Secrets, Secrets are no fun: Is it unethical to leave dead end research unpublished?

          Have you ever thought of a great concept or joke and later found out that someone else thought of the exact same thing earlier than you? You may feel dejected if your idea was a joke, but what if it was a plan for taking certain courses, or to try making a certain type of food in an unorthodox manner? Chances are you could benefit greatly from the experiences of the person who tried it out before you – if the method of cooking ended in disaster, you can save yourself and whoever you are cooking for a lot of time and stomachache by avoiding it and trying something else. Now imagine, if your predecessor decided not to tell anyone about his failure – whether out of shame or because he intended to try again – the result would be that you would never get the chance to learn from him, and would be doomed to the same fate.

            This is the current state of affairs in the world of Clinical Trials. A law passed by Congress in 2007 requires that clinical researchers release most of the detailed results of their trials to the public. However, they are only required to do so once their product becomes approved by the FDA – meaning if they terminate the study early, or it fails for some other reason, they are never legally required to release the information. Even if it isn’t illegal, is invoking this loophole unethical? The hypothetical situation above shows how sharing can lead to benefit for a group of people, even if the result was not as expected. Additionally, it could help clear up current medical assumptions that we don’t even know are problematic. Science Daily uses the example that Michael Rogawski, Chair of the UC Davis School of Medicine Neurology Department, presents. He says new antiepileptic drugs are tested on mouse models, which are assumed to be effective simply because there is no contradictory evidence. However, if it is being withheld by the companies that failed, then this evidence could exist somewhere.

            The article in Science Daily concludes that when researchers fail to publish failed results, they are violating “an implicit moral contract between sponsors and study participants.” While I agree that it should become standard practice, if not law, for research companies to release all of their results – failed or successful – I would not go far as condemning those that have not chosen to as of yet. Research dead ends for a number of reasons – dangerous side effects, running out of funding, or simply a change in the market. It is understandable that in some of these cases, a company may want to keep their methods secret in case they want to return to the research at some point, and there is no strongly suggestive evidence to say they are harming anyone by doing so. For this reason we should avoid condemning anyone for what has been done up until now. Nevertheless, I think it is time for a change. The law should be changed in order to require that all results be published, just in case we are missing something that could benefit everyone.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110928142444.htm