Commentary: Addressing Corporate Influence Through Ethical Guidelines
Department of Epidemiology and Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
E-mail: lesdomes{at}ucla.edu
Accepted 4 September 2007
In light of Dr Pearce's theme, I must begin with full disclosure: I regard several of the epidemiologists who challenged his original fenoterol studies1 as first-rate and sincere in their original criticisms. What is more, I consult for one of them in his capacity as Distinguished Research Scientist at Boehringer-Ingelheim. Thus, I am a paid consultant for the very company that, 20 years ago, committed the acts that Dr Pearce describes in his book.1 Furthermore, I have conducted and published corporate-funded research to assess workplace and product hazards (e.g. see refs2,3).
Yet in all major respects I agree with Dr Pearce's comments. I support declarations of conflict of interest and mandatory disclosure of funding sources. I think corporate influence by and large seeks to benefit only one entity: The corporation. That condition is an inevitable by-product of the competitive environment in which corporations are naturally selected: A corporation that prospers does so largely because of its self-aggrandizing traits. Admitting this fact is an essential step toward addressing the problems to society and individuals that result. But also needed is an appreciation of the complex interplay of individuals and units within and among corporate entities, and a realistic appraisal of conditions within and among corporations.
I will offer some anecdotal observations on how societal guidelines can help influence corporate behaviour. These observations are based not only on my corporate-funded work but also on my experience as a plaintiff (including government) expert in actions against corporations. The unifying theme is that there is much heterogeneity in the underlying matrix of individuals and corporations, and that this heterogeneity provides opportunities for societal guidelines to have positive impact.
 |
Observation 1: Individuals within corporations are heterogeneous |
|---|
 Top Observation 1: Individuals... Observation 2: Units within...Observation 3: Corporations are...Societal Guidelines and the...References |
|---|
This heading may sound obvious, but in my experience some ostensibly liberal academics are no better than common folk in their blanket condemnation of individuals, albeit based on corporate affiliation rather than ethnicity or culture. In reality, corporate employees and consultants vary tremendously in their values, ethics and actions. These differences are found even within organizations heavily selected for uniformity and conformity. Many individuals in corporate employ will take an explicit ethical stance when it seems called for. I have witnessed how concerns over product safety led to resignations from excellent corporate positions by those uncomfortable with marketing decisions. I myself have refused to modify reports that suggested product risks, with loss of funding as the unsurprising aftermath.
Of course, given the heterogeneity of outlook and values, there are always other individuals who will step in to paint the picture desired by certain branches of the corporate body. But to treat all corporate employees the same is as unjust and unjustified as (say) treating all whites as racists or all muslims as extremists. Worse, it undermines the morale and position of those within the corporate system who try and hold the corporation to what outsiders would regard as fair or ethical behaviour.
|
Observation 2: Units within corporations can be heterogeneous |
|---|
|
TopObservation 1: Individuals...Observation 2: Units within...Observation 3: Corporations are...Societal Guidelines and the...References |
|---|
Faced with potentially unpleasant facts about a corporate product, research units or their contractors may come into conflict with marketing or legal units over whether and how to report those facts. In such conflicts, scientific units often have to face down corporate incentives that are at odds with acceptance or disclosure of those facts. But not always: In addition to liability concerns, research may uncover unpleasant facts about a competitor's product, in which case incentives may favour publicizing the results and funding further research.
Each decision will be evaluated by corporate executives in terms of risks and benefits for themselves and for the corporation. A problem facing a unit playing the internal ‘conscience’ of the corporation (a link to external societal values) will be how to argue for those goals convergent between the corporation and society. Printed societal guidelines for ethical behaviour can aid corporate employees and units arguing for acceptance or disclosure. Perhaps more importantly than providing moral persuasion, those favouring acceptance or disclosure can argue that violations of such guidelines expose the corporation to heavy liability losses because future plaintiffs will be able to point to these violations when presenting their case.
|
Observation 3: Corporations are externally heterogeneous |
|---|
|
TopObservation 1: Individuals...Observation 2: Units within...Observation 3: Corporations are...Societal Guidelines and the...References |
|---|
Although all for-profit corporations are nominally run on profit incentives, they are quite heterogeneous in the degree to which these incentives override ethical concerns. Some corporations think nothing of dumping toxic chemicals in the middle of neighborhoods or water supplies, or of downplaying potential product hazards. Others are only weakly driven by profit maximization, or assign high priority to avoidance of future liability. In the 1990s, California witnessed a ‘matched-pair’ case study pivoting on a story of water pollution and subsequent cover-up by Pacific Gas and Electric (which inspired the movie Erin Brockovich). The latter events led to a series of record-breaking civil judgments against the company, surpassing 600 million US dollars in total, despite severe uncertainties in the science. This tale can be contrasted with the far less spectacular history of Southern California Edison, which pursued a more open policy and has as yet suffered no such fate.
While anecdotal, such stories support arguments that open and ethical behaviour can, at the very least, be in the enlightened self-interest of the corporation. Such economic arguments are important, if abhorrent to some, because arguments from principles of public protection will carry no weight with entities that do not share such principles.
|
Societal Guidelines and the Legal System |
|---|
|
TopObservation 1: Individuals...Observation 2: Units within...Observation 3: Corporations are...Societal Guidelines and the...References |
|---|
Economic arguments will only have weight to the extent that there is a real threat of substantial penalty for malfeasance. In the United States, fines by regulatory agencies sometimes pale against legal judgments, making mass litigation a major if capricious source of penalties for corporate misbehaviour. As the California story illustrates, judgments can be heavily influenced by whether there is an apparent violation of ethical conduct. Societal guidelines can aid this less-than-ideal system by clarifying what constitutes ethical violations. Ideally, such guidelines would leave no doubt about the obligation of corporations, contractors, and consultants to report problems and results without biased presentation (‘spin doctoring’).
Guidelines may also aid this system by addressing parallel problems of biased presentations by expert witnesses,4 whether those witnesses are called by the plaintiff, the defence, or the court. Just as we must recognize corporate malfeasance, we must recognize that not all claims of malfeasance or harm are justifiable. Meritless claims not only unfairly penalize defendants, but jeopardize legitimate claims by creating an atmosphere skeptical of all claims, regardless of merit. Thus, ethical guidelines regarding expert testimony should address concerns of all parties in the judicial process.
More generally, public interest is not served by false positives or penalties against innocent parties, any more than by false negatives or shielding of guilty parties. As with false negatives, false positives can have many costs that are ultimately borne by the public. Misguided public-health actions siphon resources from effective actions, while mistaken discontinuance of effective treatments may lead to use of less effective or more dangerous substitutes. Thus, conflict of interest between the scientist as an honest witness to the facts and the scientist as an advocate for a position may arise on either side of a controversy. Societal guidelines should thus be applicable to every scientist, regardless of whether the scientist serves corporate, public or academic interests.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopObservation 1: Individuals...Observation 2: Units within...Observation 3: Corporations are...Societal Guidelines and the...References |
|---|
1 Pearce N. Adverse Reactions: The Fenoterol Story. (2007) Auckland: Auckland University Press.
2 Greenland S, Salvan A, Wegman DH, Hallock MF, Smith TJ. A case-control study of cancer mortality at a transformer-assembly facility. Int Arch Occ Env Health (1994) 66:49–54.[CrossRef]
3 Greenland S, Finkle WD. A retrospective cohort study of implanted medical devices and selected chronic diseases in Medicare claims data. Ann Epidemiol (2000) 10:205–13.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4 Greenland S. The need for critical appraisal of expert witnesses in epidemiology and statistics. Wake Forest Law Review (2004) 39:291–310.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Davey Smith Big business, big science? Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2008; 37(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Pearce Response: The distribution and determinants of epidemiologic research Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2008; 37(1): 65 - 68. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||