Whistleblowing in science: this physician faced ostracization after standing up to pharma

Sara Reardon

nature.com

Originally posted 20 Aug 24

The image of a lone scientist standing up for integrity against a pharmaceutical giant seems romantic and compelling. But to haematologist Nancy Olivieri, who went public when the company sponsoring her drug trial for a genetic blood disorder tried to suppress data about harmful side effects, the experience was as unglamorous as it was damaging and isolating. “There’s a lot of people who fight for justice in research integrity and against the pharmaceutical industry, but very few people know what it’s like to take on the hospital administrators” too, she says.

Now, after more than 30 years of ostracization by colleagues, several job losses and more than 20 lawsuits — some of which are ongoing — Olivieri is still amazed that what she saw as efforts to protect her patients could have proved so controversial, and that so few people took her side. Last year, she won the John Maddox Prize, a partnership between the London-based charity Sense about Science and Nature, which recognizes “researchers who stand up and speak out for science” and who achieve changes amid hostility. “It’s absolutely astounding to me that you could become famous as a physician for saying, ‘I think there might be a complication here,’” she says. “There was a lot of really good work that we could have done that we wasted a lot of years not doing because of all this.”

Olivieri didn’t set out to be a troublemaker. As a young researcher at the University of Toronto (UT), Canada, in the 1980s, she worked with children with thalassaemia — a blood condition that prevents the body from making enough oxygen-carrying haemoglobin, and that causes a fatal build-up of iron in the organs if left untreated. She worked her way up to become head of the sickle-cell-disease programme at the city’s Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids). In 1989, she started a clinical trial at SickKids to test a drug called deferiprone that traps iron in the blood. The hospital eventually brought in a pharmaceutical company called Apotex, based in Toronto, Canada, to co-sponsor the study as part of regulatory requirements.

The article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

The case of Nancy Olivieri, a haematologist who blew the whistle on a pharmaceutical company's attempts to suppress data about harmful side effects of a drug, highlights the challenges and consequences faced by researchers who speak out against industry and institutional pressures. Olivieri's experience demonstrates how institutions can turn against researchers who challenge industry interests, leading to isolation, ostracization, and damage to their careers. Despite the risks, Olivieri's story emphasizes the crucial role of allies and support networks in helping whistle-blowers navigate the challenges they face.

The case also underscores the importance of maintaining research integrity and transparency, even in the face of industry pressure. Olivieri's experience shows that prioritizing patient safety and well-being over industry interests is critical, and institutions must be held accountable for their actions. Additionally, the significant emotional toll that whistle-blowing can take on individuals, including anxiety, isolation, and disillusionment, must be acknowledged.

To address these issues, policy reforms are necessary to protect researchers from retaliation and ensure that they can speak out without fear of retribution. Industry transparency is also essential to minimize conflicts of interest. Furthermore, institutions and professional organizations must establish support networks for researchers who speak out against wrongdoing.

Institutional Betrayal: Inequity, Discrimination, Bullying, and Retaliation in Academia

Karen Pyke
Sociological Perspectives
Volume: 61 issue: 1, page(s): 5-13
Article first published online: January 9, 2018

Abstract

Institutions of higher learning dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and committed to diversity should be exemplars of workplace equity. Sadly, they are not. Their failure to take appropriate action to protect employees from inequity, discrimination, bullying, and retaliation amounts to institutional betrayal. The professional code of ethics for sociology, a discipline committed to the study of inequality, instructs sociologists to “strive to eliminate bias in their professional activities” and not to “tolerate any forms of discrimination.” As such, sociologists should be the leaders on our campuses in recognizing institutional betrayals by academic administrators and in promoting workplace equity. Regrettably, we have not accepted this charge. In this address, I call for sociologists to embrace our professional responsibilities and apply our scholarly knowledge and commitments to the reduction of inequality in our own workplace. If we can’t do it here, can we do it anywhere?

The article is here.

Building A More Ethical Workplace Culture

PYMNTS
PYMNTS.com
Originally posted March 20, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

The Worst News

Among the positive findings in the report was the fact that reporting is on the rise by a whole 19 percent, with 69 percent of employees stating they had reported misconduct in the last two years.

But that number, Harned said, comes with a bitter side note. Retaliation has also spiked during the same time period, with 44 percent reporting it – up from 22 percent two years ago.

The rate of retaliation going up faster than the rate of reporting, Harned noted, is disturbing.

“That is a very real problem for employees, and I think over the last year, we’ve seen what a huge problem it has become for employers.”

The door-to-door on retaliation for reporting is short – about three weeks on average. That is just about the time it takes for firms – even those serious about doing a good job with improving compliance – to get any investigation up and organized.

“By then, the damage is already done,” said Harned. “We are better at seeing misconduct, but we aren’t doing enough to prevent it from happening – especially because retaliation is such a big problem.”

There are not easy solutions, Harned noted, but the good news – even in the face of the worst news – is that improvement is possible, and is even being logged in some segments. Employees, she stated, mostly come in the door with a moral compass to call their own, and want to work in environments that are healthy, not vicious.

“The answer is culture is everything: Companies need to constantly communicate to employees that conduct is the expectation for all levels of the organization, and that breaking those rules will always have consequences.”

The post is here.

Suit Could Determine Protections for Police Department Whistle-Blowers

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
The New York Times
Published: October 13, 2013

When Officer Craig Matthews complained to his precinct commander about a quota system that he believed was resulting in illegal street stops and arrests, it did not take long, he said, for him to see a response: he was given undesirable assignments, a mediocre performance review and the cold shoulder from his immediate supervisors.

So Officer Matthews filed a federal lawsuit, seeking protection from retaliation by invoking the First Amendment — a standard strategy for whistle-blowers who believe they have been punished for coming forward.

But because Officer Matthews, 40, is with the New York Police Department, his rights are less assured.

The city has taken the position that because officers are expected to report misconduct, those who come forward as whistle-blowers are simply fulfilling their duty established by the patrol guide, a voluminous book of police procedures.

The entire story is here.