New at Reason

David Weigel | July 28, 2006

Ronald Bailey, who has only intellectual conflicts of interest, looks at the financial conflicts of high-minded scientific organizations.

Comments

Ron Hardin|7.28.06 @ 3:25AM|#

Coleridge writes (he wrote op-eds for years) that a conflict of interest is the pulley on which good characther is raised into public view.

|7.28.06 @ 5:43AM|#

Nissen evidently meant that people who are known as strong advocates for a particular therapy or view should not serve on panels or should recuse themselves.

So basically, if you're brilliant and argue forcefully, forget having a voice in the discussion. If you're mediocre milquetoast, you're in!

This topic hits on a touchstone of regulation- if somebody is worth their salt in a particular field, they *will* have a conflict of interest, by virtue of having worked in the field.

Anybody who cares enough about a topic to be an expert in it is naturally going to have biases.

The argument is like saying, I know that a car mechanic has a financial interest in overstating the amount of repairs needed for my car. Therefore, the remedy is for me to have my car examined by a veterinarian.

|7.28.06 @ 7:58AM|#

"Whether [sic] complete avoidance of conflicts of interest on committees would have improved the committees' recommendation is impossible to know."

What's with the [sic] when quoting Jacobson?

|7.28.06 @ 8:21AM|#

"if you're brilliant and argue forcefully, forget having a voice in the discussion.
I remember, back in high school, when the world was simple, everything was black and white, and the world ran according to simplified little principles. Then I grew up an avoided naive comments like that one. Anybody who cares about a topic is going to have biases? Care to back that up, or is it good ol' common sense? In my experience, science requires an open mind because one must adapt one's view to the evidence, not the other way around. If you're brilliant and argue forcefully, perhaps you should go into Patent Law. Well, given your veterinarian analogy, maybe law isn't for you.

|7.28.06 @ 8:43AM|#

I remember, back in high school, when the world was simple, everything was black and white, and the world ran according to simplified little principles

I remember those days too, and I am glad I got back to that, instead of believing that everything was an enigmatic, indeterminable "shade of grey" that man is powerless to interpret. I suppose you could say that if something really ignites your passion and you find out everything you can about it (i.e., become an expert), you're probably going to have at least one opinion about it, unless you're a mindless robot.

|7.28.06 @ 9:04AM|#

Balance. Why that's become some sort of grail is beyond me. Science isn't about sides of a debate, it's about trying to find the truth about the world we live in. Trying to weed out biases that interfere with research is one thing; trying to ensure political "balance" in reviewing such research is another. What's next, a panel of biologists and creationists? Why not? We want balance, don't we?

I think part of the problem is defining what a "conflict of interest" really is. It is inevitable that people will have dealings with other people in the same industry or specialty--even to the extent of receiving some benefit from such relationships. Does the mere existence of a relationship and/or a gain from that relationship automatically mean a conflict of interest? In some cases, perhaps we want pristinity (in the law, for instance), but in others, I think the real question is whether the conflict is strong enough to affect the honest judgment of the person in question.

|7.28.06 @ 9:04AM|#

An opinion isn't and shouldn't be interpreted as a conflict of interest. It's BS when they hold scientists to that standard and it is BS when they hold judges and juries to it.

|7.28.06 @ 9:09AM|#

Ayn Randian: "having at least one opinion" is different than "arguing forcefully" for something, no? I guess in an oversimplified world, they mean the same thing.
Let me get this straight, and feel free to correct me:
You felt powerless to interpret our world, and you decided that the days of high school ignorance were better? I guess I'm waiting to hear your argument that the world is not complex.

|7.28.06 @ 9:16AM|#

all i know is SSRIs are over prescribed

|7.28.06 @ 9:22AM|#

And, of course, persons with obvious conflicts are the only ones that get scrubbed out. Yet hidden conflicts can just as much bias the results as more blatant ones. In fact, looking at the the worst case, where a person has a bias that really would affect his judgment, wouldn't you prefer to risk trusting someone who has been open enough in his dealings that the possibility of bias is obvious, rather than the other way around?

Until we build computers into our brains, we're going to have biases, prejudices, and even irrationalities affecting all of our decisions. Whether we're doctors, scientists, lawyers, or Indian chiefs. Building in ways to minimize the effect of those biases should be the goal. Science has done a fair job of that already (well, most branches of science have, anyway) and certainly far surpasses any other human endeavor in so doing.

In regards to the Ayn_Randian-Lamar debate, it seems to me impossible not to acknowledge that the world is amazingly complex and difficult to understand with precision. However, our inability to have perfect knowledge doesn't mean that we throw up our hands in surrender. We do the best we can, with an eye to the main chance. Usually, the sun rises in the east. What the heck, let's gamble on it doing so tomorrow :)

|7.28.06 @ 9:24AM|#

Lamar:

I'm sympathetic to your argument with AR to an extent, but I can't quite figure out what you are getting at here:

"having at least one opinion" is different than "arguing forcefully" for something, no?"

Is the implication that stronly held informed opinions make one irrecoverably biased?

|7.28.06 @ 9:25AM|#

Scientist: "The earth is not flat, it is definitely spherical, and I will never change my mind on that."

Lamar: Bias simpleton!

|7.28.06 @ 9:30AM|#

Overall, Lamar, I'd say even if the earth is exceedingly complex, which it is, that does not mean there aren't overarching black-and-white, exceptionally simple to understand metaphysical principles that rule nature and, as such, our lives. So, while the universe may seem complex, I argue that the ultimate axioms on which it rests are easy to understand, but difficult for people to implement and live by.

VM|7.28.06 @ 9:51AM|#

A_R:

greetings and Happy Friday to you!
(apologies to all for being a bit o/t)

Upon reading your post, before I saw your name (Apologies - on first cup of coffee, and the sun is in my eyes, grin) - I had thought it was from one of our fundie posters.

That raises a question - as an Objectivist and giving what I would presume is an objectivist-based answer, how are some of the pillars of Objectivism different in execution from Judeo-Christian beliefs? (I ask from a position of naivete, not out of any malice whatsoever)

On topic: we see this debate play out in other ways:
"you're a schill for TCS!"
"you're a stoogie for the UN"
"the majority of scientists believe x"
"scientists whom I trust believe y"
"fuck you!"
"your mother"
"it's spelled 'IsrAel"
"ALL CAPS! SHOUTING! ALL CAPS"
etc. etc. etc.

Ron's article is very interesting and worth a read. Highly recommendable. It is good stuff for (real, not my parody above, that is) discussion!

Keep flying the flag highly, Ron, and a Happy Friday to you!
cheers,
VM

|7.28.06 @ 10:01AM|#

The major difference VM (and thanks for the fascinating question! uh, Cheers as well) is that of contextualism and self-interest; you ought to adhere to your principles within a given context.

Christian principles are micromanaging absolutes; they say never kill (it doesn't say it's OK for self-defense), they say never lie (that means even if there's a Jew in the closet and the SS is at your door). For us, you adhere to principles given the specific context. That is, honesty should be a principle you strive for, but it should be when you're dealing with honest men. And it's not OK to initiate force, but it is OK to respond to it in kind, out of self-defense or for justice. Now, some may say that sounds subjective, and overcontextualization can lead to subjectivity. The exhilirating part is we haven't figured it all out yet.

But three places we all agree is metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (we agree what the ethics should be: rational self-interest. It's the execution of said ethics that causes the debates).
The fourth (government) is the big divider: anarcho-capitalism or miniarchism? Throwing those out on O'ist boards is like mentioning Rand in this neck of the woods.

VM|7.28.06 @ 10:09AM|#

Thanks for the clarification! I really appreciate it!

That really helps!

And isn't this part, "And it's not OK to initiate force, but it is OK to respond to it in kind, out of self-defense or for justice. Now, some may say that sounds subjective, and overcontextualization can lead to subjectivity. The exhilirating part is we haven't figured it all out yet."

Isn't that part a major component of the Game of Life? In other words, as humans evolve and develop (and, indeed, as human needs change through progress and better understanding), how to respond would change too - it appears as though Objectivism has a dynamic element already built in!

Cheers,
VM

|7.28.06 @ 10:18AM|#

"Is the implication that stronly held informed opinions make one irrecoverably biased?"
That's the opposite of my view. My original post was only meant to counter the idea that someone who works in a particular field eventually becomes so knowledgeable that they can no longer adapt their opinion to the evidence at hand. I agree with Ayn Randian's response that of course people form opinions. But I don't think it supports dead elvis's conclusion that expertise equals a rigid bias. As for complexity, nothing sets me off more than a bumper sticker argument, especially when it goes against my own experience. Of course, I don't mind using an extreme to highlight a point (see the world is flat post). I do mind arguments that are taken for granted for no good reason. Pro liberte: you said most of what I wanted to say, keeping my post mercifully short. Since I am way outside of any kind of expertise or knowledge I may have, I'm going to quietly STFU now.

|7.28.06 @ 10:19AM|#

AR's characterization above does not apply to Judaism.

For Jews, murder not killing is prohibited. For example, if I remember my Talmud correctly, there is an interpretation that, loosely, says, "If someone is coming to kill you, kill him first."

Lying, the other sin cited, is permissible if it will save a life. In fact, a Jew can violate much of religious life if it will save a life. Hence, it is not a sin to eat pork if you are starving. In fact, it is a sin not to eat pork if the alternative is starvation.

The concept embedded in the word "Judeo-Christian" makes no sense because Judaism and Christianity as ethical systems are so different and irreconciliable.

In the spirit of VM, "Tschussie!"

|7.28.06 @ 10:28AM|#

That is, honesty should be a principle you strive for, but it should be when you're dealing with honest men.

There's no reason not to believe that the SS were honest men. Say they came to your door and said, "We're here looking for Jews, and if we find any, we're going to kill them. Are there any here?" Would your ethical system require you to tell them the truth? If not, how do you justify lying to honest men?

The rough Christian answer, I believe, would be that it is ethical to lie if someone would be harmed if you tell the truth. But then, what if the police come to your door, and show you a photo of someone you know and say he is wanted for murder. Telling them where to find him will definitely harm him, but it is still the right thing to do. So, we often weasel out by saying that one can only lie if someone would be unjustly harmed by telling the truth, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

In short, no ethical system worth its salt is going to be able to specify exactly the right course of action in every situation in a few short sentences. This is as true of Objectivism as it is of Christianity.

|7.28.06 @ 10:29AM|#

In other words, as humans evolve and develop (and, indeed, as human needs change through progress and better understanding), how to respond would change too

Yes! Exactly---one of the most fascinating debates is an example Peikoff raises in OPAR, about scientists who originally recognized that different blood types didn't match. They were right, A and B are not compatible; however, initially they didn't recognize that RH factor (- or +) would also affect matching types to recipients. Now, how wrong were they? Because some favor a closed system, they have to say that the scientists were right, they were truthful. I think that they were truthful given the context of knowledge at the time; the discovery of the RH factor didn't alter the first (A does not match B) discovery, but added to it because knowledge is an open system, that is, it grows and evolves, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.

|7.28.06 @ 10:38AM|#

The CSPI defines direct conflicts of interest as "a financial tie within the last five years to a company or industry that is relevant to the committee topic." - Ron Bailey

When discussing regulation, doesn't the Government count as a source of "financial ties"? I'm sure CSPI would then agree with me that no committee members who have received a government paycheck, grant, or government funds passed through an institution they have worked for in the preceding lustrum are to be allowed, right? The same for people who do work for Naderite pressure groups, mkay?

Kevin

|7.28.06 @ 11:03AM|#

crimethink--

First, I think it would be neat if you spelled it "crymethink", but that's just me.

Second, we're operating on two different definitions of honest; SS men were honest in what they wanted to do, yes, but they were NOT honest in that they treated Jews as vermin to be exterminated; since Jews are people, they have individual rights. hence, it is OK to lie to people who aren't operating on the same premises as you in this situation because the truly HONEST thing to do is to recognize individual rights.

VM|7.28.06 @ 11:05AM|#

Shalom, Apostate!

|7.28.06 @ 11:16AM|#

Perhaps, Apostate, that is why so many Objectivists, including Rand herself, (aka Rosenbaum) N.Branden (aka Blumenthal), Peikoff and Greenspan were Jews, because of that contextualism in the philosophy not present in others religions.

|7.28.06 @ 11:40AM|#

I'm going to go get a dictionary. Then I'll be right back to think of something snarky to say.

|7.28.06 @ 12:06PM|#

the truly HONEST thing to do is to recognize individual rights.

That's a pretty heavily warped definition of honesty. So when a member of Hezbollah says that he wants to wipe out all the Jews in Israel, as he truly does, he is being dishonest?

|7.28.06 @ 12:40PM|#

crimethink,
no it is not to warped to think of being honest as being moral.

|7.28.06 @ 12:53PM|#

My original post was only meant to counter the idea that someone who works in a particular field eventually becomes so knowledgeable that they can no longer adapt their opinion to the evidence at hand. I agree with Ayn Randian's response that of course people form opinions. But I don't think it supports dead elvis's conclusion that expertise equals a rigid bias.

I'm sorry my post gave that impression. And I didn't add "rigid" before bias, and I think that's an important difference. I don't think I said that someone would *not* be able to adapt their opinion to evidence at hand, but simply that they will bring opinions and points of view based on their own research and experience.

|7.28.06 @ 2:01PM|#

It's no accident that so many Jews are doctors, lawyers, academics, scientists, etc.

All those generations studying at the yeshivot lead inexorably to a bias toward intellectual trades.

|7.29.06 @ 12:43AM|#

Apostate Jew,
The contextualism argument is interesting because this is actually one of the ways that Jesus wished to reform Judaism, by asking the Scribes and Pharisees to consider the context and consider why there was a law in the first place. For example, when confronted as to why he was picking corn on the Sabbath he says, "The Sabbath was made for man, man wasn't made for the Sabbath."

So, I think it works both ways. Also, I don't think they are that distinct as to be thought of as irreconcilable ethical systems. Most Christians place the 10 Commandments at the forefront of their ethical values and it was not Jesus's intention to form a new religion but merely to reform the older one - he tweaks the ethics of Judaism but does not tell people to ignore the Commandments.

Robert|7.29.06 @ 2:27AM|#

Buying insurance is seeking a conflict of interest in one's own life.