REVIEWSrnPolitical Sciencernby Christine HaynesrnImpure Science: Fraud, Compromise,rnand Political Influencernin Scientific Researchrnby Robert BellrnNew York: ]ohn Wiley & Sons;rn301 pp., $22.95rnIn December 1982, Dr. Jack Yoffa ofrnSyracuse, New York, took Zomax, arnpainkiller, just before driving to the hospitalrnfor minor surgery. About halfwayrnthere, Yoffa began to itch and turn red.rnWithin 60 seconds, he was unconscious.rnHis car hit a guardrail, crossed a threelanernhighway (narrowly missing severalrncars), knocked over a light pole, andrnlanded in a ditch. Yoffa had experiencedrnanaphylactoid shock, a not uncommonrn—yet often fatal—reaction tornZomax, which the drug’s manufacturer,rnMcNeil, had neglected to publicize despiternnumerous reports of similar responsesrnamong other users. While McNeilrnhad managed to keep reports ofrnseveral deaths associated with Zomaxrnfrom the public, a local TV newscaster’srnMarch 1983 interview with Yoffa finallyrnforced the company to withdraw therndrug from the market.rnYoffa’s story is perhaps the most dis-rnI’or Immediate ServicernCHROMCLKSrnNI:USIIBSC.:RIBI:RSrn•i(.)i,i.i’Ri:i:[/iBKiirn1-800-877-5459rnturbing of the many examples of scientificrnmisconduct documented in RobertrnBell’s Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise,rnand Political Influence in ScientificrnResearch. Yet even in cases where thernconsequences are not life-threatening.rnBell, a professor of economics at Brook-rnIvn College, makes it clear that “malfeasancernand compromise subvert our scientificrnand technological base, therebyrnweakening the competitiveness of therneconomy in which we earn our living.”rnBell maintains that science, long treatedrnas a “sacred cow,” is really only as “pure”rnand unbiased as the “political machineryrnthat dispenses its patronage and funding.”rnThe events surrounding the marketingrnof Zomax provide a telling examplernof how the scientific process is corruptedrnby conflict of interest, which Bell definesrnthus: “when the scientist who is supposedlyrnmaking an objective judgmentrnstands to benefit or lose by that decision.”rnIn this case, the McNeil representativesrncharged with gathering informationrnon the adverse effects of Zomaxrnwere also promoting the drug to doctors.rnConflict of interest also occursrnwhen scientists, funded by grants fromrncorporations, conduct their research so asrnto help market or insure approval of arndrug or medical device. Such ineffectivernand/or potentially dangerous productsrnas amoxicillin, the sedative Versed, andrnthe Bjork-Shilcy convexo-concave heartrnvalve were all promoted by scientists whornshould have known better. But thernprime example of compromise in scientificrnresearch is the Pentagon, whose advisoryrnDefense Science Board consistsrnlargely of top executives from the Pentagon’srnmajor contractors. In the Pentagon,rnconflict of interest is institutionalizedrnto the point that negligence,rnsecrecy, and downright deceit constituterna modus operandi. “Concurrency,” thern”practice of performing fundamental researchrnand development while simultaneouslyrnmass producing the item beingrnresearched,” is especially prevalent herern(although it is also common in otherrnareas of science like the pharmaceuticalrnindustry). The Apache helicopter, thernNavy’s A-12 Stealth plane, and the Bl-Brnbomber were all victims—at taxpayerrnexpense—of this approach to researchrnand development.rnPolitical influence results in similarrnabuse of public trust. Politics apparentlyrnplayed a role in the National SciencernFoundation’s 1986 decision to locate itsrnEarthquake Engineering Research Centerrnnot at the University of California-rnBerkeley, home to the top researchers inrnthe field and the logical spot for such arnfacility, but rather at the State Universityrnof New York-Buffalo. Involved in thisrndecision (although the NSF panel deniedrnbeing pressured) was Buffalo CongressmanrnJack Kemp, who “made certainrnthat the White House knew howrnimportant the project was to him,” accordingrnto his press secretary. Politicalrninfluence also figures in the multimillionrn(and even billion) dollar “super science”rnprojects funded directly by Congress,rnwhich “are political science by definition,rnsince Congress is constitutionallyrndesigned to respond to political pressure.”rnEnterprises like the Space Shuttle,rnthe Hubble Space Telescope, the SuperconductingrnSupercollider, and thernStrategic Defense Initiative are what Bellrncalls “casualties of patronage.” The dubiousrnSuperconducting Supercollider,rnfor instance, gathered 94 percent of itsrnsupport from representatives of statesrnsubmitting proposals for its constructionrnand their neighbors. The pork barrelingrnsurrounding science projects meansrnpoliticians bhndly push for projects thatrnsubsequently balloon out of their control,rnmoving quickly from what ErnestrnFitzgerald (an Air Force cost cutter) callsrnthe “too early to tell” stage of developmentrnto the “too late to stop” one.rnAs political pressure leads to questionablernallocation of funds, pressure tornpublish or perish leads to questionable, ifrnnot fraudulent, research results. Perhapsrnthe most publicized example of fraud inrnscientific research was the ease of Dr.rnDavid Baltimore, a Nobel Prize-winner,rnwho contributed to a paper based onrnfaked data in the 1980’s. The seientiherncommunity’s reaction to this case—rnbombarding the media and Congressrnwith calls to end the investigations ofrnBaltimore—outrages Bell. Yet evenrnmore, he decries this same community’srnsilence in other cases of compromise,rnpolitical influence, and fraud. In fact,rnthe lack of reaction to scientific miscon-rn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn