Scientific Misconduct: The Perversion of Scientific Evidence for Policy Advocacy

• Author: George H Avery
• Date: 01 December 2010
• Published date: 01 December 2010
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.2202/1948-4682.1132

World Medical & Health Policy

www.psocommons.org/wmhp

Vol. 2: Iss. 4, Article 3 (2010)

Scientific Misconduct: The Perversion

of Scientific Evidence for Policy

Advocacy

George H. Avery, Ph.D., MPA, Purdue University

Abstract

Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify

political choices based on their ethical preferences, and who are willing to act to

suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality.

This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, healthcare and climate policy.

In the area of climate policy, recent revelations of emails from the government-

sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of

data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to

suppress contradictory studies and indicate that scientific misconduct has been used

intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers’ advocacy

of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.

In healthcare policy, critics have long worried about the inordinate influence of

pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers on research to show the safety

and viability of new products. Recent information, however, shows that government

agencies may cause more problems in this area, a worrisome development

considering that legislation currently before the U.S. Senate would allow federal

agencies to punish organizations whose researchers publish results that conflict with

what the agency feels is appropriate.

That bill allows the withholding of funding to an institu tion where a researcher

publishes findings not “within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the

evidence,” a vague authorization that creates a tremendous tool that can be used to

ensure self-censorship and conformity with bureaucratic preferences. As the

- 17 -

© 2010 Policy Studies Organization