There is another aspect of the biscuit injury story I want to briefly discuss before I put this to bed. I mentioned in yesterday’s post that Dr Lewis wrote to me and sent me the full report, which he did, but there is a little bit more to the story. As his first email was covered by one of those generic confidentiality agreements you often see at the bottom of corporate emails, I wasn’t able to publish anything it contained, so I wrote to him to ask his permission to reproduce its contents. As it turned out, it was academic because the entire report has been posted online by the company, but, before I knew that, I had decided that I would write about not only the report itself but also how I got the permission to use it. This post is about what I was prepared to say to get what I wanted and why. I would be very interested in your opinions on how far it is OK to go to get what you want in a situation like this.
My first email started out by asking for Dr Lewis’s opinion on the figure of 25 million that was being bandied about by the media. This was his response:
Many thanks for your e-mail. I am afraid I have no idea where this figure came from, it seems highly unlikely to me. The only statistic with which I am comfortable is the fact that just over 500 people reported ‘biscuit related injuries’ according to official figures. Given there are 64 million people in the UK this is hardly a significant statistic.
Fairly self explanatory. However, this email also included a copy of the report and his admission that his company used A-level students to do their dirty work. After receiving it, I wasn’t so bothered about the 25 million anymore, instead, I really wanted to tear into both the report and The Mind Lab but, as I said, couldn’t because of the confidentiality clause. So I sent another email, here it is in full:
Dear Dr Lewis,
Thank you for your swift response. I note that your email is covered by a confidentiality agreement. I would like to discuss some of the contents of your email on my blog. In particular, I am interested in discussing the misreporting of academic research by journalists. I would like to be able to set the record straight with regard to the statistics in the news and what your report actually says and I was wondering whether you are able to give me permission to disclose any of the contents? I recognize that, as the report was commissioned by a customer, that may not be possible, however, even granting me permission to repeat your original email would enable me to separate out the statistics that are from the report and those that have appeared between when it was written and the publication of the news story.Many thanks again,
As you can see, I didn’t tell any lies; I stuck to the letter of the truth – I am interested in the misreporting of science in the media and I did wish to (and have) set the record straight with regard to the nonsense statistics. However, I didn’t feel full disclosure was likely to get me what I wanted and so I chose to omit my main purpose for requesting this permission.
I am usually exceedingly moral and my willingness to lie by omission like this made me think – I was surprised by just how easily I was able to justify it to myself. I had to wonder whether, having gained permission by these means, it was right to use what I had been sent. In the end I decided I would use it but that I would also explain how I came by it and let people decide for themselves whether it was the right thing to do. As I said, in the end, it didn’t come to it, but I’m still not sure that would have been correct if it had.
On the other hand, this is a very minor piece of amateur journalism, but if the issues at stake were greater, would this sort of manipulation be justified to get this information out and in the public sphere? Obviously, the greater the information at stake, the more acceptable it is to bend and break the rules. If something is bad enough then it’s absolutely OK, if not necessary, to publish without getting permission at all. So where do we draw the line and how do we regulate this sort of investigation? Does the system work as it is? Certainly the UK has the most draconian libel laws in the world, which must make good investigative journalism much harder, not to mention the increased pressure from editors to produce more words than ever before in less time. Added to that, journalism is changing. The traditional news media are becoming less and less viable and the real investigation is being done more and more by bloggers. As time goes on, the current regulatory system is becoming increasingly out of date. The greatest strength of blogging as a journalistic tool is it’s lack of constraints, but that also leaves it more open to abuse. How can we resolve this contradiction?
The more I think about it, the more I consider my initial instinct may have been right. If a person writing a story also explains how they came by the information and how far they were prepared to go to get it then perhaps it will make them think more before crossing a line. It would prevent them hiding from their readers (and also from themselves) the implications of their actions. One of the greatest things about blogging is the right of reply it gives not only the subject of the story, but also the readers. This way, everyone can say whether they feel the ends justified the means. It can’t resolve every situation, but perhaps it can help to find a balance between freedom to report the truth and the ethics of confidentiality.
Well, that’s about it from me on a rather more weighty topic than my usual fare. Pending a possible response from the Sussex Innovation Centre, which I will tell you about if it happens, normal service will be resumed shortly. I’ll see you all soon, I’m flying home in 43 short hours. Can’t wait 
