Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Self-Regulation—So Good, How Can it Fail?

Commentary on “The Problems with Forbidding Science”

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

Abstract

To be a functional alternative to government regulation, self-regulation of science must be credible to both scientists and the public, accountable, ethical, and effective. According to some, serious problems continue in research ethics in the United States despite a rich history of proposed self-regulatory standards and oversight devices. Successful efforts at self-regulation in stem cell research contrast with unsuccessful efforts in research ethics, particularly conflicts of interest. Part of the cause for a lack of success in self-regulation is fragmented, disconnected oversight, and failure to embody genuine scientific and public consensus. To be accountable, credible and effective, self-regulation must be inclusive and multidisciplinary, publicly engaged, sufficiently disinterested, operationally integrated with institutional goals, and must implement a genuine consensus among scientists and the public. The mechanisms of self-regulation must be sufficiently broad in their oversight, and interconnected with other institutional forces and actors, that they do not create fragmented solutions.

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

Notes

  1. Proceedings of the American Bar Association Conference on Emerging Issues in Health Law, Orlando, Florida, February 23–25, 2005. A later version, acknowledging this earlier talk, was published in this journal (Taylor 2005).

References

  • AAMC-AAU Advisory Committee on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Human Subject Research. (2008). Protecting patients, preserving integrity, advancing health: accelerating the implementation of COI policies in human subject research. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges. Accessed March 2009, from https://services.aamc.org/Publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=220&cfid=1&cftoken=C998E469-03F9-4B76-9747113775791800.

  • Angell, M. (2000). Is academic medicine for sale? The New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1516–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. AHRPP Standards (revised 2001–2009). Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. Accessed March 2009, form http://www.aahrpp.org/www.aspx?PageID=21.

  • Association of American Medical Colleges. (1990). Guidelines for Dealing with Faculty Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest in Research.

  • Association of American Medical Colleges. (2004). U.S. medical school policies on individual financial conflicts of interest: Results of an AAMC survey. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Universities. (1993). Framework Document on Managing Financial Conflicts of Interest.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M. K., Shohara, R., Schissel, A., & Rennie, D. (2000). Policies on Faculty Conflicts of Interest at U.S. Universities. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 2203–2208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Assessing the System for Protecting Human Research Participants of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Medicine. (2002). Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. (2005). Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council on Scientific Affairs, the Council on Ethical, Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. (1990). Conflicts of interest in medical center/industry research relationships. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 2790–2793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daley, G. Q., Richter, L. A., Auerbach, J. M., Benvenisty, N., Charo, R. A., Chen, G., et al. (2007). The ISSCR guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. Science, 315, 603–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarose, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(15), 1833–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., Cantor, A., Fields, K. K., Bennett, C. L., Adams, J. R., et al. (2000). The uncertainty principle in industry-sponsored research. Lancet, 356(9230), 635–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazen, J. M. (2002). Institutions, contracts and academic freedom. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1362–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E. J., Wood, A., Fleischman, A., Bowen, A., Getz, K. A., Grady, C., et al. (2004). Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 141, 282–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accounting Office. (2001). Biomedical research: HHS direction needed to address financial conflicts of interest.

  • General Accounting Office. (2003). University research: Most federal agencies need to better protect against financial conflicts of interest. GAO-04-31.

  • Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Task Force, International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2006). Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. Chicago, IL: International Society for Stem Cell Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2007). Technologies of humility. Nature, 450(7166), 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, M. M. E., Barnes, M., & Florencio, P. S. (2003). Restoring balance to industry-academic relationships in an era of financial conflicts of interest. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 741–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, J. (2008). Ethics: Senate inquiry on research conflicts shifts to grantees. Science, 320(5884), 1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korn, D. (2003). Clinical trial agreements between medical schools and industry, correspondence. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koski, G., Aungst, J., Kupersmith, J., Getz, K., & Rimoin, D. (2005). Cooperative ethics review boards: A win-win solution? IRB Ethics and Human Research, 27(3), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, B., Wolf, L. E., & Berkeley, A. (2000). Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1616–1620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G. E. & Pope, L. (2009). The problems with forbidding science. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9130-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & deVries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrary, S., Anderson, C., Jakovljevic, J., Khan, T., McCullough, L. B., Wray, N. P., et al. (2000). A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1621–1626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mello, M. M., Clarridge, B. R., & Studdert, D. M. (2005). Academic medical centers’ standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 2202–2210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, H., I. I. I., Braunwald, E., Martin, J. B., & Their, S. O. (2003). Collaborating with industry—choices for the academic medical center. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1371–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, D. G., & Weatherall, D. J. (2002). Academic freedom in clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1368–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. (2002). Financial conflict of interest: Objectivity in research.

  • NIH. (1999). Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Research Grants and Contracts on Obtaining and Disseminating Biomedical Research Resources: Final Notice, 64 Fed. Reg. 72090.

  • Office of Human Research Protections. (2003). Financial relationships and interests in research involving human subjects: Guidance for human subject protection. 68 Fed.Reg 15456.

  • Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Protecting human research subjects—Status of recommendations. Accessed March 2009, form http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00197.pdf.

  • Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Outside activities of Senior-Level NIH Employees. OEI 1-04-00150. Accessed March 2009, from http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-04-00150.pdf.

  • Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). National institutes of health: Conflicts of interest in extramural research. OEI 3-06-00460. Accessed March 2009, from http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-03-06-00460.pdf.

  • Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). The food and drug administration’s oversight of clinical investigators’ financial information. Accessed March 2009, from http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-07-00730.pdf.

  • Olson, C. M., Rennie, D., Cook, D., Dickersin, K., Flanagin, A., Hogan, J. W., Zhu, Q., Reiling, J., & Pace, B. (2002). Publication bias in editorial decision-making. The Journal of the American Medical Association. ORI website: Accessed March 2009, from http://ori.hhs.gov/education/.

  • Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (‘PhRMA”). (2004). Principles on conduct of clinical trials and communication of clinical trial results. Accessed March 2009, from http://www.phrma.org/files/Clinical%20Trials.pdf.

  • Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). (1998). Working Group on Research Tools, Presented to the Advisory Committee to the Director. Accessed March 2009, from http://www.nih.gov/news/researchtools/index.htm.

  • Schulman, K. A., Seils, D. M., Timbie, J. W., et al. (2002). A national survey of provisions in clinical trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1335–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stossel, T. P. (2005). Regulating academic–industry research relationships—solving problems or stifling progress? The New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1060–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Task Force for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells, International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2008). Guidelines for the conduct of clinical translation of stem cells. Chicago, IL: International Society for Stem Cell Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. (2001). Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress I—policy and guidelines for the oversight of individual financial interests in human subjects research. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. (2003). Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress II—principles and recommendations for oversight of an institution’s financial interests and human subject research. Academic Medicine, 78, 114–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. L. (2005). The gap between law and ethics in stem cell research: Overcoming the effect of federal policy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 589–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. L. (2007a). Research sharing, ethics and public benefit. Nature Biotechnology, 25(4), 398–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. L. (2007b). Rules of engagement. Nature, 450(7167), 163–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Public Health Service Regulations on Research Misconduct. 42 CFR Parts 50, 93. Accessed March 2009, from http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/FR_Doc_05-9643.shtml.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Medical School, Children’s Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Patrick L. Taylor

Authors
  1. Patrick L. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick L. Taylor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taylor, P.L. Scientific Self-Regulation—So Good, How Can it Fail?. Sci Eng Ethics 15, 395–406 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9123-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9123-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation