Secrecy in science is corrosive

Friday, April 09, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Tags: scientific fraud, secrecy, health news

(NaturalNews) Secrecy undermines the practice of good science, charges Michael Schrage in an opinion piece published in the Financial Times, and governments need to step in and provide more incentives for open sharing of data.

"On issues of the greatest importance for public policy, science researchers are less transparent than they should be," Schrage writes. "That behavior undermines science, policy and public trust."

Schrage cites the recent scandal over emails stolen from the computers of climate researchers at the University of East Anglia as an example of the distortions caused by a modern climate of secrecy and competition in science. Although there is no evidence that researchers falsified data as some climate skeptics have alleged, the Associated Press concluded that "One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. ... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method."

Schrage also notes that only recently have many U.S. universities begun to require that drug researchers expose financial ties to the companies that make the products they are testing.

"Too many scientists in academia, industry and government are allowed to get away with concealing or withholding vital information about their data, research methodologies and results," Schrage writes. "That is unacceptable and must change."

Schrage notes that if drug companies were forced to share the results of all studies they conduct on new drugs, and not just positive findings, dangerous drugs would be less likely to be approved or could be pulled from the market sooner.

As a step toward changing the secretive climate of science, Schrage suggests that public funding, nonprofit status and university certification all be made contingent upon the adoption of certain transparency standards.

"Why should ... taxpayers fund scientists who deliberately delay, obfuscate and deny open access to their research?" he writes.

"Why should responsible policymakers in America, Europe, Asia and Latin America make decisions affecting people's health, wealth and future based on opaque and inaccessible science? They should not."

Sources for this story include: www.ft.com; www.usnews.com.