Wildlife trade in the name of "zoos" - a conservation lie and death sentence

Given the recent news of the "accidental" deaths of over one hundred animals at a Thailand zoo, Kenyan activists that fought to keep Kenya from exporting wild animals to the zoo must be very relieved.

The deaths are truly shameful, and I hope those responsible are punished. The practice of trading wildlife for exhibition is equally shameful, because life in captivity is tantamount to a slow (and sometimes not so slow) death for the animals who are imprisoned there.


allAfrica.com: Kenya: 104 Animals Die in Thai Zoo Intended for Kenya Wildlife

Fraud isn't the only reason for retraction

Several papers have been retracted lately because they invovled fictitious data, fictitious study subjects, or the willful suppression of data. My previous posts on the importance of "smaller" ethical lapses and my own request for the retraction of an article for failures to comply with editorial policy, and local and national guidelines emphasize that fraud is not the only justification for retraction. Several failures - the type that might be considered "smaller" sensu the Scientific American editorial - led the American Journal of Bioethics to announce a retraction today:

"For example, Dr. Hwang was found to have used a far greater number of oocytes than originally claimed in the Science article. The KNBB committee also found that a number of egg donors suffered side effects from the oocyte donation process, and concluded that the oocyte donors were neither given sufficient information about the risks of donation nor were they asked to sign the consent forms approved by the Institutional Review Board.

It now appears likely that the oocyte and somatic cell donation consent procedures described by Hyun and Jung, which, they report, were developed through what they described as close collaboration with Dr. Hwang and his team, were not used for donor screening and enrollment in the research that gave rise to the now discredited Science paper (Hwang et al. 2005). Neither Dr. Hyun nor Dr. Jung have been accused of any misconduct with respect to the contents of this paper, but the Editors of The American Journal of Bioethics nevertheless believe that a retraction of their manuscript is warranted. Both authors have agreed to a retraction."

Failure to abide by approved protocols, unanticipated adverse effects not reported in the publication, and using quantities of materials in excess of those approved in protocols and reported in a publication are all examples of "smaller" ethical lapses mentioned in the editorial statement.

Lie about something that did not happen, and all hell breaks loose. But if it's just a cover up...

...that's another story.

Consider the outrage and press coverage of fabricated stem cell lines, fabricated study subjects and the breaking news of a
Japanese scientist suspected of fabricating papers. Witness the freakishly adamant outrage at a drug addict's stories, which *shock* include exaggerations and falsehoods.

Actually doing something wrong, say abusing animals or torturing prisoners, and few even bat an eyelash. Even starting a war under false pretenses doesn't get a response "on scale" with the severity of the act. I'm confused and disappointed.

The Scientist : PETA asks journal to retract paper

The Scientist : PETA asks journal to retract paper

Pretty self explanatory.

Don't Forget About the Little Ethical Lapses: BLOG: SciAm Observations

This SciAm piece was very compelling:

Don't Forget About the Little Ethical Lapses: BLOG: SciAm Observations:

"Do the small but daily compromises do as much damage to science, cumulatively, as the high-profile cases do? It seems entirely plausible. Precisely because these lapses are small, they seldom affect the final results, so they scoot right by science's self-corrective mechanisms. But that doesn't mean they don't distort science. "

And in the case of science in academia, ethical lapses of all sizes and forms distort the experience and education of the next generation of scientists. This is especially dangerous when no ethics training is provided. If the culture at an institution allows for some rules to be ignored consistently and without punishment - like those prohibiting animal cruelty - then the larger message is that rules don't count. Is it any surprise that technicians at UNC were willing to cut the heads off of unanesthetized mice, even though they acknowledged that it was illegal?

Furthermore, the sense of right and wrong that many students and young scientists bring with them can be tainted in a scientific environment where nondisclosure and disdain for ethical standards are the norm. To the extent that their standards of integrity make them stand out, seem different, or not fit in, the rule-bending culture that plagues some institutions also discourages some bright minds and stymies careers of promising, ethical scientists.

Can we afford to satisfy our curiousity at any cost, even if it is cruelty? Does academic freedom outweigh our obligations to uphold the highest ethical standards in research? That's what some seem to be saying.

In their reticence to respond, the scientific community - universities, professional associations, journals and publishers - a relatively small group of scientists who ignore ethical standards outright are causing the public and the government to lose confidence in the very process of science. Transparency was one of the keystones for the long-held justification for self-policing that science has enjoyed for so long. Lies, cover-ups, collusions and the "blind eyes" of colleagues have eroded this privilege.

The intermediate and smaller lapses simply go unnoticed - but at what cost?

Amid the fury of controversy in recent misconduct cases, many claim scientists will solve the problem of scientific misconduct. Apparently, editors at Scientific American do not agree. Neither do I. When your grants, publications, or ACUC / IRB protocols depend on the cooperation of colleagues and competitors who will review them, how many are willing to blow the whistle, talk about what is questionable or patently wrong or stand up for what is right?

Peer-review isn't a silver bullet; other changes are desperately needed, too. Enron style prosecutions may be the kick in the pants that science needs to get serious about ethical training and obligations.