Supporting researchers to protect scientific integrity in sexual and reproductive health
The global landscape in sexual and reproductive health is rapidly changing. In the US, abortion access is increasingly restricted and contraception is under threat. Simultaneously, mis- and disinformation threatens informed consent, while weaknesses in scholarly publishing have enabled methodologically flawed studies to enter the scientific literature - gaining unwarranted credibility and detrimentally impacting court cases, policies, and programs.
Supporting those who work to identify and address threats to scientific integrity is vital. Such individuals often have little institutional support, can infrequently find funding, are rarely rewarded for their work, and may even be threatened (legally or otherwise) for their efforts to address misleading information. Yet, their hard work must be valued and supported for science to remain trustworthy and to facilitate the crafting of evidence-based policies and programs.
I have personally experienced serious challenges in my efforts to protect scientific integrity in SRH. I was frivolously sued for $1 million dollars for speaking out about the flawed evidence and marketing of a fertility tracking device, after convincing a scientific journal to retract a flawed study about the device, and after convincing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate and address the company's inappropriate marketing practices. As a result of my work on this issue, I was awarded a 2023 John Maddox Prize for standing up for science in the face of difficulty. As part of my efforts to address methodologically flawed studies on abortion and mental health, I also observed a situation in which, as reported by BMJ and BBC, legal threats made against a scientific journal appear to have inappropriately obstructed editorial independence, the production of scientific knowledge, and potentially, public policy.
I am concerned about the potential for these obstacles to intimidate researchers away from defending scientific integrity in SRH, particularly under-resourced researchers, researchers of marginalized identities, and early career researchers.
My leadership project through WomenLift Health aimed to address this gap by developing resources to support researchers defending scientific integrity in SRH. I have:
At present, this project is paused due to lack of funding. The survey data has been collected and requires dedicated time for analysis and write-up. The resources table has been compiled and needs additional development before publication. Completing this work could provide vital support to researchers facing similar challenges, but requires dedicated resources. I would welcome connections with:
Scientific integrity in SRH research is essential for evidence-based policy and programs. Supporting those who defend it must become a priority.
Supporting those who work to identify and address threats to scientific integrity is vital. Such individuals often have little institutional support, can infrequently find funding, are rarely rewarded for their work, and may even be threatened (legally or otherwise) for their efforts to address misleading information. Yet, their hard work must be valued and supported for science to remain trustworthy and to facilitate the crafting of evidence-based policies and programs.
I have personally experienced serious challenges in my efforts to protect scientific integrity in SRH. I was frivolously sued for $1 million dollars for speaking out about the flawed evidence and marketing of a fertility tracking device, after convincing a scientific journal to retract a flawed study about the device, and after convincing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate and address the company's inappropriate marketing practices. As a result of my work on this issue, I was awarded a 2023 John Maddox Prize for standing up for science in the face of difficulty. As part of my efforts to address methodologically flawed studies on abortion and mental health, I also observed a situation in which, as reported by BMJ and BBC, legal threats made against a scientific journal appear to have inappropriately obstructed editorial independence, the production of scientific knowledge, and potentially, public policy.
I am concerned about the potential for these obstacles to intimidate researchers away from defending scientific integrity in SRH, particularly under-resourced researchers, researchers of marginalized identities, and early career researchers.
My leadership project through WomenLift Health aimed to address this gap by developing resources to support researchers defending scientific integrity in SRH. I have:
- Surveyed researchers who have attempted to correct flawed information in the scientific literature to understand their experiences, challenges, and needs
- Compiled a table of organizations, tools, and resources relevant to supporting this work
At present, this project is paused due to lack of funding. The survey data has been collected and requires dedicated time for analysis and write-up. The resources table has been compiled and needs additional development before publication. Completing this work could provide vital support to researchers facing similar challenges, but requires dedicated resources. I would welcome connections with:
- Potential funders interested in supporting this project or other work on research integrity in SRH
- Organizations working on related initiatives
- Researchers who have faced or are facing similar challenges
- Anyone interested in collaborating on this critical issue
Scientific integrity in SRH research is essential for evidence-based policy and programs. Supporting those who defend it must become a priority.