WEBVTT

00:00:05.235 --> 00:00:08.235
(audience applause)

00:00:10.446 --> 00:00:11.696
- Good morning.

00:00:13.446 --> 00:00:16.222
For the past three
years, I was a researcher

00:00:16.222 --> 00:00:18.310
at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

00:00:18.310 --> 00:00:22.233
at Harvard University, where
I examined corrupting influences

00:00:22.233 --> 00:00:25.500
and hidden biases in the
pursuit of knowledge.

00:00:25.500 --> 00:00:27.468
During this time, I
conducted in-depth interviews

00:00:27.468 --> 00:00:30.715
with professors from
medicine, business, law,

00:00:30.715 --> 00:00:33.527
the natural life sciences,
as well as the humanities

00:00:33.527 --> 00:00:35.863
and social sciences.

00:00:35.863 --> 00:00:38.991
My goal was to try to
understand the everyday life

00:00:38.991 --> 00:00:43.134
of scientists and professors
across all the disciplines.

00:00:43.134 --> 00:00:45.943
In the end, I ended up
with close to 10,000 pages

00:00:45.943 --> 00:00:48.207
of interview transcripts.

00:00:48.207 --> 00:00:50.973
Today I would like to share with you

00:00:50.973 --> 00:00:53.682
some of the ethical dilemmas
that professors face.

00:00:53.682 --> 00:00:57.156
In particular, whether they
experience an increased risk

00:00:57.156 --> 00:01:01.323
of bias depending on who
is funding their research.

00:01:02.402 --> 00:01:05.147
Now, why should we be
concerned about the ethics

00:01:05.147 --> 00:01:07.704
of knowledge production?

00:01:07.704 --> 00:01:11.986
When I first started university,
I had this idealistic,

00:01:11.986 --> 00:01:14.870
and perhaps naive, view of science.

00:01:14.870 --> 00:01:17.938
I believed that scientists
inquired about the world,

00:01:17.938 --> 00:01:20.495
practiced the scientific
method with integrity,

00:01:20.495 --> 00:01:24.058
and made new discoveries
that drive progress forward.

00:01:24.058 --> 00:01:27.154
But close examination of how
scientist conduct research

00:01:27.154 --> 00:01:30.122
reveals that what we can
know depends not only

00:01:30.122 --> 00:01:33.247
on the scientist, but
also on the structures

00:01:33.247 --> 00:01:35.939
and institutions that
give scientists the means

00:01:35.939 --> 00:01:38.115
to pursue knowledge.

00:01:38.115 --> 00:01:40.212
As I interviewed
scientists and professors,

00:01:40.212 --> 00:01:44.460
I began to uncover patterns
of scientific distortion,

00:01:44.460 --> 00:01:47.770
or what some might call "the
corruption of knowledge."

00:01:47.770 --> 00:01:49.933
However, the majority of these distortions

00:01:49.933 --> 00:01:53.352
were not produced by bad
people behaving unethically

00:01:53.352 --> 00:01:56.288
or illegally, although this does happen.

00:01:56.288 --> 00:01:58.177
But rather by good people, like the people

00:01:58.177 --> 00:02:01.769
sitting beside you right now:
your friends and your family

00:02:01.769 --> 00:02:03.919
who in response to the daily pressures

00:02:03.919 --> 00:02:06.395
of work may simply begin to rationalize

00:02:06.395 --> 00:02:11.233
to themselves little ethical
lapses here and there.

00:02:11.233 --> 00:02:15.718
Now by ethical lapse, I mean
scientific integrity lapses

00:02:15.718 --> 00:02:18.409
that appear to be very
small, or inconsequential,

00:02:18.409 --> 00:02:19.885
at the time.

00:02:19.885 --> 00:02:22.555
One of the most common examples of this

00:02:22.555 --> 00:02:24.989
involves a scientist thinking,

00:02:24.989 --> 00:02:27.967
Maybe I won't ask
Question A when pursuing

00:02:27.967 --> 00:02:30.890
my research because my
funder who may be relying

00:02:30.890 --> 00:02:33.797
on the results of this study
to obtain regulatory approval

00:02:33.797 --> 00:02:36.522
for potential commercialization
may not be too happy

00:02:36.522 --> 00:02:39.969
with the higher risk of a negative result

00:02:39.969 --> 00:02:42.446
which might also affect
my future funding.

00:02:42.446 --> 00:02:44.408
So maybe instead I'll self-censor myself

00:02:44.408 --> 00:02:46.324
and ask a different question of the data

00:02:46.324 --> 00:02:48.916
where the possible
outcome will most likely

00:02:48.916 --> 00:02:51.615
not ruffle too many feathers
and I will then answer

00:02:51.615 --> 00:02:55.964
that question honestly and
with scientific integrity.

00:02:55.964 --> 00:02:59.408
Now these types of rationalizations,

00:02:59.408 --> 00:03:02.093
these little compromises,
where we convince ourselves

00:03:02.093 --> 00:03:04.901
in the moment that what
we're doing is okay,

00:03:04.901 --> 00:03:07.456
help to neutralize any
guilt we might experience

00:03:07.456 --> 00:03:10.128
in our ethical decision making.

00:03:10.128 --> 00:03:13.307
However, over time the accumulation

00:03:13.307 --> 00:03:15.681
of these little ethical lapses is leading

00:03:15.681 --> 00:03:18.202
to a broader system of
knowledge production

00:03:18.202 --> 00:03:20.901
that is becoming increasingly distorted

00:03:20.901 --> 00:03:23.234
and more difficult to trust.

00:03:24.555 --> 00:03:27.985
I want you to think about
that word for a moment: trust.

00:03:27.985 --> 00:03:31.548
And how it plays a role
in your daily activities.

00:03:31.548 --> 00:03:35.051
For instance, plastic water bottles.

00:03:35.051 --> 00:03:37.363
They're so common that
when we pick one up,

00:03:37.363 --> 00:03:38.732
we're probably not thinking anything

00:03:38.732 --> 00:03:40.899
other than, "I'm thirsty."

00:03:41.944 --> 00:03:46.237
We don't ask ourselves,
Hmm, does bisphenol-a,

00:03:46.237 --> 00:03:49.395
or BPA, a common compound
used in hard plastic products,

00:03:49.395 --> 00:03:51.158
lead to cancer, behavioral disorders,

00:03:51.158 --> 00:03:52.590
or reproductive problems?

00:03:52.590 --> 00:03:54.090
No, of course not.

00:03:54.941 --> 00:03:56.670
We take a drink and we go on with our day.

00:03:56.670 --> 00:03:58.726
We trust that drinking
from the water bottle

00:03:58.726 --> 00:04:03.350
can't be bad, or at least
bad enough to worry about.

00:04:03.350 --> 00:04:06.087
While on the one hand, you can feel safe

00:04:06.087 --> 00:04:08.266
because every study
performed by scientists

00:04:08.266 --> 00:04:12.433
funded by the industry
concludes, "No harm from BPA."

00:04:13.396 --> 00:04:17.293
In other words: it's
okay, you can trust BPA.

00:04:17.293 --> 00:04:21.098
But, at the same time,
93% of the non industry

00:04:21.098 --> 00:04:25.295
funded studies show that there
might be cause for concern.

00:04:25.295 --> 00:04:28.516
And that maybe we should
be a little less trusting

00:04:28.516 --> 00:04:33.430
the next time we pick up a
hard plastic water bottle.

00:04:33.430 --> 00:04:35.572
So who do you trust?

00:04:35.572 --> 00:04:39.028
And how is it possible that
the industry funded scientists

00:04:39.028 --> 00:04:43.195
studying BPA are so certain
that there is no harm?

00:04:44.691 --> 00:04:46.987
Is it simply because
they're better scientists?

00:04:46.987 --> 00:04:48.532
Have bigger data sets?

00:04:48.532 --> 00:04:50.837
Know the compound better?

00:04:50.837 --> 00:04:54.411
Maybe, perhaps, but we see this pattern

00:04:54.411 --> 00:04:57.031
often called the funding effect,

00:04:57.031 --> 00:04:59.803
across many different areas of research

00:04:59.803 --> 00:05:03.698
from cell phone safety to
climate change to soft drinks.

00:05:03.698 --> 00:05:06.480
In each case, scientists
funded by the industry,

00:05:06.480 --> 00:05:09.343
or industry supported think
tanks, reached conclusions

00:05:09.343 --> 00:05:13.660
that overall tend to deny
or downplay any harm.

00:05:13.660 --> 00:05:16.686
While non industry funded
scientists overwhelmingly

00:05:16.686 --> 00:05:19.107
find evidence of harm.

00:05:19.107 --> 00:05:22.302
Among the professors I
interviewed in food and nutrition,

00:05:22.302 --> 00:05:26.145
there was acknowledgement
of this funding effect bias.

00:05:26.145 --> 00:05:30.142
When food scientists said,
"There is a tendency for people

00:05:30.142 --> 00:05:32.742
in my discipline to develop sympathies

00:05:32.742 --> 00:05:34.606
with the food industry and to say

00:05:34.606 --> 00:05:37.918
'Yeah this is definitely
safe.' Rather than to say,

00:05:37.918 --> 00:05:39.797
"Okay, here's this research study,

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:39.797 --> 00:05:42.915
and this research study, and this research study.'"

00:05:42.915 --> 00:05:45.831
When I interviewed another
professor, who was also

00:05:45.831 --> 00:05:49.344
an editor of a scientific
journal in nutrition,

00:05:49.344 --> 00:05:53.573
he said the following to me,
"So we get some manuscripts

00:05:53.573 --> 00:05:56.246
that are industry
sponsored and one senses

00:05:56.246 --> 00:05:58.534
that their story is a little
slanted towards the benefit

00:05:58.534 --> 00:06:00.122
of whatever it might be.

00:06:00.122 --> 00:06:02.405
Their product did this, never mind that

00:06:02.405 --> 00:06:05.268
it didn't do 10 other things.

00:06:05.268 --> 00:06:07.444
The most frequent scenario
is not that the study

00:06:07.444 --> 00:06:11.047
is done poorly, but that
the questions themselves

00:06:11.047 --> 00:06:13.047
are kind of selective."

00:06:15.049 --> 00:06:18.382
Now if a funding effect bias does exist,

00:06:19.388 --> 00:06:21.927
then surely the regulatory
bodies who look out

00:06:21.927 --> 00:06:25.381
for our safety must be aware of it, right?

00:06:25.381 --> 00:06:28.890
For instance, what about
our prescription drugs?

00:06:28.890 --> 00:06:30.565
Pharmaceutical companies must first obtain

00:06:30.565 --> 00:06:34.084
regulatory approval for
their products, right?

00:06:34.084 --> 00:06:37.520
Yes, however, many of the drug evaluation

00:06:37.520 --> 00:06:39.512
and research advisory committee members

00:06:39.512 --> 00:06:41.429
who vote on whether a
drug should be granted

00:06:41.429 --> 00:06:44.049
regulatory approval also
have financial conflicts

00:06:44.049 --> 00:06:47.632
of interest with these
same drug companies.

00:06:48.470 --> 00:06:52.811
These voting members
often serve as consultants

00:06:52.811 --> 00:06:55.168
and have ownership interest
in the same drug companies

00:06:55.168 --> 00:06:56.585
seeking approval.

00:06:57.861 --> 00:07:00.191
They also sit on their advisory boards

00:07:00.191 --> 00:07:02.503
and even receive funding from these firms

00:07:02.503 --> 00:07:05.336
for their own individual research.

00:07:06.544 --> 00:07:09.001
In other words, they might be experts,

00:07:09.001 --> 00:07:12.084
but they are not independent experts.

00:07:13.230 --> 00:07:16.941
As you know, in 2008 the world suffered

00:07:16.941 --> 00:07:19.024
a major financial crisis.

00:07:20.305 --> 00:07:22.554
The Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job,

00:07:22.554 --> 00:07:25.270
suggested that economics
professors were being corrupted

00:07:25.270 --> 00:07:28.660
and blinded through their
consulting relationships

00:07:28.660 --> 00:07:32.339
and conflicts of interest
with the financial sector.

00:07:32.339 --> 00:07:35.639
It was so serious that even
an upset Queen of England

00:07:35.639 --> 00:07:38.987
(audience laughs)

00:07:38.987 --> 00:07:42.355
visited the LSC, the
prestigious London School

00:07:42.355 --> 00:07:44.877
of Economics, and sternly asked her top

00:07:44.877 --> 00:07:49.396
economics professors, "If the
problem was so widespread,

00:07:49.396 --> 00:07:52.859
"then why didn't anyone notice it?"

00:07:52.859 --> 00:07:55.561
The Director of LSC's
Management Department,

00:07:55.561 --> 00:07:57.736
who was standing beside
the Queen at the time,

00:07:57.736 --> 00:08:01.198
said to her, "At every
stage, someone was relying

00:08:01.198 --> 00:08:03.230
on somebody else and everyone thought

00:08:03.230 --> 00:08:06.063
they were doing the right thing."

00:08:07.082 --> 00:08:09.901
In my interviews with business
and economics professors,

00:08:09.901 --> 00:08:11.864
it was observed, as it was with professors

00:08:11.864 --> 00:08:15.239
across all the disciplines,
that a lack of independence

00:08:15.239 --> 00:08:18.640
can distort the production of knowledge.

00:08:18.640 --> 00:08:20.800
One economics professor, who researches

00:08:20.800 --> 00:08:25.194
private equity finance,
told me during an interview,

00:08:25.194 --> 00:08:27.482
"The only way to get the data is to get

00:08:27.482 --> 00:08:30.426
"the private equity
firms to give it to you.

00:08:30.426 --> 00:08:32.605
"If you then say these people
don't know what they're doing,

00:08:32.605 --> 00:08:35.957
or they only make returns
by taking excessive risks,

00:08:35.957 --> 00:08:38.515
then there is the potential
you simply will not

00:08:38.515 --> 00:08:41.176
get data going forward
and you will be forced

00:08:41.176 --> 00:08:43.448
to leave the field of economics.

00:08:43.448 --> 00:08:45.940
So you have to worry that
the research that comes out

00:08:45.940 --> 00:08:48.488
is more favorable to the
private equity industry

00:08:48.488 --> 00:08:50.905
than otherwise it would be."

00:08:52.889 --> 00:08:55.797
Now despite all these cautionary examples

00:08:55.797 --> 00:08:58.390
of corrupting influences
and hidden biases,

00:08:58.390 --> 00:09:00.479
some of you out there, I'm certain,

00:09:00.479 --> 00:09:03.395
are still thinking to
yourself, "Okay, Gary,

00:09:03.395 --> 00:09:05.962
I hear what you're saying,
but I would never distort

00:09:05.962 --> 00:09:08.905
my work, and no conflict
of interest would change

00:09:08.905 --> 00:09:11.155
how I pursue my research."

00:09:12.287 --> 00:09:15.314
Fair enough, many of us do believe

00:09:15.314 --> 00:09:17.637
that we can manage any
conflict of interest

00:09:17.637 --> 00:09:21.884
and still maintain our
own personal integrity.

00:09:21.884 --> 00:09:24.862
However, we should never
forget that the power

00:09:24.862 --> 00:09:27.265
to rationalize our own
little ethical lapses

00:09:27.265 --> 00:09:28.432
is remarkable.

00:09:29.407 --> 00:09:32.179
Consider this everyday example.

00:09:32.179 --> 00:09:34.311
Statistics demonstrate
that there are disturbingly

00:09:34.311 --> 00:09:36.634
high rates of accidents and deaths

00:09:36.634 --> 00:09:39.888
due to cell phone related
distracted driving.

00:09:39.888 --> 00:09:43.141
Yet, despite knowing this,
many of us will continue

00:09:43.141 --> 00:09:44.835
to use cell phones when we drive,

00:09:44.835 --> 00:09:46.941
even after we leave here today.

00:09:46.941 --> 00:09:49.020
Studies show that more
than half of us believe

00:09:49.020 --> 00:09:50.872
that when we use cell phones and drive,

00:09:50.872 --> 00:09:52.699
it makes no real difference on our own

00:09:52.699 --> 00:09:55.689
individual driving performance.

00:09:55.689 --> 00:09:59.700
Yet, when we switch from being
the driver to the passenger,

00:09:59.700 --> 00:10:02.771
90% of us now will suddenly
state, " I would feel

00:10:02.771 --> 00:10:06.938
very unsafe if I observed my
driver using a cell phone."

00:10:10.464 --> 00:10:13.842
So saying you have integrity is easy.

00:10:13.842 --> 00:10:16.848
Practicing integrity is not easy.

00:10:16.848 --> 00:10:19.519
And recognizing our own
little ethical lapses

00:10:19.519 --> 00:10:22.884
and rationalizations
is even more difficult.

00:10:22.884 --> 00:10:25.153
So what does this all mean in the context

00:10:25.153 --> 00:10:27.870
of knowledge production?

00:10:27.870 --> 00:10:31.346
First, we should be aware
that funders increasingly want

00:10:31.346 --> 00:10:34.790
more influence over what
questions scientists can ask,

00:10:34.790 --> 00:10:36.997
what findings they can
share, and ultimately

00:10:36.997 --> 00:10:39.914
what kind of knowledge is produced.

00:10:41.181 --> 00:10:43.801
So ask yourself, "What
are the strings attached

00:10:43.801 --> 00:10:46.410
"when we accept funding?"

00:10:46.410 --> 00:10:49.426
Are the strings visible,
where the scientist is told

00:10:49.426 --> 00:10:51.805
that she cannot publish her
work until given approval

00:10:51.805 --> 00:10:54.452
to do so by the funder?

00:10:54.452 --> 00:10:56.095
Or does the funder require that the data

00:10:56.095 --> 00:10:58.649
remain confidential so that
the research conclusions

00:10:58.649 --> 00:11:03.150
can never be verified within
the scientific community?

00:11:03.150 --> 00:11:05.567
Or are the strings invisible?

00:11:06.507 --> 00:11:09.756
Increasingly, scientists and
professors are self-censoring

00:11:09.756 --> 00:11:12.471
their work in order to appeal to funders.

00:11:12.471 --> 00:11:15.576
And in so doing are
sidestepping important questions

00:11:15.576 --> 00:11:17.504
that may be critical to the public good

00:11:17.504 --> 00:11:19.421
and society as a whole.

00:11:21.041 --> 00:11:22.833
My interviews make clear

00:11:22.833 --> 00:11:25.916
that the funding effect bias is real.

00:11:28.980 --> 00:11:32.478
And, if left unchecked, will
continue to have a real impact

00:11:32.478 --> 00:11:34.764
on what we can know.

00:11:34.764 --> 00:11:38.904
So next time you pick up a
book or a research article,

00:11:38.904 --> 00:11:42.180
check to see who is
funding the author's work.

00:11:42.180 --> 00:11:46.419
And pay close attention to
the author's affiliations.

00:11:46.419 --> 00:11:49.651
In order to be informed
in this information age,

00:11:49.651 --> 00:11:52.271
we need to take extra
measures to vet the legitimacy

00:11:52.271 --> 00:11:55.870
of the content that we rely
on, to develop a critical eye

00:11:55.870 --> 00:11:59.676
for independence, and to
value scientific integrity

00:11:59.676 --> 00:12:01.343
above anything else.

00:12:02.799 --> 00:12:06.643
Information and knowledge require science,

00:12:06.643 --> 00:12:08.532
unfettered and unbiased.

00:12:08.532 --> 00:12:11.727
And it's time we all take
measures to demand it.

00:12:11.727 --> 00:12:12.843
Thank you.

00:12:12.843 --> 00:12:15.843
(audience applause)