HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science 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 Smith, A. J. (T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, A. J. (T.

Scientific Freedom

School of Dentistry, University of Birmingham, St Chad’s Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK; a.j.smith{at}bham.ac.uk

As scientists, we cherish the right to research in our chosen field, offering the justification that it is for the good of mankind and will advance society. Perhaps, though, we are a little naïve at times in our perception of what this freedom really means. We are all exposed to a variety of pressures and constraints, which act to inhibit that freedom. Governments impose legislation to directly control what they believe is ethical for the society in which they operate. For instance, stem cell research is permissible in some countries, but not in others, reflecting the lack of trust in the scientific community to research within an ethically acceptable framework. However, peer pressure from that scientific community has demonstrated itself to be powerful in the case of human cloning. Government selectivity in research funding through its various agencies is justified on the basis that it prioritizes the country’s needs for research outputs, but effectively acts to stifle various promising avenues of research. I suspect that Charles Darwin might be accused of being too speculative in his research aims if he were to seek grant funding in the present day. Even within an academic institution, there are pressures on scientific freedom. The race for tenure and promotion by younger faculty members will be guided by pursuit of those areas of research most likely to attract significant grant funding and to lead to high productivity.

Are these controls on scientific freedom justified? Certainly, there are examples where the scientific community has not been effective in its self-regulation. New legislation on the use of human tissues is being debated in the UK Parliament at present as a consequence of one or two individuals being unethical in their approach to the retention of post mortem human organs, and many other pieces of legislation in different countries have probably arisen for other reasons. However, this ignores the fact that self-regulation by the research community has generally been highly effective in our approach to ethical issues. Research governance has come from within the scientific community rather than being imposed upon it. Governmental control on research funding leads to selectivity, which can result in exclusion for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, there is only limited long-term retrospective audit of the true benefits of research funding policies, and little responsibility is taken for these policies unless they are shown to have been of demonstrable benefit. High-cost research is welcomed with open arms at the institutional level because of the income it derives, but there is still much low-budget research of immense significance to be undertaken.

If we are to achieve greater scientific freedom, the research community must demonstrate that it is capable of self-regulation and governance. We must ensure that we engender research approaches in which the public has confidence. This requires that robust peer review of experimental design is in place through Institutional Review Boards and Local Research Ethical Committees, and that protocols are documented through measures such as the CONSORT guidelines statement (Moher et al., 2001) and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (http://www.controlled-trials.com/). Our peer review process for publication of research should be rigorous and effective in preventing scientific fraud. The findings of our research should be accessible to all through measures such as the DC Principles for Free Access (http://www.dcprinciples.org/) and MIAME (http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame.html) compliant databases. We are often not very good at public engagement in science and lose valuable opportunities to gain endorsement for our research from our fellow members of society. The growth of press offices in many universities has generally been valuable in bringing major new research findings to the attention of the public, but has a limited role in terms of engagement of the public in research. Finding effective strategies to encourage public engagement in science is not easy, but is imperative if we wish to receive their support. Political advocacy is a critical activity in gaining this public support and in having influence on our destiny. The AADR provides a good model in this respect through its National Affairs Committee.

Perhaps before we become too vocal about our freedom and opportunities to research in the way we wish, it will be necessary to ensure that we engage more effectively with the public and demonstrate the robustness of our own research governance.

REFERENCE

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, CONSORT Group (2001). The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Int Med 134:657–662.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science 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 Smith, A. J. (T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, A. J. (T.