How often do ulterior motives influence the design of a scientific study?

On unpacking this question, we find what at first glance appear to be three simple questions. [1] Are scientists personally biased. [2] Do they intentionally hide these biases? And [3] if yes, how often? On reflecting further though, these questions are anything but simple. This said, I’ll try to offer a few starting points from which to explore.

[1] Are scientists personally biased? If they are human, then yes, they are. No unbiased human currently exists on this planet, nor has any such person ever existed. From the moment of birth, we are all biased by things as simple as the mood in the delivery room. One need only acquire the most fundamental sense of complexity theory (e.g. sensitivity to initial conditions) to realize this.

Of course, my answer contradicts some essential assumptions about science, and about morality in general. We assume good science is unbiased. Good luck with that. Like fish in a fish tank who are biased by living in water, we humans are biased by the mere fact that WE are a part of what we are measuring (see Otto Rossler’s 1998 book, “Endophysics”).

Ultimately, I believe these biases matter only to the degree that the scientists in question lie about their findings. I think most scientists still manage to be “professionally” honest (honest about the big stuff), this despite the fact that most feel seriously pressured to make discoveries in order to get funding.

[2] Do they intentionally hide these biases? Most times, yes. There are exceptions however, times when scientists admit biases up front in an effort to derail any possible use of this bias by their critics. For instance, read the preface to Descartes’ Discourse on Method or Jacob Bernoulli’s Art of Conjecturing.

The more salient question is, do these intentional omissions skew the science? Here, I would say yes. For example, Crick and Watson admit that their discovery of DNA was largely driven by their atheism and a need to discount the “God hypothesis.” (See Crick’s recent interview in The Telegraph).

The problem here is that when scientists do admit their biases up front, often, this causes people to assume the work is biased as well. It may very well be excellent work. But a bias built into human nature – the tendency to reduce another person’s words to what they mean to the reader (what they already know) – is so ubiquitous as to be almost impossible to overlook. Yet another pressure scientists face.

[3] if yes, how often? Finally, the simple part. Both of these things occur far more often than not.

Somehow, good science often happens anyway.