| |
Society for
Epidemiologic Research (SER) Presidential Addresses
SER
Presidential Address Stresses Key Role of Criticism
“T here is never any good
justification for restricting scientific criticism,” warned outgoing
SER president Kenneth Rothman in his address at the
society’s recent meeting in Chapel Hill. Dr. Rothman sounded this
warning because the SER and other organizations of epidemiologists
have been asked to consider adoption of a code of ethical conduct to
help prevent alleged abuses by epidemiologists engaging in review or
criticism of epidemiologic work. Letters and articles on the topic
have also appeared in the Epi Monitor over the last few months.
According to Dr. Rothman, “...a call for ethical conduct may be a
coded call for a stifling of criticism.”
Value of Criticism
Dr. Rothman’s views on the
subject appear to stem from his underlying conviction that progress in
science depends entirely on successful communication, and that
criticism plays a central role in such communication. Using an
analogy, he noted that “like DNA, scientific communication consists of
two complementary strands, the reporting of results and criticism.
Criticism is essential to scientific progress. It serves as a
touchstone for separating scientific ideas that should be discarded
from those that are good enough to serve us a while longer... The
central role of criticism in scientific communication demands of
scientists that they both accept and give criticism responsibly.
Accepting criticism responsibly requires that we take it for its
substantive value, and not as an assault on one’s intelligence or
judgement. It requires that we distinguish the substance of criticism
from whatever we might imagine to be the motives, characteristics,
background, or agenda of the critic. Scientific criticism should
always be offered in the same spirit, as a substantive issue and never
as a personal attack or to further preferred social or policy
positions.”
Ethical Code
In referring to the proposal to
formulate a code of ethical conduct, Dr. Rothman noted that such a
code would presumably proscribe as unethical any criticism in which
the motive of the critic or the sponsors of the criticism were
questionable. He stated that “it is particularly inappropriate to
attempt to stem criticism based upon a presumption of the motives of
the critic... whatever the motive of a critic, if the criticism is
valid it should be addressed.”
Rothman concluded by noting that
“the process of conjecture and refutation, which is Karl
Popper’s description of how science proceeds, governs a
natural ethic for scientists (BMJ December 24 - 31, 1983)... and forms
the ethical code that applies for epidemiologists and other
scientists. My worry is that the call that we have heard for a new
code of ethics runs counter to these principles, and is itself
therefore unethical. Any code that requires of a criticism a merit
badge of proper motivation before it be allowed to surface is
anti-scientific.”
Published July 1985
Postscript 2000
These remarks, which
suggested that we focus on the substance of criticism and not the
motives of the critic, were made before political correctness had
become a major social force. Looking back, it appears that I need not
have worried so much that epidemiologic criticism would be muted.
Fortunately most epidemiologists have the courage and independence to
speak their minds on the issues that interest them. Nevertheless, the
stifling of opinion did become a problem. Notably, the New England
Journal of Medicine has enforced a punitive conflict-of-interest
policy that includes blacklisting some authors on certain topics.
Their policy has scarred innocent victims (for example, see Manson JE:
Adventures in scientific discourse. Epidemiology 1997;8:324-327 and
Rothman KJ, Cann CI: Judging words rather than authors. Epidemiology
1997;8:223-225.) This draconian policy shortchanges both readers and
authors; it signals that the concerns that I voiced in 1985 were real,
although they took root outside of epidemiology rather than within the
field.
|
|
