The Corruption of Science: A Continuing Saga

I don’t really care what bioethicist Ronald M. Green thinks (and, I am sure, he doesn’t care about my opinions). I bring Green up because he is the head of the Advanced Cell Technology bioethics advisory committee, and a professor at Dartmouth, who has just published an opinion piece in Nature Genetic Reviews, “Can We Develop Ethically Universal Stem-Cell Lines?” (June 2007, Vol. 8, pp. 480-485), in which he analyzes the ethics of various “alternative methods” of obtaining pluripotent stem cells without destroying embryos. Among those techniques discussed are my good friend Bill Hurlbut’s idea of “altered nuclear transfer,” “regression” of differentiated cells such as skin cells into stem cells, using cells from dead embryos, and the technique promoted by ACT, using cells taken from 8-cell embryos for ESCR, which may one day yield ES cells without destroying embryos. (Readers of SHS may recall that ACT falsely asserted that it had accomplished this feat, when it actually had not, and that Dr. Green told the Washington Post, “You can honestly say this cell line is from an embryo that was in no way harmed or destroyed,” when you could honestly say no such thing. Here is my Weekly Standard piece, “Science by Press Release,” discussing that imbroglio.)

Always an enthusiastic supporter of destructive embryo research, not surprisingly, Green is critical of these alternatives, although he seems most supportive of the technique being promoted by his pals at ACT—to the point that he urges that the NIH fund it (along with two other approaches) once it can be shown to be feasible.

And here’s where the corruption of science comes in: Nature, surely knows that Green has a professional relationship with ACT, and yet permitted him to write on this subject without disclosing his association. The paper merely asserts that Green has no financial conflicts. But personal relationships and connections at a level in which professional advice is given—even if pro bono—can materially bias one’s thinking. Failing to fully disclose that Green has been personally involved with the researchers and in publicly promoting one of the techniques about which he writes is another example of how the politicization of science is undermining its credibility and causing it to take on the trappings of a mere special interest.

Two thumbs down.