200 Years; Scientific Research and the Public Interest

from communication center the university of texas at austin this is two hundred years in the year nineteen seventy six the american republic celebrates its two hundredth anniversary as a part of the us bicentennial program at the university of texas at austin two hundred years explores the past present and future dynamics of history's longest living democratic society this as rex we're for two hundred years this week we will be talking about scientific research in the public interest with a ceramic redford as will smith professor and the lyndon b johnson school of public affairs at the university of texas at austin marshall brieger assistant professor of law at the university and alan sutton ut austin vice president for research and professor of zoology many of the issues involved in the regulation of scientific research and the public interest are currently under scrutiny by scientists and laymen as well as representatives of the government

is regulation researcher revolutionary girl hold on or regulation by government is at least a revolutionary idea in this country the revolutionary in the sense that we think that there are certain experiments that should be done or should not be done course the government has regulated what is done very effectively the last two decades by deciding what to pay for that there has never been previously the question of doing a particular study simply because it shouldn't be done even though no money is required for but some legal experts say learning thierry the regulation research is revolutionary in practice on the social if it actually is or has been bought informal economic incentives often structured research efforts

in other country's socialist countries as example certain kinds of studies were viewed as such improper certain scientific theories those of y cinco in genetics with band are in our own country and world war two heavy emphasis was placed on the war research leading to the development of the nuclear bomb i'd say as well that they walk up sort of informal controls self censorship censorship by scientific publications are all these pushed research in particular areas as the formal controls until now they really has not been any extent in the area drug research in the area of research which results in experimentation on human subjects include past few years says researchers have to pass scrutiny of a safety vault ethical control committee and eric sperber on regulation on the government of

yemen well lived go ahead independent a bombshell regulations and the research area and that's already been referred to through the journals and go through the collaboration with scientists with a grant agencies in government the government itself is important in determining what research will be dominant what conditions because it is so important first attention grabbing agents and second big ocean research it conducts itself in shenzhen area defense department or the in it what kinds of regulation are possible now we mentioned to historian nablus on a show on analysis of the question namely in the economic and trauma is probably the biggest funder research

obviously it can dictate certain directions and research and as has been pointed out the scientific journals which again are the scientist is the permanent home especially in academic world can control to a large extent what kinds of results of research are published about other regulations and control is that we're likely to encounter they're better comment on the role of publication of a means of regulation because i do not believe that most reputable scientific journals turn down articles that they feel raphael the research they shouldn't have been done they are turning down on the basis of the quality of the work i do not recall in some years reviewing articles and eight article in which i felt the work itself was basically unethical or improper i've certainly seen a

lot of them and i said i wonder why they bothered to do it and ask for the hurt a somewhat different issue i would just does suggest that belden that in british journal the least the lancet has been an extensive debate as to whether or not the journal nature published work of scientific merit which use an unethical methodology a weathered the general should publish a comment of pointing out the unethical character of the research design art and weathered the general should encourage discussion after the ethical quality of a resurgent output so at least this question has become one which is being discussed by medical journals at the same time i do believe that there's been discussion in the popular press about various studies in terms of like use of ethnic groups by professor

janssen are and shockley and here again they've been suggestions that these are in this type of research i should not receive publication or should receive only control publication i really cannot see that as an effective means of control because as long as we have freedom of the press professor shockley you will find a way to get his ideas across and so publication in that sense i think it's not an effective means of control i do think however that the journals should examine their position on publishing certain kinds of research a lot of nerve journals are basically international journals so and what is considered ethical and one country may not be ethical and another country certain types of studies cannot be done in this country and back

are quite welcome and other countries and vice versa so i think we need to look at another level if we want to effectively to control that kind of research that is being i should like to discuss or bring up this point no one kind of control that has been suggested one that bothers me a little that we've seen a great deal in the press recently concerning the review of grant applications to federal agencies by congress acts this is one type of regulation those make scientists somewhat nervous because they do not want to i feel for the most part the

politicians are an inventor judges of what should or shouldn't be done her then they themselves are and yet in congress soon control the purse strings will certainly control what research is being done most grand agent shouldn't try to resist interview by congress looked a gravitation and that does not mean that kid at the time of their budget due consideration for the gruesome punishment overheard what they regard as your event grants for research but the depression time where the but grant agencies have been rather rather well able to resist congressional an influence on the types of grants that will be made i think i mean i agree that they have been quite successful and i

will even agree that congress has a right to judge the effectiveness of the growing agency in terms of what they do with their money i think the problem arises when individual grants abroad and for review and a particular congressional committee say sarah's work shouldn't be done in this area of course this is not a formal regulation but it certainly affect the regulation and the national science foundation about a particularly hard time but never god possibly the quarterly an exposure given to senator bob meyers golden fleece award i would be interested held in your view as to whether focusing research efforts on a particular scientific problems such

as a quote cure for cancer or an attempt to remedy prompts of heart disease and limiting grants in the biomedical areas example through research connected to these problematic things as scientific value whether this kind of controlled research as opposed to a laissez faire approach would actually yield more bang for the buck it's a great deal a great deal depends on how such programs are implemented in the past we live with and the washington jargon is called a categorical support that his support for cancer or heart long's even though the us side is we recognize that our bodies are not totally just a series of unrelated are in systems and that the basic

metabolism affects every organ your research you've supported in basic areas as and it is recognized that basic research is absolutely essential to build more targeted research then that's fine and this has been the way it has been carried out on the other hand there is more and more political demand for results on heart disease and cancer there is attendance eight to fund the application that has more clearly dealing with clinical cancer and clinical heart disease at the expense of the basic projects that may impact on the cover the key that will solve the problem of our research program and why's administrators i think we've been remarkably like the at

this point hope we can continue i want to know if we can actually expect the congress to assert itself overall long haul with basic research when it's so many pressing on social means for which we would well you live applied research on this is true of course that it's possible that basic research in one area might yield spinoffs of value in them in the applied field but if we have to get that money why shouldn't congress given out just to the areas which will yield a payoff which people are concerned about heart disease cancer that sort of thing will have to mimic one comment in here alongside my mother's criticism recently kocher i guess one would call it that

we sink if you put enough money into anything a vote especially in area of cancer that day you'll find a gear and look how long now we've had the socal war on cancer and the full results emerged have them not very impressive amount him out specific targeted area and so when i wouldn't would suggest that palin is that you might take that into consideration were applying for this album so there's a quite a difference between discovering new scientific principles as we need to in the case of cancer compared to going to the moon which was a matter of putting together a well established scientific principles if you already have the information than putting lots of money together may well then they would do to put the information together and accomplish some discrete target the case of cancer we have learned a

great deal about it all what more than we did ten years ago but there remains some basic scientific laws that need to be established and if we could anticipate exactly where the results would be you would even take much money perhaps to accomplish that go the problem is we need to have a lot of people are testing out a lot of different ideas some of whom hope we will be right most of the really wrong but i can tell now which ones are going to be wrong and which ones are going to be right in effect the more money you put in the more likely you are to discover it but one shouldn't expect that spending one hundred million dollars will get you just have this far is two hundred million dollars well it doesn't quite measure up that way i wonder if we don't need to recognize in this discussion that they are a

question of public interest that are involved in this question of scientific research and that the representative of the people and must do consider what those public interest are and whether some coverage on should be made to them in the element of safety for example it may be that there is a public interest in a safe conduct research and that we need to recognize that the political representatives of the people will have to consider one response to that need for public safety has been adequate in the scientific community are asked whether any public steps need to be taken to ensure that their safety will exist and research i agree completely with we should conduct research in a savory way as possible

and we're going to recognize that there are risks in many areas of research that traditionally we think of as being absolutely safe when the first studies were done on nuclear energy the risk of course was recognized and safeguards were taken and that continues to characterize the nuclear studies of course there were i understand that on the first but most preston new mexico not everybody was convinced that one of the last but never to the press this is an element of risk it was thought to be very small and now and we're taking under the circumstances one of the aspects of this come up though is the risk that is associated with certain types of biological research and we have discussed in the other programs the problems of genetic engineering and some of the risks

that are perceived there here i think regulation is appropriate but it should regulate with regard to the safety factor and not with regard to the objective of the experiment itself i'm thinking of course of genetic engineering and loving bacteria and viruses and the people at this point on the other hand there are other kinds of research if one gets into the social research psychological research know where the risks are very different nature and i'm afraid the the solutions are not nearly so obvious but this is the kind of problem that the and it struggled with now with respect to recombinant dna research the government agency and i h which makes ranch is trying to develop its own guidelines for safety in the congo river's gonna research

safety to be investigated our own safety to the public to a large extent than i at this is dependent upon the idea to researchers in the area to develop these guidelines village in and part self regulation and in part to a bigger <unk> all of the guidelines and the upton are leaving guidelines move mainly to they're too dependent upon the researchers themselves to abide by a guideline who have been shot by the largely by their own sausage and richer so that is to a large extent self regulation but some other suggestions or made that perhaps more were really to protect public safety it's been suggested

overall and they should be voluntary registration of all the research project and some idea may raise the question whether scientists should and in an area of danger beyond the legal restraints to register their richer i should have thought that the fed's regulation is probably economic i know that at least with the protection of human subjects regulations a gw if you violate those regulations you're finding infected with suggestions in may that the funding will be taken away all right period of time after the penalty for improper behavior and i just thought that economic regulation would do the trick and pino sanctions really none of the value of nine eleven near you and best research in military of religion a lot the intuition for

example first they're the exposure there there are guidelines none about the emotions to the occupational safety and health on asbestos and on vinyl chloride one could imagine drawing up safety regulations on where a large number of types of exposure i feel that as you know is not well posed to who think early in terms of physical safety and i would like to raise a question especially with the lack of marsh a reader about the kinds of research on human populations where what one gathering information and where the their safety is a concern not with those ago safety but with reputation social issues and that's over economic safety

do think it there's any effect a way that we can regulate such research even economically have sent some of it can be done very inexpensively well there's a great deal of effort now sparked by the privacy act of nineteen seventy four and privacy protection study commission to come to grips with these very problem the concern is that survey research in various that a gathering techniques are putting a lot of information about people in the hands of research guidelines are being developed to ensure confidentiality to some extent that are latency verified by law to develop safety systems to prevent leaks is that confidentiality and a number of proposals have been developing the research is what we call a shield privilege and privilege against having to disclose this information to government authorities grand juries example who might want to use it

for one fourth and purposes well today we've examined some of the broader questions of scientific research and the public interest and thus we can tell a gun there are no easy answers to man's quest for knowledge our panelists included intimate redford as will smith professor and the lyndon b johnson school of public affairs at the university of texas at austin marshall brieger assistant professor of law at the university and old and sutton beauty vice president for research and professor of zoology this as rex we're two hundred years two hundred years as part of the united states bicentennial program at the university of texas austin is a continuing series of weekly conversations about the past present and future dynamics of history's longest living democratic society two hundred years communication

the