Today’s New York Times posted a long article about J. Michael Bailey. They love him there. The intent of the article was to write another “poor Bailey” article, but the effect was the opposite. In this article Bailey states: “I interviewed people for a book,” he said. “This is a free society, and that should be allowed.” But he did not say that he had formal consent from his research subjects and that is the critical point. Even his defender, ethics scholar Alice Dreger, says that he did not have formal consent. Her point is that Bailey’s “book did not qualify as scientific research.” Who needs opponents with a defender like this. Doesn’t she look the fool.

Of course Bailey should have obtained formal research consent. That is the whole point of ethical standards in academic research. You cannot simply decide one day that this is a free society and that you are therefore not required to follow ethical guidelines of your profession. He did the interviews during working hours, right? He meant for this book to advance his scientific career, right? He should have followed the ethical standards of his profession.

I wrote some time ago to Northwestern University, where I graduated, that I would never give them a penny, because they failed to protect the rights of research subjects recruited from one of the most vulnerable populations in this country. That is a sin for researchers. But the New York Times and Northwestern University are most interested in Bailey’s career.

Share This