CORPORATE CRIME OBSERVATORY

Overview

The Whistling at the Fake project, in conjunction with the What Does it Profit? podcast hosted by Dr. Dawn Carpenter, has taken the opportunity to discuss matters of misinformation and disinformation in science, and the moral value of truth with Dr. Elisabeth Bik, and Dr. Ivan Oransky.

 
Principally, the discussion turns to what does it mean to be a whistleblower, with Dr. Oransky explaining whistleblowing may be understood as an act, to reveal, uncover, or otherwise demonstrate a problem. This may be either within the private corporate sphere or the public governmental space. 

Dr. Oransky takes the opportunity to differentiate between what he considers a ‘lowercase w’ whistleblower, and a ‘capital W’ Whistleblower. The salient distinction between what may be understood as these two acts is the role of the person performing them, with the ‘lowercase w’ being a person who discloses what they understand to be wrongdoing in order to alert to it but is not necessarily an institutional insider, and those who are ‘capital W’ Whistleblowers belonging to the organization from which the perceived wrongdoing emanates, and as such, may be recognized as making a disclosure with a level of protection under the law.

 
This distinction, Dr. Oransky explains, is of importance as often people wish to make disclosures of wrongdoing but are unaware of how much protection they have, or do not have, and are therefore vulnerable to acts of retaliation without appropriate recourse. 

Along with this distinction, Dr. Bik considers herself a whistleblower from the outside, or a ‘lower case w’ whistleblower, in her role identifying falsified or otherwise problematic scientific academic papers.  Within this capacity, Dr. Bik is able to provide interesting insights into the dynamics that affect not just drawing attention to wrongdoing or fraudulent claims, but the distinction in these claims being brought by a woman, and the shifting nature of retaliatory claims that focus on personal aspects such as appearance, as opposed to defending the science or rebuffing the claim.

 
Echoing this, Dr. Oransky identifies a situation where a group of individuals made a disclosure, and the levels and forms of retaliation and reaction were different depending on gender and ethnicity, with women from ethnic minorities being treated disproportionately harsher.
Briefly considering the ability to make disclosures, and disincentives to disclose, Dr. Oransky draws attention to an individual’s prospects being the hands of the person who is subject to the disclosure – that if you are blowing the whistle against someone who is able to approve or otherwise a promotion or workplace activity, there is provided an added hurdle to highlighting wrongdoing, and it is in this context that outsider whistleblowers free of these constraints or considerations provide added value.

The discussion then turns to specific reactions and experiences of retaliation resultant of disclosures, and the important impact this potentially has when attempting to bring wrongdoing to attention, or highlight fraudulent and problematic behaviors, including harassment, reputational damage, and threats.

Following this, the guests then address the importance of accurate and rigorous scientific knowledge when it is at the forefront of public policy decision making, by example during instances such as COVID-19. Considering this, it is highlighted that science may be misconstrued or otherwise cherry-picked in order to lend scientific legitimacy to political and public policy aims, and as such completely disregards the scientific method in order to spread misinformation and disinformation.

​

One of the significant driving factors in the creation of poor-quality scientific information is the institutional pressure placed upon scientists to publish academic papers, whereby this creates perverse incentives to distribute information that may not be accurate and supports the spreading of misinformation and disinformation.

 
When asked the quintessential question of the What Does it Profit podcast, why do you do what you do, Dr. Bik locates the value in her work as facilitating effective future research based on the best available scientific knowledge at the time, as opposed to being tainted by information that is problematic or otherwise fraudulent. Doing so provides value to future generations, impacts policymakers, and lessens the effect of disinformation.