In the mid-1980s, social scientists compared outcome measures of related drug studies, some funded by private companies and others by nonprofit organizations or government agencies. The concept of a “funding effect” was coined when it was discovered that study outcomes could be statistically correlated with funding sources, largely in drug safety and efficacy studies. Also identified in tobacco research and chemical toxicity studies, the “funding effect” is often attributed, implicitly or explicitly, to research bias. This article discusses the meaning of (...) scientific bias in research, examines the strongest evidence for the “funding effect,” and explores the question of whether the “funding effect” is an indicator of biased research that is driven by the financial interests of the for-profit sponsor. This article argues that the “funding effect” is merely a symptom of the factors that could be responsible for outcome disparities in product assessment. Social scientists should not suspend their skepticism and choose as a default hypothesis that bias is always or typically the cause. (shrink)

This study examines the extent to which scientific and biomedical journals have adopted conflict of interest (COI) policies for authors, and whether the adoption and content of such policies leads to the publishing of authors’ financial interest disclosure statements by such journals. In particular, it reports the results of a survey of journal editors about their practices regarding COI disclosures. About 16 percent of 1396 highly ranked scientific and biomedical journals had COI policies in effect during 1997. Less than 1 (...) percent of the articles published during that year in the journals with COI policies contained any disclosures of author personal financial interests while nearly 66 percent of the journals had zero disclosures of author personal financial interests. Nearly three fourths of journal editors surveyed usually publish author disclosure statements suggesting that low rates of personal financial disclosures are either a result of low rates of author financial interest in the subject matter of their publications or poor compliance by authors to the journals’ COI policies. (shrink)

Prominent scientists and policymakers assert with confidence that there is no scientific controversy over the health effects of genetically modified organisms —that genetically modified crops currently in commercial use and those yet to be commercialized are inherently safe for human consumption and do not have to be tested. Those who disagree are cast as “GMO deniers.” This article examines scientific reviews and papers on GMOs, compares the findings of professional societies, and discusses the treatment of scientists who have reported adverse (...) effects in animal feeding experiments. This article concludes by exploring the role that politics and corporate interests have had in distorting an honest inquiry into the health effects of GMO crops. (shrink)

Disclosure of financial interests in scientific research is the centerpiece of the new conflict of interest regulations issued by the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation that became effective October 1, 1995. Several scientific journals have also established financial disclosure requirements for contributors. This paper measures the frequency of selected financial interests held among authors of certain types of scientific publications and assesses disclosure practices of authors. We examined 1105 university authors (first and last cited) from Massachusetts (...) institutions whose 789 articles, published in 1992, appeared in 14 scientific and medical journals. (shrink)

No longer viewed by scientists as the cell’s fixed master molecule, DNA is a dynamic script that is ad-libbed at each stage of development. What our parents hand down to us is just the beginning. Genetic Explanations urges us to replace our faith in genetic determinism with scientific knowledge about genetic plasticity and epigenetic inheritance.

Three uses of critical thought experiments outlined in the paper are related to general questions of evaluation. A proposal offered by Karl Popper concerning the so-called "apologetic" use of Gedankenexperimente is critically assessed. Specifically, his methodological principle that one should not use a second theory in order to defend a first theory against a critical thought experiment is discussed with reference to the photon-box Gedankenexperiment and the Maxwell-demon paradox. It is argued that the rescuing of one theory from conceptual anomaly (...) by appealing to another need not constitute a misuse of a critical thought experiment. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page 15-16.

The rapid commercialization of applied genetics in the mtd-1970s, accompanied by a sudden rise in academic-corporate partnerships, raised questions about the impacts these linkages have had on the social and professional norms of scientists. The extent and pattern of faculty tnvolvement in commercialization of biological research is largely an unexplored area. This article provcdes a quantitative assessment of the linkages between biology faculty in American uncverscties and the newly formed biotechnology industry. The results of thes study, covering the period 1985-88, (...) show that academic scientists responded en masse to participating in the commercialization of genetecs research by estabhshmg formal associations with many of the new biotechnology compances. A data base consisting of 889 U.S. and Canadian biotechnology companies and 832 sccentcsts who had formal ties to them was developed over a four-year period. The patterns of academic-corporate Icnkages are revealed by institution. Three universities with the most commercially active faculty are Harvard, Stanford, and MIT. Of the 359 bcomedeca! scientists and geneteccsts who were members of the Nateonal Academy of Sceences, at minimum, 37% had formal ties with the biotechnology industry. (shrink)

Stem cells and the emerging field of regenerative medicine are at the frontiers of modern medicine. These areas of scientific inquiry suggest that in the future, damaged tissue and organs might be repaired through personalized cell therapy as easily as the body repairs itself, revolutionizing the treatment of numerous diseases. Yet the use of stem cells is fraught with ethical and public policy dilemmas that challenge scientists, clinicians, the public health community, and people of good will everywhere. How shall we (...) deal with these amazing biomedical advances, and how can we talk about potential breakthroughs with both moral and scientific intelligence? This book provides an innovative look at these vexing issues through a series of innovative Socratic dialogues that elucidate key scientific and ethical points in an approachable manner. Addressing the cultural and value issues underlying stem cell research while also educating readers about stem cells' biological function and medical applications, _Stem Cell Dialogues_ features fictional characters engaging in compelling inquiry and debate. Participants investigate the scientific, political, and socioethical dimensions of stem cell science using actual language, analysis, and arguments taken from scientific, philosophical, and popular literature. Each dialogue centers on a specific, recognizable topic, such as the policies implemented by the George W. Bush administration restricting the use of embryonic stem cells; the potential role of stem cells in personalized medicine; the ethics of cloning; and the sale of eggs and embryos. Additionally, speakers debate the use of stem cells to treat paralysis, diabetes, stroke effects, macular degeneration, and cancer. Educational, entertaining, and rigorously researched, _Stem Cell Dialogues_ should be included in any effort to help the public understand the science, ethics, and policy concerns of this promising field. (shrink)

The controversy over glyphosate-based herbicides, where there is extreme divergences in health and environmental assessments, is rooted in several methodological and normative factors. Foremost among them are the differences found in testing pure glyphosate compared to the testing of glyphosate formulations. The adjuvant chemicals found in formulations can be more toxic than the so-called “active ingredient.” Other factors can also account for why scientists reach different conclusions on the toxicological effects of GBH including the preconceptions and methodological choices they bring (...) into the study. Lack of consensus on the science can be problematic for policymakers. The paper argues that the toxicological science behind the GBH assessments is embedded in a normative substratum, which must be considered in policy decisions. (shrink)

The introduction of genetically engineered crops in agriculture in the mid-1990s has been heralded as the advent of the Second Green Revolution. Among the expectations were high yields, fewer inputs like pesticides, and new nutritionally enhanced foods. Around the same period that traditional breeding was eclipsed by molecular breeding, the concept of sustainability was introduced into the working lexicon of many disciplines, practitioners, and corporations. This chapter discusses the principles of sustainability and their applications to agriculture, evaluates specific GMOs against (...) the criteria for sustainable agriculture, and argues that GMO crops must be understood within an agro-ecological system. (shrink)

U.S Courts have ruled that one’s genetic information is covered by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which affords persons protection against unreasonable search and seizures of their personal property and personal space. The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) protects people from discrimination in health insurance and employment based on genetic information. The European Union issued the General Data Protection Regulation, which included genetic information. Yet with the development and application of DNA identification in criminal investigations, governments have amassed the (...) genetic information of millions of people. And, with the rise of consumer genetics, especially since DNA ancestry tests went commercial in 2000, dozens of companies have amassed millions of personal DNA samples that are sold to various companies for analysis beyond their intended genealogical purpose. Where is the balance between the protection of people’s genetic information and the commercial and forensic acquisition of personal genetic data? How can genetic information be protected under the Fourth Amendment’s privacy provisions, as well as privacy laws in other countries, and yet be so whimsically distributed throughout society, so easily acquired by police, and voluntarily released to companies? (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology. By Philip J. Pauly.

Book reviewed in this article: Politics and the Restraint of Science. By Leonard A. Cole.