Whistleblowing in academic medicine

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

46 Scopus citations

Abstract

Although medical centres have established boards, special committees, and offices for the review and redress of breaches in ethical behaviour, these mechanisms repeatedly prove themselves ine ineffective in addressing research misconduct within the institutions of academic medicine. As the authors see it, institutional design: (1) systematically ignores serious ethical problems, (2) makes whistleblowers into institutional enemies and punishes them, and (3) thereby fails to provide an ethical environment. The authors present and discuss cases of academic medicine failing to address unethical behaviour in academic science and, thereby, illustrate the scope and seriousness of the problem. The Olivieri/Apotex affair is just another instance of academic medicine's dereliction in a case of scientific fraud and misconduct. Instead of vigorously supporting their faculty member in her efforts to honestly communicate her findings and to protect patients from the risks associated with the use of the study drug, the University of Toronto collaborated with the Apotex company's "stalling tactics," closed down Dr Olivieri's laboratory, harassed her, and ultimately dismissed her. The authors argue that the incentives for addressing problematic behaviour have to be revised in order to effect a change in the current pattern of response that occurs in academic medicine. An externally imposed realignment of incentives could convert the perception of the whistleblower, from their present caste as the enemy within, into a new position, as valued friend of the institution. The authors explain how such a correction could encourage appropriate reactions to scientific misconduct from academic medicine.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)35-39
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Whistleblowing in academic medicine'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this