1
00:00:05,235 --> 00:00:08,235
(audience applause)

2
00:00:10,446 --> 00:00:11,696
- Good morning.

3
00:00:13,446 --> 00:00:16,222
For the past three
years, I was a researcher

4
00:00:16,222 --> 00:00:18,310
at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

5
00:00:18,310 --> 00:00:22,233
at Harvard University, where
I examined corrupting influences

6
00:00:22,233 --> 00:00:25,500
and hidden biases in the
pursuit of knowledge.

7
00:00:25,500 --> 00:00:27,468
During this time, I
conducted in-depth interviews

8
00:00:27,468 --> 00:00:30,715
with professors from
medicine, business, law,

9
00:00:30,715 --> 00:00:33,527
the natural life sciences,
as well as the humanities

10
00:00:33,527 --> 00:00:35,863
and social sciences.

11
00:00:35,863 --> 00:00:38,991
My goal was to try to
understand the everyday life

12
00:00:38,991 --> 00:00:43,134
of scientists and professors
across all the disciplines.

13
00:00:43,134 --> 00:00:45,943
In the end, I ended up
with close to 10,000 pages

14
00:00:45,943 --> 00:00:48,207
of interview transcripts.

15
00:00:48,207 --> 00:00:50,973
Today I would like to share with you

16
00:00:50,973 --> 00:00:53,682
some of the ethical dilemmas
that professors face.

17
00:00:53,682 --> 00:00:57,156
In particular, whether they
experience an increased risk

18
00:00:57,156 --> 00:01:01,323
of bias depending on who
is funding their research.

19
00:01:02,402 --> 00:01:05,147
Now, why should we be
concerned about the ethics

20
00:01:05,147 --> 00:01:07,704
of knowledge production?

21
00:01:07,704 --> 00:01:11,986
When I first started university,
I had this idealistic,

22
00:01:11,986 --> 00:01:14,870
and perhaps naive, view of science.

23
00:01:14,870 --> 00:01:17,938
I believed that scientists
inquired about the world,

24
00:01:17,938 --> 00:01:20,495
practiced the scientific
method with integrity,

25
00:01:20,495 --> 00:01:24,058
and made new discoveries
that drive progress forward.

26
00:01:24,058 --> 00:01:27,154
But close examination of how
scientist conduct research

27
00:01:27,154 --> 00:01:30,122
reveals that what we can
know depends not only

28
00:01:30,122 --> 00:01:33,247
on the scientist, but
also on the structures

29
00:01:33,247 --> 00:01:35,939
and institutions that
give scientists the means

30
00:01:35,939 --> 00:01:38,115
to pursue knowledge.

31
00:01:38,115 --> 00:01:40,212
As I interviewed
scientists and professors,

32
00:01:40,212 --> 00:01:44,460
I began to uncover patterns
of scientific distortion,

33
00:01:44,460 --> 00:01:47,770
or what some might call "the
corruption of knowledge."

34
00:01:47,770 --> 00:01:49,933
However, the majority of these distortions

35
00:01:49,933 --> 00:01:53,352
were not produced by bad
people behaving unethically

36
00:01:53,352 --> 00:01:56,288
or illegally, although this does happen.

37
00:01:56,288 --> 00:01:58,177
But rather by good people, like the people

38
00:01:58,177 --> 00:02:01,769
sitting beside you right now:
your friends and your family

39
00:02:01,769 --> 00:02:03,919
who in response to the daily pressures

40
00:02:03,919 --> 00:02:06,395
of work may simply begin to rationalize

41
00:02:06,395 --> 00:02:11,233
to themselves little ethical
lapses here and there.

42
00:02:11,233 --> 00:02:15,718
Now by ethical lapse, I mean
scientific integrity lapses

43
00:02:15,718 --> 00:02:18,409
that appear to be very
small, or inconsequential,

44
00:02:18,409 --> 00:02:19,885
at the time.

45
00:02:19,885 --> 00:02:22,555
One of the most common examples of this

46
00:02:22,555 --> 00:02:24,989
involves a scientist thinking,

47
00:02:24,989 --> 00:02:27,967
Maybe I won't ask
Question A when pursuing

48
00:02:27,967 --> 00:02:30,890
my research because my
funder who may be relying

49
00:02:30,890 --> 00:02:33,797
on the results of this study
to obtain regulatory approval

50
00:02:33,797 --> 00:02:36,522
for potential commercialization
may not be too happy

51
00:02:36,522 --> 00:02:39,969
with the higher risk of a negative result

52
00:02:39,969 --> 00:02:42,446
which might also affect
my future funding.

53
00:02:42,446 --> 00:02:44,408
So maybe instead I'll self-censor myself

54
00:02:44,408 --> 00:02:46,324
and ask a different question of the data

55
00:02:46,324 --> 00:02:48,916
where the possible
outcome will most likely

56
00:02:48,916 --> 00:02:51,615
not ruffle too many feathers
and I will then answer

57
00:02:51,615 --> 00:02:55,964
that question honestly and
with scientific integrity.

58
00:02:55,964 --> 00:02:59,408
Now these types of rationalizations,

59
00:02:59,408 --> 00:03:02,093
these little compromises,
where we convince ourselves

60
00:03:02,093 --> 00:03:04,901
in the moment that what
we're doing is okay,

61
00:03:04,901 --> 00:03:07,456
help to neutralize any
guilt we might experience

62
00:03:07,456 --> 00:03:10,128
in our ethical decision making.

63
00:03:10,128 --> 00:03:13,307
However, over time the accumulation

64
00:03:13,307 --> 00:03:15,681
of these little ethical lapses is leading

65
00:03:15,681 --> 00:03:18,202
to a broader system of
knowledge production

66
00:03:18,202 --> 00:03:20,901
that is becoming increasingly distorted

67
00:03:20,901 --> 00:03:23,234
and more difficult to trust.

68
00:03:24,555 --> 00:03:27,985
I want you to think about
that word for a moment: trust.

69
00:03:27,985 --> 00:03:31,548
And how it plays a role
in your daily activities.

70
00:03:31,548 --> 00:03:35,051
For instance, plastic water bottles.

71
00:03:35,051 --> 00:03:37,363
They're so common that
when we pick one up,

72
00:03:37,363 --> 00:03:38,732
we're probably not thinking anything

73
00:03:38,732 --> 00:03:40,899
other than, "I'm thirsty."

74
00:03:41,944 --> 00:03:46,237
We don't ask ourselves,
Hmm, does bisphenol-a,

75
00:03:46,237 --> 00:03:49,395
or BPA, a common compound
used in hard plastic products,

76
00:03:49,395 --> 00:03:51,158
lead to cancer, behavioral disorders,

77
00:03:51,158 --> 00:03:52,590
or reproductive problems?

78
00:03:52,590 --> 00:03:54,090
No, of course not.

79
00:03:54,941 --> 00:03:56,670
We take a drink and we go on with our day.

80
00:03:56,670 --> 00:03:58,726
We trust that drinking
from the water bottle

81
00:03:58,726 --> 00:04:03,350
can't be bad, or at least
bad enough to worry about.

82
00:04:03,350 --> 00:04:06,087
While on the one hand, you can feel safe

83
00:04:06,087 --> 00:04:08,266
because every study
performed by scientists

84
00:04:08,266 --> 00:04:12,433
funded by the industry
concludes, "No harm from BPA."

85
00:04:13,396 --> 00:04:17,293
In other words: it's
okay, you can trust BPA.

86
00:04:17,293 --> 00:04:21,098
But, at the same time,
93% of the non industry

87
00:04:21,098 --> 00:04:25,295
funded studies show that there
might be cause for concern.

88
00:04:25,295 --> 00:04:28,516
And that maybe we should
be a little less trusting

89
00:04:28,516 --> 00:04:33,430
the next time we pick up a
hard plastic water bottle.

90
00:04:33,430 --> 00:04:35,572
So who do you trust?

91
00:04:35,572 --> 00:04:39,028
And how is it possible that
the industry funded scientists

92
00:04:39,028 --> 00:04:43,195
studying BPA are so certain
that there is no harm?

93
00:04:44,691 --> 00:04:46,987
Is it simply because
they're better scientists?

94
00:04:46,987 --> 00:04:48,532
Have bigger data sets?

95
00:04:48,532 --> 00:04:50,837
Know the compound better?

96
00:04:50,837 --> 00:04:54,411
Maybe, perhaps, but we see this pattern

97
00:04:54,411 --> 00:04:57,031
often called the funding effect,

98
00:04:57,031 --> 00:04:59,803
across many different areas of research

99
00:04:59,803 --> 00:05:03,698
from cell phone safety to
climate change to soft drinks.

100
00:05:03,698 --> 00:05:06,480
In each case, scientists
funded by the industry,

101
00:05:06,480 --> 00:05:09,343
or industry supported think
tanks, reached conclusions

102
00:05:09,343 --> 00:05:13,660
that overall tend to deny
or downplay any harm.

103
00:05:13,660 --> 00:05:16,686
While non industry funded
scientists overwhelmingly

104
00:05:16,686 --> 00:05:19,107
find evidence of harm.

105
00:05:19,107 --> 00:05:22,302
Among the professors I
interviewed in food and nutrition,

106
00:05:22,302 --> 00:05:26,145
there was acknowledgement
of this funding effect bias.

107
00:05:26,145 --> 00:05:30,142
When food scientists said,
"There is a tendency for people

108
00:05:30,142 --> 00:05:32,742
in my discipline to develop sympathies

109
00:05:32,742 --> 00:05:34,606
with the food industry and to say

110
00:05:34,606 --> 00:05:37,918
'Yeah this is definitely
safe.' Rather than to say,

111
00:05:37,918 --> 00:05:39,797
"Okay, here's this research study,

112
00:05:39,797 --> 00:05:42,915
and this research study, and this research study.'"

113
00:05:42,915 --> 00:05:45,831
When I interviewed another
professor, who was also

114
00:05:45,831 --> 00:05:49,344
an editor of a scientific
journal in nutrition,

115
00:05:49,344 --> 00:05:53,573
he said the following to me,
"So we get some manuscripts

116
00:05:53,573 --> 00:05:56,246
that are industry
sponsored and one senses

117
00:05:56,246 --> 00:05:58,534
that their story is a little
slanted towards the benefit

118
00:05:58,534 --> 00:06:00,122
of whatever it might be.

119
00:06:00,122 --> 00:06:02,405
Their product did this, never mind that

120
00:06:02,405 --> 00:06:05,268
it didn't do 10 other things.

121
00:06:05,268 --> 00:06:07,444
The most frequent scenario
is not that the study

122
00:06:07,444 --> 00:06:11,047
is done poorly, but that
the questions themselves

123
00:06:11,047 --> 00:06:13,047
are kind of selective."

124
00:06:15,049 --> 00:06:18,382
Now if a funding effect bias does exist,

125
00:06:19,388 --> 00:06:21,927
then surely the regulatory
bodies who look out

126
00:06:21,927 --> 00:06:25,381
for our safety must be aware of it, right?

127
00:06:25,381 --> 00:06:28,890
For instance, what about
our prescription drugs?

128
00:06:28,890 --> 00:06:30,565
Pharmaceutical companies must first obtain

129
00:06:30,565 --> 00:06:34,084
regulatory approval for
their products, right?

130
00:06:34,084 --> 00:06:37,520
Yes, however, many of the drug evaluation

131
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:39,512
and research advisory committee members

132
00:06:39,512 --> 00:06:41,429
who vote on whether a
drug should be granted

133
00:06:41,429 --> 00:06:44,049
regulatory approval also
have financial conflicts

134
00:06:44,049 --> 00:06:47,632
of interest with these
same drug companies.

135
00:06:48,470 --> 00:06:52,811
These voting members
often serve as consultants

136
00:06:52,811 --> 00:06:55,168
and have ownership interest
in the same drug companies

137
00:06:55,168 --> 00:06:56,585
seeking approval.

138
00:06:57,861 --> 00:07:00,191
They also sit on their advisory boards

139
00:07:00,191 --> 00:07:02,503
and even receive funding from these firms

140
00:07:02,503 --> 00:07:05,336
for their own individual research.

141
00:07:06,544 --> 00:07:09,001
In other words, they might be experts,

142
00:07:09,001 --> 00:07:12,084
but they are not independent experts.

143
00:07:13,230 --> 00:07:16,941
As you know, in 2008 the world suffered

144
00:07:16,941 --> 00:07:19,024
a major financial crisis.

145
00:07:20,305 --> 00:07:22,554
The Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job,

146
00:07:22,554 --> 00:07:25,270
suggested that economics
professors were being corrupted

147
00:07:25,270 --> 00:07:28,660
and blinded through their
consulting relationships

148
00:07:28,660 --> 00:07:32,339
and conflicts of interest
with the financial sector.

149
00:07:32,339 --> 00:07:35,639
It was so serious that even
an upset Queen of England

150
00:07:35,639 --> 00:07:38,987
(audience laughs)

151
00:07:38,987 --> 00:07:42,355
visited the LSC, the
prestigious London School

152
00:07:42,355 --> 00:07:44,877
of Economics, and sternly asked her top

153
00:07:44,877 --> 00:07:49,396
economics professors, "If the
problem was so widespread,

154
00:07:49,396 --> 00:07:52,859
"then why didn't anyone notice it?"

155
00:07:52,859 --> 00:07:55,561
The Director of LSC's
Management Department,

156
00:07:55,561 --> 00:07:57,736
who was standing beside
the Queen at the time,

157
00:07:57,736 --> 00:08:01,198
said to her, "At every
stage, someone was relying

158
00:08:01,198 --> 00:08:03,230
on somebody else and everyone thought

159
00:08:03,230 --> 00:08:06,063
they were doing the right thing."

160
00:08:07,082 --> 00:08:09,901
In my interviews with business
and economics professors,

161
00:08:09,901 --> 00:08:11,864
it was observed, as it was with professors

162
00:08:11,864 --> 00:08:15,239
across all the disciplines,
that a lack of independence

163
00:08:15,239 --> 00:08:18,640
can distort the production of knowledge.

164
00:08:18,640 --> 00:08:20,800
One economics professor, who researches

165
00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:25,194
private equity finance,
told me during an interview,

166
00:08:25,194 --> 00:08:27,482
"The only way to get the data is to get

167
00:08:27,482 --> 00:08:30,426
"the private equity
firms to give it to you.

168
00:08:30,426 --> 00:08:32,605
"If you then say these people
don't know what they're doing,

169
00:08:32,605 --> 00:08:35,957
or they only make returns
by taking excessive risks,

170
00:08:35,957 --> 00:08:38,515
then there is the potential
you simply will not

171
00:08:38,515 --> 00:08:41,176
get data going forward
and you will be forced

172
00:08:41,176 --> 00:08:43,448
to leave the field of economics.

173
00:08:43,448 --> 00:08:45,940
So you have to worry that
the research that comes out

174
00:08:45,940 --> 00:08:48,488
is more favorable to the
private equity industry

175
00:08:48,488 --> 00:08:50,905
than otherwise it would be."

176
00:08:52,889 --> 00:08:55,797
Now despite all these cautionary examples

177
00:08:55,797 --> 00:08:58,390
of corrupting influences
and hidden biases,

178
00:08:58,390 --> 00:09:00,479
some of you out there, I'm certain,

179
00:09:00,479 --> 00:09:03,395
are still thinking to
yourself, "Okay, Gary,

180
00:09:03,395 --> 00:09:05,962
I hear what you're saying,
but I would never distort

181
00:09:05,962 --> 00:09:08,905
my work, and no conflict
of interest would change

182
00:09:08,905 --> 00:09:11,155
how I pursue my research."

183
00:09:12,287 --> 00:09:15,314
Fair enough, many of us do believe

184
00:09:15,314 --> 00:09:17,637
that we can manage any
conflict of interest

185
00:09:17,637 --> 00:09:21,884
and still maintain our
own personal integrity.

186
00:09:21,884 --> 00:09:24,862
However, we should never
forget that the power

187
00:09:24,862 --> 00:09:27,265
to rationalize our own
little ethical lapses

188
00:09:27,265 --> 00:09:28,432
is remarkable.

189
00:09:29,407 --> 00:09:32,179
Consider this everyday example.

190
00:09:32,179 --> 00:09:34,311
Statistics demonstrate
that there are disturbingly

191
00:09:34,311 --> 00:09:36,634
high rates of accidents and deaths

192
00:09:36,634 --> 00:09:39,888
due to cell phone related
distracted driving.

193
00:09:39,888 --> 00:09:43,141
Yet, despite knowing this,
many of us will continue

194
00:09:43,141 --> 00:09:44,835
to use cell phones when we drive,

195
00:09:44,835 --> 00:09:46,941
even after we leave here today.

196
00:09:46,941 --> 00:09:49,020
Studies show that more
than half of us believe

197
00:09:49,020 --> 00:09:50,872
that when we use cell phones and drive,

198
00:09:50,872 --> 00:09:52,699
it makes no real difference on our own

199
00:09:52,699 --> 00:09:55,689
individual driving performance.

200
00:09:55,689 --> 00:09:59,700
Yet, when we switch from being
the driver to the passenger,

201
00:09:59,700 --> 00:10:02,771
90% of us now will suddenly
state, " I would feel

202
00:10:02,771 --> 00:10:06,938
very unsafe if I observed my
driver using a cell phone."

203
00:10:10,464 --> 00:10:13,842
So saying you have integrity is easy.

204
00:10:13,842 --> 00:10:16,848
Practicing integrity is not easy.

205
00:10:16,848 --> 00:10:19,519
And recognizing our own
little ethical lapses

206
00:10:19,519 --> 00:10:22,884
and rationalizations
is even more difficult.

207
00:10:22,884 --> 00:10:25,153
So what does this all mean in the context

208
00:10:25,153 --> 00:10:27,870
of knowledge production?

209
00:10:27,870 --> 00:10:31,346
First, we should be aware
that funders increasingly want

210
00:10:31,346 --> 00:10:34,790
more influence over what
questions scientists can ask,

211
00:10:34,790 --> 00:10:36,997
what findings they can
share, and ultimately

212
00:10:36,997 --> 00:10:39,914
what kind of knowledge is produced.

213
00:10:41,181 --> 00:10:43,801
So ask yourself, "What
are the strings attached

214
00:10:43,801 --> 00:10:46,410
"when we accept funding?"

215
00:10:46,410 --> 00:10:49,426
Are the strings visible,
where the scientist is told

216
00:10:49,426 --> 00:10:51,805
that she cannot publish her
work until given approval

217
00:10:51,805 --> 00:10:54,452
to do so by the funder?

218
00:10:54,452 --> 00:10:56,095
Or does the funder require that the data

219
00:10:56,095 --> 00:10:58,649
remain confidential so that
the research conclusions

220
00:10:58,649 --> 00:11:03,150
can never be verified within
the scientific community?

221
00:11:03,150 --> 00:11:05,567
Or are the strings invisible?

222
00:11:06,507 --> 00:11:09,756
Increasingly, scientists and
professors are self-censoring

223
00:11:09,756 --> 00:11:12,471
their work in order to appeal to funders.

224
00:11:12,471 --> 00:11:15,576
And in so doing are
sidestepping important questions

225
00:11:15,576 --> 00:11:17,504
that may be critical to the public good

226
00:11:17,504 --> 00:11:19,421
and society as a whole.

227
00:11:21,041 --> 00:11:22,833
My interviews make clear

228
00:11:22,833 --> 00:11:25,916
that the funding effect bias is real.

229
00:11:28,980 --> 00:11:32,478
And, if left unchecked, will
continue to have a real impact

230
00:11:32,478 --> 00:11:34,764
on what we can know.

231
00:11:34,764 --> 00:11:38,904
So next time you pick up a
book or a research article,

232
00:11:38,904 --> 00:11:42,180
check to see who is
funding the author's work.

233
00:11:42,180 --> 00:11:46,419
And pay close attention to
the author's affiliations.

234
00:11:46,419 --> 00:11:49,651
In order to be informed
in this information age,

235
00:11:49,651 --> 00:11:52,271
we need to take extra
measures to vet the legitimacy

236
00:11:52,271 --> 00:11:55,870
of the content that we rely
on, to develop a critical eye

237
00:11:55,870 --> 00:11:59,676
for independence, and to
value scientific integrity

238
00:11:59,676 --> 00:12:01,343
above anything else.

239
00:12:02,799 --> 00:12:06,643
Information and knowledge require science,

240
00:12:06,643 --> 00:12:08,532
unfettered and unbiased.

241
00:12:08,532 --> 00:12:11,727
And it's time we all take
measures to demand it.

242
00:12:11,727 --> 00:12:12,843
Thank you.

243
00:12:12,843 --> 00:12:15,843
(audience applause)