(audience applause)

- Good morning.

For the past three
years, I was a researcher

at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

at Harvard University, where
I examined corrupting influences

and hidden biases in the
pursuit of knowledge.

During this time, I
conducted in-depth interviews

with professors from
medicine, business, law,

the natural life sciences,
as well as the humanities

and social sciences.

My goal was to try to
understand the everyday life

of scientists and professors
across all the disciplines.

In the end, I ended up
with close to 10,000 pages

of interview transcripts.

Today I would like to share with you

some of the ethical dilemmas
that professors face.

In particular, whether they
experience an increased risk

of bias depending on who
is funding their research.

Now, why should we be
concerned about the ethics

of knowledge production?

When I first started university,
I had this idealistic,

and perhaps naive, view of science.

I believed that scientists
inquired about the world,

practiced the scientific
method with integrity,

and made new discoveries
that drive progress forward.

But close examination of how
scientist conduct research

reveals that what we can
know depends not only

on the scientist, but
also on the structures

and institutions that
give scientists the means

to pursue knowledge.

As I interviewed
scientists and professors,

I began to uncover patterns
of scientific distortion,

or what some might call "the
corruption of knowledge."

However, the majority of these distortions

were not produced by bad
people behaving unethically

or illegally, although this does happen.

But rather by good people, like the people

sitting beside you right now:
your friends and your family

who in response to the daily pressures

of work may simply begin to rationalize

to themselves little ethical
lapses here and there.

Now by ethical lapse, I mean
scientific integrity lapses

that appear to be very
small, or inconsequential,

at the time.

One of the most common examples of this

involves a scientist thinking,

Maybe I won't ask
Question A when pursuing

my research because my
funder who may be relying

on the results of this study
to obtain regulatory approval

for potential commercialization
may not be too happy

with the higher risk of a negative result

which might also affect
my future funding.

So maybe instead I'll self-censor myself

and ask a different question of the data

where the possible
outcome will most likely

not ruffle too many feathers
and I will then answer

that question honestly and
with scientific integrity.

Now these types of rationalizations,

these little compromises,
where we convince ourselves

in the moment that what
we're doing is okay,

help to neutralize any
guilt we might experience

in our ethical decision making.

However, over time the accumulation

of these little ethical lapses is leading

to a broader system of
knowledge production

that is becoming increasingly distorted

and more difficult to trust.

I want you to think about
that word for a moment: trust.

And how it plays a role
in your daily activities.

For instance, plastic water bottles.

They're so common that
when we pick one up,

we're probably not thinking anything

other than, "I'm thirsty."

We don't ask ourselves,
Hmm, does bisphenol-a,

or BPA, a common compound
used in hard plastic products,

lead to cancer, behavioral disorders,

or reproductive problems?

No, of course not.

We take a drink and we go on with our day.

We trust that drinking
from the water bottle

can't be bad, or at least
bad enough to worry about.

While on the one hand, you can feel safe

because every study
performed by scientists

funded by the industry
concludes, "No harm from BPA."

In other words: it's
okay, you can trust BPA.

But, at the same time,
93% of the non industry

funded studies show that there
might be cause for concern.

And that maybe we should
be a little less trusting

the next time we pick up a
hard plastic water bottle.

So who do you trust?

And how is it possible that
the industry funded scientists

studying BPA are so certain
that there is no harm?

Is it simply because
they're better scientists?

Have bigger data sets?

Know the compound better?

Maybe, perhaps, but we see this pattern

often called the funding effect,

across many different areas of research

from cell phone safety to
climate change to soft drinks.

In each case, scientists
funded by the industry,

or industry supported think
tanks, reached conclusions

that overall tend to deny
or downplay any harm.

While non industry funded
scientists overwhelmingly

find evidence of harm.

Among the professors I
interviewed in food and nutrition,

there was acknowledgement
of this funding effect bias.

When food scientists said,
"There is a tendency for people

in my discipline to develop sympathies

with the food industry and to say

'Yeah this is definitely
safe.' Rather than to say,

"Okay, here's this research study,

and this research study, and this research study.'"

When I interviewed another
professor, who was also

an editor of a scientific
journal in nutrition,

he said the following to me,
"So we get some manuscripts

that are industry
sponsored and one senses

that their story is a little
slanted towards the benefit

of whatever it might be.

Their product did this, never mind that

it didn't do 10 other things.

The most frequent scenario
is not that the study

is done poorly, but that
the questions themselves

are kind of selective."

Now if a funding effect bias does exist,

then surely the regulatory
bodies who look out

for our safety must be aware of it, right?

For instance, what about
our prescription drugs?

Pharmaceutical companies must first obtain

regulatory approval for
their products, right?

Yes, however, many of the drug evaluation

and research advisory committee members

who vote on whether a
drug should be granted

regulatory approval also
have financial conflicts

of interest with these
same drug companies.

These voting members
often serve as consultants

and have ownership interest
in the same drug companies

seeking approval.

They also sit on their advisory boards

and even receive funding from these firms

for their own individual research.

In other words, they might be experts,

but they are not independent experts.

As you know, in 2008 the world suffered

a major financial crisis.

The Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job,

suggested that economics
professors were being corrupted

and blinded through their
consulting relationships

and conflicts of interest
with the financial sector.

It was so serious that even
an upset Queen of England

(audience laughs)

visited the LSC, the
prestigious London School

of Economics, and sternly asked her top

economics professors, "If the
problem was so widespread,

"then why didn't anyone notice it?"

The Director of LSC's
Management Department,

who was standing beside
the Queen at the time,

said to her, "At every
stage, someone was relying

on somebody else and everyone thought

they were doing the right thing."

In my interviews with business
and economics professors,

it was observed, as it was with professors

across all the disciplines,
that a lack of independence

can distort the production of knowledge.

One economics professor, who researches

private equity finance,
told me during an interview,

"The only way to get the data is to get

"the private equity
firms to give it to you.

"If you then say these people
don't know what they're doing,

or they only make returns
by taking excessive risks,

then there is the potential
you simply will not

get data going forward
and you will be forced

to leave the field of economics.

So you have to worry that
the research that comes out

is more favorable to the
private equity industry

than otherwise it would be."

Now despite all these cautionary examples

of corrupting influences
and hidden biases,

some of you out there, I'm certain,

are still thinking to
yourself, "Okay, Gary,

I hear what you're saying,
but I would never distort

my work, and no conflict
of interest would change

how I pursue my research."

Fair enough, many of us do believe

that we can manage any
conflict of interest

and still maintain our
own personal integrity.

However, we should never
forget that the power

to rationalize our own
little ethical lapses

is remarkable.

Consider this everyday example.

Statistics demonstrate
that there are disturbingly

high rates of accidents and deaths

due to cell phone related
distracted driving.

Yet, despite knowing this,
many of us will continue

to use cell phones when we drive,

even after we leave here today.

Studies show that more
than half of us believe

that when we use cell phones and drive,

it makes no real difference on our own

individual driving performance.

Yet, when we switch from being
the driver to the passenger,

90% of us now will suddenly
state, " I would feel

very unsafe if I observed my
driver using a cell phone."

So saying you have integrity is easy.

Practicing integrity is not easy.

And recognizing our own
little ethical lapses

and rationalizations
is even more difficult.

So what does this all mean in the context

of knowledge production?

First, we should be aware
that funders increasingly want

more influence over what
questions scientists can ask,

what findings they can
share, and ultimately

what kind of knowledge is produced.

So ask yourself, "What
are the strings attached

"when we accept funding?"

Are the strings visible,
where the scientist is told

that she cannot publish her
work until given approval

to do so by the funder?

Or does the funder require that the data

remain confidential so that
the research conclusions

can never be verified within
the scientific community?

Or are the strings invisible?

Increasingly, scientists and
professors are self-censoring

their work in order to appeal to funders.

And in so doing are
sidestepping important questions

that may be critical to the public good

and society as a whole.

My interviews make clear

that the funding effect bias is real.

And, if left unchecked, will
continue to have a real impact

on what we can know.

So next time you pick up a
book or a research article,

check to see who is
funding the author's work.

And pay close attention to
the author's affiliations.

In order to be informed
in this information age,

we need to take extra
measures to vet the legitimacy

of the content that we rely
on, to develop a critical eye

for independence, and to
value scientific integrity

above anything else.

Information and knowledge require science,

unfettered and unbiased.

And it's time we all take
measures to demand it.

Thank you.

(audience applause)