A Bill of Responsibilities for Whistleblowers in Science

^a Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208–3113, USA

	INTRODUCTION

TOP INTRODUCTION

 
The term `whistleblower' is defined in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as "one who reveals something covert." Many observers feel that a whistleblower in science should promptly be praised for alert observation and high ethical standards, and should always be protected from adverse reactions. Thus, the 1996 report of the Commission on Scientific Integrity (Ryan committee) proposes a "bill of rights for whistleblowers." Perhaps such a Bill of Rights should be formulated. Equally important, however, is a parallel Bill of Responsibilities.

In recent times, as well as in the past, numerous cases of whistleblowing have not survived scrutiny by local institutions, by federal investigating bodies, or in the judgment of scientific history. For example, three recent high profile cases (Fisher, Popovic in Gallo's laboratory, Imanishi-Kari in Baltimore's laboratory) ended in the exoneration of the individual accused.

Periodically one also sees accusations of scientific misconduct that the scientific world considers frivolous, misguided, or to be based on ignorance, and then simply ignores. For example, many individuals have claimed that nuclear `cold-fusion' does indeed create energy and that critics of the work are guilty of "gross misconduct and fraud," arrogance, conflict of interest, and even conspiracy. And we still see publications from whistleblowers attacking Einstein's theory of relativity, e.g., Otto Luther's Einstein is Dead.

We should also be aware of the baleful effects of much whistleblowing in science in the past. Newton's experiences in optics is a classic case. Newton's experiments on the passage of light through prisms were first described publicly in 1670; almost immediately, an avalanche of reports appeared contradicting his experimental claims and attacking his scientific integrity. His critics included Edmé Mariotte in France, Gottfried Leibniz in Germany, and Giovanni Rizzetti from Venice. Even a century later, Johann Wolfgang Goethe accused Newton of "pettifogging tricks, captious methods and deliberate deceit." Fortunately, Newton was not receiving grants from the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health.

At least Newton's personal safety was not at risk. Galileo was not so fortunate. In 1616, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in Rome made the following pronouncement about the two central propositions of "Galileo's doctrine" on celestial motions:

The first proposition was declared unanimously to be foolish and absurd on philosophy and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture . . . both in literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Fathers and Doctors. . . . [The second proposition] merits the same censure in philosophy, and that, from a theological viewpoint it is at least erroneous in the faith.

Galileo was admonished to abandon his views or be subject to dire punishment.

Three centuries later, similar threats faced Einstein. A Nobelist in physics, a proponent of `Aryan physics', wrote:

The most important example of the dangerous influence of Jewish circles on the study of nature has been provided by Herr Einstein with his mathematically botched-up theories consisting of some ancient ideas and a few arbitrary additions. This theory now gradually falls to pieces [italics added].

We see that whistleblowers can inflict great harm on individuals and, if they have strong political ties, on societies. For Fisher, Popovic, and Imanishi-Kari, their reputations were severely damaged and their careers mutilated. Of the less sensational cases reviewed by the Office of Research Integrity, 70% of the accused were exonerated, yet the harm done was not expunged. Likewise, the whistleblowing of the `Aryan physicists' was enormously destructive to their society. Fifty years after the Nazis' demise, it seems unlikely that German physics will ever regain the preeminence it held in the early 1900s. Decades after the downfall of the Lysenkoists, Russian genetics is still struggling to reach a modicum of recognition.

A Bill of Responsibilities should focus on three general concerns. 1) Does the individual have the knowledge to judge another's scientific actions? We need to be reminded of the Roman satirist Juvenal's observation, "to express an opinion is easy, to acquire the necessary knowledge is arduous." 2) Is the accuser aware of the influence of personal religious commitments, political, economic, cultural, class and ethnic affiliations, racial, sexual, social, and other predispositions? 3) Is the critic being prompted by deep-seated personal motivations? Scientists are people first. Human beings are moved by vanity, ambition, greed, jealousy, avarice . . . , as well as by generosity, integrity, solicitude, compassion, veracity and sense of justice. As David Hume pointed out, "these passions . . . are the source of all actions . . . among mankind."

A Bill of Responsibilities would alert a potential whistleblower to these concerns and would reduce the frequency of accusations of scientific misbehavior that are subsequently judged to be unwarranted.

	FOOTNOTES

 
¹ Correspondence: Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208–3113, USA.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Klotz, I. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Klotz, I. M.