Conflict of Interest 

MARTIN UHLIR, Lidové Noviny (independent) Prague, Czech Republic 26jan02

Translated by World Press Review v.49, n.4 Apr02

A group of scholars gathered in Prague in January to explore the effects of commerce and public opinion on the conduct of science. Their discussions touched on the subject of a cancer treatment much in the news in the Czech Republic. Known as "devitalization," it involves cutting off the blood supply to a malignant tumor without, as is customary, removing the tumor itself. -- WPR 

WHAT IS THE FATE of scientific knowledge in modern society? What does the controversy over the treatment of cancer by means of so-called devitalization show? Do scholarly journals offer independent and objective articles? These are among the questions recently pondered by participants at Prague's Lannova Villa. 

Hot Potato

When Arpad Pusztai (right) questioned the safety of genetically modified potatoes, 
some colleagues accused him of sloppy research. He lost his job. 
But the tables turned when his peers' critique came 
under scientific review-and doubt. 

Contemporary scientific research does not take place in a vacuum; rather, it occurs in a world fraught with economic and political constraints. In mid January, participants in a colloquium titled "Political Life of Scientific Fact"-Czech, Swiss, and German scientists discussed problems regarding such research. Gerd Folkers, of Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich (ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich), described a complicated journey that would call into question scientific findings if it were made known to newspaper readers or television viewers. 

Normally, such a path ought to include an external review-that is, a process in which a new discovery or finding is judged by independent experts. Without review, research results cannot be published in a prestigious scholarly journal and made accessible to one's colleagues. Frequently, however, scientists take a shortcut on this complex pilgrimage and appeal immediately to the media. This approach has a number of advantages. The researcher concerned finds himself at the center of attention and can more easily obtain grant money. Yet it can also lead to unfortunate conclusions, as the story of British scientist Arpad Pusztai shows. Several years ago he opened himself to ridicule when he prematurely published his unconfirmed research findings [regarding the dangers posed by genetically modified food]. 

Participants in the meeting discussed devitalization, a new method for treating malignant tumors whose efficacy has not been experimentally proved. Zdenek Konopasek, a sociologist of science from Charles University's Center for Theoretical Study, focused on the mode of argumentation employed by two divided groups: opponents of devitalization and supporters of the treatment. He emphasized that from the very beginning, neither side followed the textbook rules of scholarly communication. They mainly wanted to hear whatever would support their own personal opinions. 

Devitalization's opponents like to appeal to confirmed facts. They sharply distinguish between scientists and lay persons, between what is "scientific" and what is not. Someone who acts in an unscientific manner upsets the principles that they hold so dear. Such sins have a harsher ring than the same sins committed by advocates of a new method. 

In this regard, it is noteworthy that on the Web site of the Union of Patients-an organization that passionately supports devitalization-one can find mainly those assertions, documents, and opinions that cast a positive light on this method of treatment. Even more noteworthy, of course, is the fact that the Web pages of organizations responsible for the first phase of the research already completed do not offer any information about experimental results or doctors' findings. It is difficult, as well, to understand how the very same people who are responsible for these experiments can criticize devitalization in the media and openly declare that they do not believe in it. 

While professor Konopasek offered the perspective of a sociologist of science in his presentation, the discussion that followed showed just how sensitive a subject the new treatment method is for biological scientists. Why didn't the propagators of devitalization seek more aggressively to gain recognition for their method among specialists before turning to the media? Why didn't they document their experiments more thoroughly? These were some of the questions asked. In response to Konopasek's presentation, doctors present noted that critics of devitalization who are well-known to the media do not represent the "silent majority" of specialists. The majority does not, a priori, reject the new approach. It mainly insists that scientists, who are testing the method on animals, show clear immunological proof and that they furnish it more carefully than they have in the past.

Colloquium participants discussed many other subjects. Jiri Grygar, an astrophysicist, analyzed the financial resources invested by the state in current physics and astronomy projects. He emphasized that all the investments paled by comparison with the cost of the International Space Station. The price of that orbital complex will indeed reach an astronomical amount-as much as US$65 billion. The United States will make the greatest contribution. Scientists studying the universe usually work with much lower budgets. The price of an experimental device launched into space shouldn't be more than a billion dollars. Of course, as biologists at the colloquium remarked, this would be a fantastic amount for a specialist in stem-cell research.

Meanwhile, it is not at all clear that the space station will have any scientific benefit. The considerations leading to its construction, according to Grygar, resemble those that drove Charles IV [Holy Roman emperor, 1355-78, and King of Bohemia, 1347-78] to build the Hunger Wall. [The Hunger Wall, in Prague, was begun as a work project to aid the poor during a famine.-WPR] The space complex mainly is supposed to create new orders for American firms with ties to the space program.

Why, however, didn't the Americans instead invest in plans for a manned flight to Mars? Grygar believes that people will never fly to the red planet. This can be accomplished quite well by increasingly advanced robots. The contributions of participant Marina Weiss, from ETH, turned attention back to earthly matters. Weiss recalled a surprising declaration last year by the editors of 12 leading medical journals (The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, among others). The editors declared that unless certain measures were taken, they could not guarantee in the future the objectivity and independence of published studies. In other words, research studies are frequently manipulated behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical firms that finance them. The goal is to publish only those results that favor those firms.

Although a given study is usually printed with the name of a university professor, the scholar concerned has little control over how the research was proposed and conducted and how the data obtained are published. This is a genuine problem, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for example, which decides which pharmaceuticals will be brought to market, depends on the objectivity of studies published in prestigious journals.

How do the journals in question defend themselves? The majority have decided to publish only studies whose authors have the right to reveal freely the data they have obtained: in other words, to publish all information they regard as relevant. To this end, they can protect themselves by means of an agreement with the pharmaceutical firms. Moreover, publications now request information on sources of financing and personal or other constraints that may call into question the authors' independence. This information becomes a part of the specialized article and is published together with it.