Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Publication visibility of sensitive public health data: When scientists bury their results

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study’s authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists’ selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant minority had or would/might, given the right circumstances, publish sensitive data in less visible journals, so as to prevent unwanted media or public attention. Often, even those advocating such limited “burial” upheld openness, claiming that less visible publication allowed them to avoid totally withholding the data from publication. However, 15% of the sample had or would, for the most sensitive types of data, withhold publication altogether. Rather than respondents explaining their actions in terms of an expected split between “pure science” and “social advocacy” models, even those publishing in the more visible journals often described their actions in terms of their “responsibility”. Several practical limitations (particularly involving broader access to scientific literature via the Internet) of the strategy of burial are discussed, and some recommendations are offered for scientists, the media, and the public.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verhoog, H. (1981) The responsibilities of scientists. Minerva 19: 582–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Proctor, R.N. (1991) Value-free science? Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sassower, R. (1996) Responsible technoscience: The haunting reality of Auschwitz and Hiroshima. Science and Engineering Ethics 2: 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beckwith, J. (1995) Villains and heroes in the culture of science. American Scientist 83: 510–512.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ziman, J. (1998) Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science 282(5395): 1813–1814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bardash, L. (2004) Science and social responsibility. Minerva 42: 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Feld, B. (1984) Leo Szilard, scientist for all seasons. Social Research 51: 675–690.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Reid, R.W. (1969) Tongues of conscience. Walker and Co., NY.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kass, L.R. (1971) The new biology: What price relieving man’s estate? Science 174(4011): 779–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nicholas, B. (1999) Molecular geneticists and moral responsibility: “may be if we were working on the atom bomb I would have a different argument”. Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Weiner, C. (2001) Drawing the line in genetic engineering: Self-regulation and public participation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44: 208–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wiener, N. (1947) A scientist rebels. Atlantic Monthly 179(January): 46.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wexler, N. (1992) Clairvoyance and caution: Repercussions from the Human Genome Project, in Kevles, D.J. & Hood, L. eds., Code of codes. Harvard University Press, London: 211–243.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gordon, M.D. (1984) How authors select journals: A test of the reward maximization model of submission behaviour. Social Studies of Science 14: 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rier, D.A. (2003a) Work setting, publication, and scientific responsibility. Science Communication 24: 420–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rier, D.A. (2003b) Gender, lifecourse, and publication decisions in toxic-exposure epidemiology: “Now!” vs. “wait a minute!” Social Studies of Science 33: 269–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rier, D.A. (1999) The versatile “caveat” section of a scientific paper: Managing public and private risk. Science Communication 21: 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rier, D.A. (2004) Audience, consequence, and journal selection in toxic-exposure epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine 59(7): 1541–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coughlin, S.S. (2000) Ethics in epidemiology at the end of the twentieth century: Ethics, values, and mission statements. Epidemiologic Reviews 22: 169–175.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Soskolne, C.L., Jhangri, G.S., Hunter, B. & Close, M. (1996) Interim report on the Joint International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE)—Global Environmental Epidemiology Network (GEENET) Ethics Survey. Science of the Total Environment 184: 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wing, S. (1998) Whose epidemiology, whose health? International Journal of Health Services 28: 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Weed, D.L. & Mink, P.J. (2002) Roles and responsibilities of epidemiologists. Annals of Epidemiology 12: 67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Savitz, D.A., Poole, C. & Miller, W.C. (1999) Reassessing the role of epidemiology in public health. American Journal of Public Health 89: 1158–1161.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nieto, F.J. (2002) Commentary: The epidemiology of self-deprecation. International Journal of Epidemiology 31: 1124–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grinnell, F. (1992) The scientific attitude [2nd ed.]. Guilford, NY.

  26. Merton, R.K. ([1942]1973) The normative structure of science, in Merton, R.K., The sociology of science (Storer, N., ed.). University of Chicago, Chicago: 267–278.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Eamon, W. (1985) From the secrets of nature to public knowledge: The origins of the concept of openness in science. Minerva 23: 321–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Etzkowitz, H. & Webster, A. (1995) Science as intellectual property, in Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C., & Pinch, T., eds. Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, London: 480–505.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Munthe, C. & Welin, S. (1996) The morality of scientific openness. Science and Engineering Ethics 2: 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Campbell, E.G., Clarridge, B.R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N.A. & Blumenthal, D. (2002) Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 473–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McCain, K.W. (1991) Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology & Human Values 16: 491–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chubin, D.E. & Hackett, E.J. (1990) Peerless science. State University of New York, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ziman, J. (1968) Public knowledge. Cambridge University, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Osburn, C.B. (1984) The place of the journal in the scholarly communications system. Library Resources & Technical Services 28: 315–24.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hagstrom, W.O. ([1965]1975) The scientific community. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ravetz, J.R. ([1971]1979) Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford University, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Little, M. (1998) Assignments of meaning in epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine 47: 1135–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sandman, P.M. (1991) Emerging communication responsibilities of epidemiologists. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 44(Suppl. I): 41S-50S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wing, S. (2002) Social responsibility and research ethics in community-driven studies of industrialized hog production. Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 437–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. American College of Epidemiology (2000) Ethical guidelines. URL: http://www.acepidemiology.org/policystmts/EthicsGuide.htm [accessed 23 June, 2004].

  41. Thompson, P.B. (1999) The ethics of truth-telling and the problem of risk. Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 489–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Taubes, G. (1995) Epidemiology faces its limits. Science 269(5221): 164–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kaufman, J.S. (2002). Essay review: “It Ain’t Necessarily So”. International Journal of Epidemiology 31: 259–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mills, J.L. (1987) Reporting provocative results: Can we publish “hot” papers without getting burned? Journal of the American Medical Association 258: 3428–3429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ellison, R.C. (1990) Cheers! [editorial]. Epidemiology 1: 337–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kevles, D.J. (1995) Pursuing the unpopular, in R.S. Silvers, ed. Hidden histories of science. New York Review, NY: 69–112.

    Google Scholar 

  47. e.g., Lesko, S.M., Rosenberg, L., Kaufman, D.W., Helmrich, S.P., Miller, D.R., Strom, B., Schottenfeld, D., Rosenshein, N.B., Knapp, R.C., Lewis, J. & Shapiro, S. (1985) Cigarette smoking and the risk of endometrial cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 313: 593–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine deGruyter, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Soskolne, C.L. (2002) Proposed definitions relating (1) to the suppression of research and (2) to the repression of research [Draft, 11 February]. URL: http://www.iseepi.org/indexl.htm.

  50. Mills, C.W. (1940) Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review 5: 904–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hardey, M. (1999). Doctor in the house: The Internet as a sexual of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Sociology of Health and Illness 21: 820–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fausto-Sterling, A. & Balaban, E. (1993) Genetics and male sexual orientation [letter]. Science 261: 1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lilienfeld, S.O. (2002) When worlds collide: Social science, politics, and the Rind et al. (1998) child sex abuse meta-analysis. American Psychologist 57(3): 176–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Greenberg, M. & Wartenberg, D. (1990) How epidemiologists can improve television network news coverage of disease cluster reports. Epidemiology 1: 167–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Marmot, M. (1996) From alcohol and breast cancer to beef and BSE — Improving our communication of risk [editorial]. American Journal of Public Health 86: 921–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Soskolne, C.L. & Light, A. (1996) Towards ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists. Science of the Total Environment 184: 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Eastwood, S (2000) Ethical scientific reporting and publication: Training the trainees. In Jones, A.H. & McLellan, F., eds., Ethical issues in biomedical publication. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore: 250–275.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Brody, J.E. (1998) Personal health: A study guide to scientific studies. New York Times, 11 August, F7.

  59. Wartenberg, D., Ramsey, D., Warner, J. & Ober, D. (2000) Epidemiology for journalists [revised]. Foundation for American Communications, Pasadena, CA. URL: http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/epidem/index.php3 [accessed 23 June, 2004].

  60. Boffey, P.M., J.E. Rodgers & S.H. Schneider (1999) Interpreting uncertainty: A panel discussion. In Friedman, S.M., Dunwoody, S. & Rogers, C.L., eds., Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Social Issues Research Centre in partnership with the Royal Society and the Royal Institution of Great Britain (2001), Guidelines on science and health communication. Social Issues Research Centre, Oxford. URL: http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.pdf [accessed 23 June, 2004].

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Program in Medical Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    David A. Rier Ph.D.

Authors
  1. David A. Rier Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Rier Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rier, D.A. Publication visibility of sensitive public health data: When scientists bury their results. SCI ENG ETHICS 10, 597–613 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0041-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0041-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation