]is funding their research.

0:01:02.402,0:01:05.147
Now, why should we be[br]concerned about the ethics

0:01:05.147,0:01:07.704
of knowledge production?

0:01:07.704,0:01:11.986
When I first started university,[br]I had this idealistic,

0:01:11.986,0:01:14.870
and perhaps naive, view of science.

0:01:14.870,0:01:17.938
I believed that scientists[br]inquired about the world,

0:01:17.938,0:01:20.495
practiced the scientific[br]method with integrity,

0:01:20.495,0:01:24.058
and made new discoveries[br]that drive progress forward.

0:01:24.058,0:01:27.154
But close examination of how[br]scientist conduct research

0:01:27.154,0:01:30.122
reveals that what we can[br]know depends not only

0:01:30.122,0:01:33.247
on the scientist, but[br]also on the structures

0:01:33.247,0:01:35.939
and institutions that[br]give scientists the means

0:01:35.939,0:01:38.115
to pursue knowledge.

0:01:38.115,0:01:40.212
As I interviewed[br]scientists and professors,

0:01:40.212,0:01:44.460
I began to uncover patterns[br]of scientific distortion,

0:01:44.460,0:01:47.770
or what some might call "the[br]corruption of knowledge."

0:01:47.770,0:01:49.933
However, the majority of these distortions

0:01:49.933,0:01:53.352
were not produced by bad[br]people behaving unethically

0:01:53.352,0:01:56.288
or illegally, although this does happen.

0:01:56.288,0:01:58.177
But rather by good people, like the people

0:01:58.177,0:02:01.769
sitting beside you right now:[br]your friends and your family

0:02:01.769,0:02:03.919
who in response to the daily pressures

0:02:03.919,0:02:06.395
of work may simply begin to rationalize

0:02:06.395,0:02:11.233
to themselves little ethical[br]lapses here and there.

0:02:11.233,0:02:15.718
Now by ethical lapse, I mean[br]scientific integrity lapses

0:02:15.718,0:02:18.409
that appear to be very[br]small, or inconsequential,

0:02:18.409,0:02:19.885
at the time.

0:02:19.885,0:02:22.555
One of the most common examples of this

0:02:22.555,0:02:24.989
involves a scientist thinking,

0:02:24.989,0:02:27.967
Maybe I won't ask[br]Question A when pursuing

0:02:27.967,0:02:30.890
my research because my[br]funder who may be relying

0:02:30.890,0:02:33.797
on the results of this study[br]to obtain regulatory approval

0:02:33.797,0:02:36.522
for potential commercialization[br]may not be too happy

0:02:36.522,0:02:39.969
with the higher risk of a negative result

0:02:39.969,0:02:42.446
which might also affect[br]my future funding.

0:02:42.446,0:02:44.408
So maybe instead I'll self-censor myself

0:02:44.408,0:02:46.324
and ask a different question of the data

0:02:46.324,0:02:48.916
where the possible[br]outcome will most likely

0:02:48.916,0:02:51.615
not ruffle too many feathers[br]and I will then answer

0:02:51.615,0:02:55.964
that question honestly and[br]with scientific integrity.

0:02:55.964,0:02:59.408
Now these types of rationalizations,

0:02:59.408,0:03:02.093
these little compromises,[br]where we convince ourselves

0:03:02.093,0:03:04.901
in the moment that what[br]we're doing is okay,

0:03:04.901,0:03:07.456
help to neutralize any[br]guilt we might experience

0:03:07.456,0:03:10.128
in our ethical decision making.

0:03:10.128,0:03:13.307
However, over time the accumulation

0:03:13.307,0:03:15.681
of these little ethical lapses is leading

0:03:15.681,0:03:18.202
to a broader system of[br]knowledge production

0:03:18.202,0:03:20.901
that is becoming increasingly distorted

0:03:20.901,0:03:23.234
and more difficult to trust.

0:03:24.555,0:03:27.985
I want you to think about[br]that word for a moment: trust.

0:03:27.985,0:03:31.548
And how it plays a role[br]in your daily activities.

0:03:31.548,0:03:35.051
For instance, plastic water bottles.

0:03:35.051,0:03:37.363
They're so common that[br]when we pick one up,

0:03:37.363,0:03:38.732
we're probably not thinking anything

0:03:38.732,0:03:40.899
other than, "I'm thirsty."

0:03:41.944,0:03:46.237
We don't ask ourselves,[br]Hmm, does bisphenol-a,

0:03:46.237,0:03:49.395
or BPA, a common compound[br]used in hard plastic products,

0:03:49.395,0:03:51.158
lead to cancer, behavioral disorders,

0:03:51.158,0:03:52.590
or reproductive problems?

0:03:52.590,0:03:54.090
No, of course not.

0:03:54.941,0:03:56.670
We take a drink and we go on with our day.

0:03:56.670,0:03:58.726
We trust that drinking[br]from the water bottle

0:03:58.726,0:04:03.350
can't be bad, or at least[br]bad enough to worry about.

0:04:03.350,0:04:06.087
While on the one hand, you can feel safe

0:04:06.087,0:04:08.266
because every study[br]performed by scientists

0:04:08.266,0:04:12.433
funded by the industry[br]concludes, "No harm from BPA."

0:04:13.396,0:04:17.293
In other words: it's[br]okay, you can trust BPA.

0:04:17.293,0:04:21.098
But, at the same time,[br]93% of the non industry

0:04:21.098,0:04:25.295
funded studies show that there[br]might be cause for concern.

0:04:25.295,0:04:28.516
And that maybe we should[br]be a little less trusting

0:04:28.516,0:04:33.430
the next time we pick up a[br]hard plastic water bottle.

0:04:33.430,0:04:35.572
So who do you trust?

0:04:35.572,0:04:39.028
And how is it possible that[br]the industry funded scientists

0:04:39.028,0:04:43.195
studying BPA are so certain[br]that there is no harm?

0:04:44.691,0:04:46.987
Is it simply because[br]they're better scientists?

0:04:46.987,0:04:48.532
Have bigger data sets?

0:04:48.532,0:04:50.837
Know the compound better?

0:04:50.837,0:04:54.411
Maybe, perhaps, but we see this pattern

0:04:54.411,0:04:57.031
often called the funding effect,

0:04:57.031,0:04:59.803
across many different areas of research

0:04:59.803,0:05:03.698
from cell phone safety to[br]climate change to soft drinks.

0:05:03.698,0:05:06.480
In each case, scientists[br]funded by the industry,

0:05:06.480,0:05:09.343
or industry supported think[br]tanks, reached conclusions

0:05:09.343,0:05:13.660
that overall tend to deny[br]or downplay any harm.

0:05:13.660,0:05:16.686
While non industry funded[br]scientists overwhelmingly

0:05:16.686,0:05:19.107
find evidence of harm.

0:05:19.107,0:05:22.302
Among the professors I[br]interviewed in food and nutrition,

0:05:22.302,0:05:26.145
there was acknowledgement[br]of this funding effect bias.

0:05:26.145,0:05:30.142
When food scientists said,[br]"There is a tendency for people

0:05:30.142,0:05:32.742
in my discipline to develop sympathies

0:05:32.742,0:05:34.606
with the food industry and to say

0:05:34.606,0:05:37.918
'Yeah this is definitely[br]safe.' Rather than to say,

0:05:37.918,0:05:39.797
"Okay, here's this research study,

0:05:39.797,0:05:42.915
and this research study, and this research study.'"

0:05:42.915,0:05:45.831
When I interviewed another[br]professor, who was also

0:05:45.831,0:05:49.344
an editor of a scientific[br]journal in nutrition,

0:05:49.344,0:05:53.573
he said the following to me,[br]"So we get some manuscripts

0:05:53.573,0:05:56.246
that are industry[br]sponsored and one senses

0:05:56.246,0:05:58.534
that their story is a little[br]slanted towards the benefit

0:05:58.534,0:06:00.122
of whatever it might be.

0:06:00.122,0:06:02.405
Their product did this, never mind that

0:06:02.405,0:06:05.268
it didn't do 10 other things.

0:06:05.268,0:06:07.444
The most frequent scenario[br]is not that the study

0:06:07.444,0:06:11.047
is done poorly, but that[br]the questions themselves

0:06:11.047,0:06:13.047
are kind of selective."

0:06:15.049,0:06:18.382
Now if a funding effect bias does exist,

0:06:19.388,0:06:21.927
then surely the regulatory[br]bodies who look out

0:06:21.927,0:06:25.381
for our safety must be aware of it, right?

0:06:25.381,0:06:28.890
For instance, what about[br]our prescription drugs?

0:06:28.890,0:06:30.565
Pharmaceutical companies must first obtain

0:06:30.565,0:06:34.084
regulatory approval for[br]their products, right?

0:06:34.084,0:06:37.520
Yes, however, many of the drug evaluation

0:06:37.520,0:06:39.512
and research advisory committee members

0:06:39.512,0:06:41.429
who vote on whether a[br]drug should be granted

0:06:41.429,0:06:44.049
regulatory approval also[br]have financial conflicts

0:06:44.049,0:06:47.632
of interest with these[br]same drug companies.

0:06:48.470,0:06:52.811
These voting members[br]often serve as consultants

0:06:52.811,0:06:55.168
and have ownership interest[br]in the same drug companies

0:06:55.168,0:06:56.585
seeking approval.

0:06:57.861,0:07:00.191
They also sit on their advisory boards

0:07:00.191,0:07:02.503
and even receive funding from these firms

0:07:02.503,0:07:05.336
for their own individual research.

0:07:06.544,0:07:09.001
In other words, they might be experts,

0:07:09.001,0:07:12.084
but they are not independent experts.

0:07:13.230,0:07:16.941
As you know, in 2008 the world suffered

0:07:16.941,0:07:19.024
a major financial crisis.

0:07:20.305,0:07:22.554
The Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job,

0:07:22.554,0:07:25.270
suggested that economics[br]professors were being corrupted

0:07:25.270,0:07:28.660
and blinded through their[br]consulting relationships

0:07:28.660,0:07:32.339
and conflicts of interest[br]with the financial sector.

0:07:32.339,0:07:35.639
It was so serious that even[br]an upset Queen of England

0:07:35.639,0:07:38.987
(audience laughs)

0:07:38.987,0:07:42.355
visited the LSC, the[br]prestigious London School

0:07:42.355,0:07:44.877
of Economics, and sternly asked her top

0:07:44.877,0:07:49.396
economics professors, "If the[br]problem was so widespread,

0:07:49.396,0:07:52.859
"then why didn't anyone notice it?"

0:07:52.859,0:07:55.561
The Director of LSC's[br]Management Department,

0:07:55.561,0:07:57.736
who was standing beside[br]the Queen at the time,

0:07:57.736,0:08:01.198
said to her, "At every[br]stage, someone was relying

0:08:01.198,0:08:03.230
on somebody else and everyone thought

0:08:03.230,0:08:06.063
they were doing the right thing."

0:08:07.082,0:08:09.901
In my interviews with business[br]and economics professors,

0:08:09.901,0:08:11.864
it was observed, as it was with professors

0:08:11.864,0:08:15.239
across all the disciplines,[br]that a lack of independence

0:08:15.239,0:08:18.640
can distort the production of knowledge.

0:08:18.640,0:08:20.800
One economics professor, who researches

0:08:20.800,0:08:25.194
private equity finance,[br]told me during an interview,

0:08:25.194,0:08:27.482
"The only way to get the data is to get

0:08:27.482,0:08:30.426
"the private equity[br]firms to give it to you.

0:08:30.426,0:08:32.605
"If you then say these people[br]don't know what they're doing,

0:08:32.605,0:08:35.957
or they only make returns[br]by taking excessive risks,

0:08:35.957,0:08:38.515
then there is the potential[br]you simply will not

0:08:38.515,0:08:41.176
get data going forward[br]and you will be forced

0:08:41.176,0:08:43.448
to leave the field of economics.

0:08:43.448,0:08:45.940
So you have to worry that[br]the research that comes out

0:08:45.940,0:08:48.488
is more favorable to the[br]private equity industry

0:08:48.488,0:08:50.905
than otherwise it would be."

0:08:52.889,0:08:55.797
Now despite all these cautionary examples

0:08:55.797,0:08:58.390
of corrupting influences[br]and hidden biases,

0:08:58.390,0:09:00.479
some of you out there, I'm certain,

0:09:00.479,0:09:03.395
are still thinking to[br]yourself, "Okay, Gary,

0:09:03.395,0:09:05.962
I hear what you're saying,[br]but I would never distort

0:09:05.962,0:09:08.905
my work, and no conflict[br]of interest would change

0:09:08.905,0:09:11.155
how I pursue my research."

0:09:12.287,0:09:15.314
Fair enough, many of us do believe

0:09:15.314,0:09:17.637
that we can manage any[br]conflict of interest

0:09:17.637,0:09:21.884
and still maintain our[br]own personal integrity.

0:09:21.884,0:09:24.862
However, we should never[br]forget that the power

0:09:24.862,0:09:27.265
to rationalize our own[br]little ethical lapses

0:09:27.265,0:09:28.432
is remarkable.

0:09:29.407,0:09:32.179
Consider this everyday example.

0:09:32.179,0:09:34.311
Statistics demonstrate[br]that there are disturbingly

0:09:34.311,0:09:36.634
high rates of accidents and deaths

0:09:36.634,0:09:39.888
due to cell phone related[br]distracted driving.

0:09:39.888,0:09:43.141
Yet, despite knowing this,[br]many of us will continue

0:09:43.141,0:09:44.835
to use cell phones when we drive,

0:09:44.835,0:09:46.941
even after we leave here today.

0:09:46.941,0:09:49.020
Studies show that more[br]than half of us believe

0:09:49.020,0:09:50.872
that when we use cell phones and drive,

0:09:50.872,0:09:52.699
it makes no real difference on our own

0:09:52.699,0:09:55.689
individual driving performance.

0:09:55.689,0:09:59.700
Yet, when we switch from being[br]the driver to the passenger,

0:09:59.700,0:10:02.771
90% of us now will suddenly[br]state, " I would feel

0:10:02.771,0:10:06.938
very unsafe if I observed my[br]driver using a cell phone."

0:10:10.464,0:10:13.842
So saying you have integrity is easy.

0:10:13.842,0:10:16.848
Practicing integrity is not easy.

0:10:16.848,0:10:19.519
And recognizing our own[br]little ethical lapses

0:10:19.519,0:10:22.884
and rationalizations[br]is even more difficult.

0:10:22.884,0:10:25.153
So what does this all mean in the context

0:10:25.153,0:10:27.870
of knowledge production?

0:10:27.870,0:10:31.346
First, we should be aware[br]that funders increasingly want

0:10:31.346,0:10:34.790
more influence over what[br]questions scientists can ask,

0:10:34.790,0:10:36.997
what findings they can[br]share, and ultimately

0:10:36.997,0:10:39.914
what kind of knowledge is produced.

0:10:41.181,0:10:43.801
So ask yourself, "What[br]are the strings attached

0:10:43.801,0:10:46.410
"when we accept funding?"

0:10:46.410,0:10:49.426
Are the strings visible,[br]where the scientist is told

0:10:49.426,0:10:51.805
that she cannot publish her[br]work until given approval

0:10:51.805,0:10:54.452
to do so by the funder?

0:10:54.452,0:10:56.095
Or does the funder require that the data

0:10:56.095,0:10:58.649
remain confidential so that[br]the research conclusions

0:10:58.649,0:11:03.150
can never be verified within[br]the scientific community?

0:11:03.150,0:11:05.567
Or are the strings invisible?

0:11:06.507,0:11:09.756
Increasingly, scientists and[br]professors are self-censoring

0:11:09.756,0:11:12.471
their work in order to appeal to funders.

0:11:12.471,0:11:15.576
And in so doing are[br]sidestepping important questions

0:11:15.576,0:11:17.504
that may be critical to the public good

0:11:17.504,0:11:19.421
and society as a whole.

0:11:21.041,0:11:22.833
My interviews make clear

0:11:22.833,0:11:25.916
that the funding effect bias is real.

0:11:28.980,0:11:32.478
And, if left unchecked, will[br]continue to have a real impact

0:11:32.478,0:11:34.764
on what we can know.

0:11:34.764,0:11:38.904
So next time you pick up a[br]book or a research article,

0:11:38.904,0:11:42.180
check to see who is[br]funding the author's work.

0:11:42.180,0:11:46.419
And pay close attention to[br]the author's affiliations.

0:11:46.419,0:11:49.651
In order to be informed[br]in this information age,

0:11:49.651,0:11:52.271
we need to take extra[br]measures to vet the legitimacy

0:11:52.271,0:11:55.870
of the content that we rely[br]on, to develop a critical eye

0:11:55.870,0:11:59.676
for independence, and to[br]value scientific integrity

0:11:59.676,0:12:01.343
above anything else.

0:12:02.799,0:12:06.643
Information and knowledge require science,

0:12:06.643,0:12:08.532
unfettered and unbiased.

0:12:08.532,0:12:11.727
And it's time we all take[br]measures to demand it.

0:12:11.727,0:12:12.843
Thank you.

0:12:12.843,0:12:15.843
(audience applause)