|
Epi Wit & Wisdom Articles
Bernard Fisher Vindicated
Researcher Discusses Lessons
Learned
As was widely reported in the
popular press last month, University of Pittsburgh breast cancer
researcher Bernard Fisher has withdrawn his lawsuit against the
University and the federal government and has received an apology from
the University as well as a statement from NCI describing his
accomplishments.
Fisher filed suit three years
ago after the NCI demanded his precipitous removal as PI and chairman
of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), a
large breast cancer study group. Fisher had alleged in his suit that
the defendants violated his constitutional rights to due process by
removing him, that they precluded his involvement with the NSABP, and
abridged his right to free speech by interfering with his
publications. He sought monetary damages, an injunction barring the
restrictions placed on him by the federal government, and an assurance
to continue his research unimpeded.
For Fisher, this would appear to
be a total vindication. In an interview with the Epi Monitor, Fisher
discussed some of the lessons learned from his experiences.
A painful lesson for Fisher was
the realization of just how vulnerable scientists are to the type of
misrepresentations and misunderstandings which appear to have plagued
his case from the beginning. He told the New York Times earlier this
year following news that he had been cleared of any scientific
misconduct charges by the Office of Research Integrity that “I lived
through the McCarthy era, and I saw what that was all about. Now I
have lived through it in science and fear that it could happen again
to others.”
According to Fisher, he
undertook his lawsuit not only on his own behalf but for the sake of
all scientists. “I drew a line,” said Fisher, “because otherwise this
will recur.”
In his view, the principal cause
of this unfortunate incident can be traced directly to ignorance on
the part of politicians, administrators, and the public about how
scientists do their thing. “They did not understand enough, and could
not tell when the things being said were off the wall...We have done a
poor job of explaining what we are all about,” said Fisher.
When asked if his
colleagues came to his defense, Fisher noted that most of the people
who could have defended him were themselves getting funded for
research. “They were fearful they might lose their funding if they got
involved,” he said, “and it is sad to see this behavior, but if their
own ox is not being gored, people do not get involved.” Outrage about
the events that were happening to Fisher was expressed at the SER
meeting in Miami a few years ago, and suggestions were made of actions
to be taken on Fisher’s behalf, but it is not known if any of these
were ever undertaken. Fisher himself was not aware of any interest in
his case on the part of the epidemiology community.
The solution to avoiding similar
incidents in the future is to have more discussion among the persons
working at the interface between scientists and their overseers.
According to Fisher, times have changed in research. Whereas in the
past investigator-initiated research was “the thing” and benefactors
or sponsors were primarily facilitators, today the benefactors have
the upper hand and play the dominant role. Investigators have a more
secondary status, and this raises a number of important questions
which scientists should be discussing fervently but not adversarially.
For example, is it possible to work on something for 30 years and not
have any claim that it is your intellectual property? If research is
funded by the public, should a scientist have due process? Does a
scientist have such a right when working on publicly funded projects?
“Science has to talk about these issues,” says Fisher.
Fisher has now been named
Scientific Director of the NSABP. He is not going back to being the PI
and the Chairman of the group. It is impossible to go back to where he
was, according to Fisher. The organization has changed. “It’s corny to
say, but you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube,” he says in
describing the current situation.
When asked how the situation has
changed for carrying out clinical trials, if it has changed at all,
since the falsification of records at one site in his study first came
to light, Fisher said that trials have been made more difficult by a
proliferation of new rules and regulations emanating from the
government and from the universities. In his view, the new regulations
are stultifying and discouraging, and fewer professionals are willing
to make themselves vulnerable in the way that investigators appear to
be in today’s climate by conducting trials.
Published October 1997 v
|
