Silencing Science
A biotech company is suing a researcher at the National Institutes of Health for defamation after he published results casting one of the company's products in a unflattering light. In April, the NIH's Charles Natanson reported in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that five blood substitutes are related to a 30% increase in mortality. Biopure, a company that makes one of the studied substitutes, first asked Natanson to retract his paper, citing flawed methodology. After he declined, Biopure filed suit, accusing him of making "false and defamatory statements."
I was initially frustrated by Biopure's lawsuit and what it may represent. While I don't equate science with constitutionally protected free speech, the open publication of unbiased results is necessary both for technological progress and for protecting people from potential current hazards. Such a lawsuit, if successful or even if Natanson settles out of court, could create an unprecedented and dangerous chilling effect. Unfortunately, this seems likes a logical outcome of three decades of the commercialization of the life sciences.
Yet after I read more details, I became at least partially sympathetic to Biopure's complaint. Most importantly, Natanson had failed to disclose his personal financial interest in a method which could reduce the negative side effects of blood substitutes. It's not out of the question that the commercialization of his own work had biased Natanson, consciously or not. Ideally, the court will be able to sort this.
HT to Integrity in Science Watch.
Previously on Biopolitical Times:
