Ethics and Disclosures2

[Geoffrey Nunberg]

The Journal of the American Medical Association
includes the following in its instructions to
authors
(see http://jama.ama-assn.org/ifora_current.dtl):

>A conflict of interest may exist when an author
>(or the author¹s institution or employer) has
>financial or personal relationships that could
>inappropriately influence (or bias) the author¹s
>decisions, work, or manuscript. All authors are
>required to report potential conflicts of
>interest, including specific financial interests
>relevant to the subject of their manuscript....
>
>Authors are required to report detailed
>information regarding all financial and material
>support for the research and work, including but
>not limited to grant support, funding sources,
>and provision of equipment and supplies...

Almost all other scientific journals and
professional societies in areas that receive
corporate, military, or similar funding impose
similar requirements. For thousands of other
examples, just Google "disclosure support
conflict journal."

The reason for this policy is obvious. When you
report some research, whether on the meaning of
'redskin' or the risks of smoking, without
disclosing that someone with a financial stake in
the outcome has paid for it, you leave the
impression that you came to the topic out of pure
intellectual curiosity and that there was no
external pressure on you to reach the conclusions
you did. If someone were to report research that
minimized the health hazards of smoking without
mentioning that it was sponsored by a tobacco
company, it would be considered a serious ethical
lapse indeed.

Professor Butters undertook his research on
'redskin' at the behest of an organization who
was paying him with the idea that he would
produce a report that was favorable to its
interests. He may very well have believed from
the outset that the team's point of view was
justified, and  he may argue that he would have
turned down the case or dropped out of it if his
research suggested otherwise-- many people do
exactly that, at some cost to themselves. But as
it turned out, it was financially advantageous
for him to reach the conclusions he did, and he
can't seriously believe that it wasn't
"particularly important" to let his hearers or
readers know about this. Even in the absence of
official guidelines from a journal, conference,
or professional society, this is just ethical
common sense.

My own sense is that one should bend over
backwards to make sure all potential conflicts
are disclosed. No, Professor Butters needn't
mention that he is a member of the editorial
board of NOAD every time he quotes a dictionary.
But if he were associated with Merriam-Webster,
say, he had better mention that fact every time
he writes something that either praises a MW
product or criticizes someone else's. (In fact
the producers of "Fresh Air" do not allow me to
make any critical comments on dictionaries at
all, because of my association with the American
Heritage, whether or not I mention that
connection. And if The New York Times were to
learn that I had given expert testimony in a case
that bore on some topic I was discussing without
disclosing that, it would be the last piece I
would ever write for them.) And so on, whether
it's a question of having a financial interest in
a company that produces linguistic software or
doing consulting for a corporate naming outfit.

I did raise this issue with the LSA and the
editor of Language at one point, but I dropped
the ball for some reason. This might be a good
time to raise the subject again, and I'd welcome
Professor Butters' help.


Geoff Nunberg


>Again, my apologies: my previous message with this header was sent before it
>was finished. Here is the remainder of what I had to say.
>
>Dr. Nunberg writes, "Professor Butters was remiss in not disclosing his role
>in the case in his posting."
>
>He seems pretty certain about this, but for myself I don't see it as an
>ethical lapse not to have mentioned my
>involvement with the Redskin litigation in
>my ADS-L postings. This is a discussion group, not a scholarly publication. I
>certainly have nothing to hide in this regard,
>it just didn't seem particularly
>important. If ADS-L has a policy on this, then I'm sorry if I've violated it.
>I'm certainly willing to follow the rules--I just need to know what they are,
>and to know that they are not the idiosyncratric dicta of one member of the
>list.
>
>Mr. Nunberg raises an interesting question, however, in his statement below,
>particularly as it applies to scholarly publications (and perhaps even
>conference papers). I confess I have not given
>much thought to the question--again,
>it has always seemed to me that the truth is the truth, regardless of the
>source. I honestly don't remember this topic
>having ever been discussed by the LSA,
>the IAFL, or any professional group. Should I acknowledge that I am a member
>of the Editorial Advisory Board of NOAD every time I quote the dictionary?
>Maybe so.
>
>At any rate, while I'm not willing to concede that it is simply and clearly
>the case that "professional ethics requires you to disclose this information
>when you write or speak about the subject," I'm
>willing to keep an open mind on
>the subject--and to be ruled by whatever regulations or code of ethics that
>may have been set forth by the Linguistic Society of America or some other
>equally authoritative organization (as opposed
>to whatever rules Dr. Nunberg on his
>own may wish to suggest), and I'd
>welcome further discussion. Indeed, I hope that Dr. Nunberg will raise this
>issue with the Linguistic Society of America (an organization that I believe
>regularly refers lawyers to linguists, by the way). Or perhaps he has already
>done so. Or perhaps the LSA has done so, and I am simply ignorant of it. It
>would be helpful if Dr. Nunberg would suggest,
>for starters, those publications in
>which he has "argued that we should establish similar standards [to those in
>medicine] in linguistics, as well."
>
>As I wrote in a previous posting, those "forensic" linguists who take part in
>IAFL and similar organizations take their ethical standards seriously. I
>think everyone of us should be concerned about the issue that Dr. Nunberg
>raises--and I expect that we all would be quite
>interested in coming to some kind of
>resolution of the issue. I can't speak for
>others, but for myself I am grateful
>to him for raising an issue of such obvious importance to him--even if, at
>this point, I don't very much agree with him.
>
>
>>  In a message dated 5/30/05 1:38:16 AM, nunberg at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>  I have no reason to suppose that Ron Butters is other than sincere in
>>  his conclusions about the status of the word 'redskin'. But when your
>>  research has been supported by someone with a financial stake in the
>>  outcome, professional ethics requires you to disclose this
>>  information when you write or speak about the subject, so that
>>  readers can take the source of funding into account, and so that you
>>  can protect yourself against the charge that you're concealing who
>>  paid for the work.
>>
>>  This is a standard requirement of journals and professional societies
>>  in fields like medicine, where corporate funding plays an important
>>  role. I've argued that we should establish similar standards in
>>  linguistics, as well, even if the situation comes up less frequently.
>>
>>  I never write about the Redskins case or any other matter in which
>>  I've worked as a legal expert, either pro-bono or paid, without
>>  acknowledging the terms of my involvement. Professor Butters was
>>  remiss in not disclosing his role in the case in his posting. Nor did
>>  he mention it in the presentation on this topic he gave at the DSNA a
>>  few years ago, of which I've heard a tape, until Joe Pickett asked
>>  him about it in the question period. I hope he'll do so if he writes
>>  about this in the future, so that it won't be left to others to
>>  supply the information.
>>
>>