INNOVATION AND INTEGRITY IN BIOMEDICAL-RESEARCH

Science's reputation for purity suffered two major setbacks in the pas t ten years: scientists' capabilitY to regulate themselves came into s erious question; and burgeoning entanglements between universities and industry created additional incentives for misconduct in research. In this article, the author seeks to shift attention from compliance to the definition Of the standards themselves and to suggest that there i s less agreement about acceptable norms of behavior than is commonly s upposed among critics of science. Further, this lack of clarity is in Part a consequence of the fragmentation of research communities at the forefront of science. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no abstract, universal ''scientific method'' that guides practice in all situations. The most Promising way to deal with criticisms of scientis ts' integrity is to recast the problem of scientific integrity as one of prospectively creating acceptable research practices rather than re trospectively finding and applying them. To achieve conditions that fo ster integrity, however, will require more than teaching research ethi cs to graduate students or educating senior scientists in better mento ring. Instead, the culture of science will need to confront and, where necessary, dismantle the structural barriers to collegiality in resea rch. As now organized, science is organized as a winner-take-all game, with no glory or comfort for the also-ran. Would a more collaborative science produce as many dazzling results? The burden of proof rests w ith those who want to change the present system, but with the public i mage of science hanging in the balance, the time may be ripe for takin g up the challenge.