The Whistleblower; Traitor or Hero?

Whistleblowing is a topic with increasing relevance and attention in our culture. Edward Snowden is a well renowned recent whistleblower who is famous for bringing the debate into public focus. Naturally, it is a topic of international debate, and many people have hailed people like Snowden as heros. Snowden actually won the Swedish human rights award and received a standing ovation by the Swedish parliament for the information that he revealed about the NSA. According to the Parliament, he received the award, “for his courage and skill in revealing the unprecedented extent of state surveillance violating basic democratic processes and constitutional rights (Macasksill, 2014)”. On the other hand, the US government has charged him under the espionage act, and he has to take cover in Moscow. He has applied for asylum in 21 other countries and would like to be in the EU, but it is not easy for him because many nations do not want to be associated with him. This illustrates a quintessential conundrum that applies to whistleblowers. Are they traitors or heros? This essay argues for the later and specifically addresses whistleblowing in the scientific research sphere. However, an example like Snowden's illustrates that this is an issue that is not only about science, but about democracies and the necessity to disclose information in an allegedly free state, like the US. This essay argues the point that unless a day comes when all institutions (Governments, corporations, research institutions etc.) can be trusted to disclose information and to operate with honesty and transparency, then whistleblowers will always be necessary. Most importantly, is is crucial that whistle blowers are able to remain anonymous, because their lives and careers can be on the line when they attempt to expose truths that could damage the reputation of the individuals or institutions in question. This not only protects the individuals who blow the whistle and encourages them to step forward, but also protects the goals of the scientific institution, which inevitably effects millions of people all over the world. Ultimately, whistleblowers need better protection, and also more respect in our culture so that it is no longer acceptable to bully or prosecute them for exposing truths that others wish to hide or distort.

“One of the challenges Snowden poses for us is the recognition that there is no such thing as the public interest. No such thing as one single, monolithic interest that overrides all others.”-Alan Rusbriger, The Guardian (MacAskill, 2014).

It is archaic to imagine that any institution would argue that whistle blowers should NOT remain anonymous. According to the article, “What To Do About 'Clare Francis'” many editors see whistle blowers as wasting their time, and many organizations will not take a whistleblower's allegations seriously unless they come forward with their name. “Some journals will only accept allegations if you name yourself. . . . They will demand you write something on letterhead from your university or be required for a phone call.”- Ivan Oransky, a founder of the blog Retraction Watch (Grens, 2013). The article pointed out that in some cases, an allegation leads to no where, and that this essentially wastes the time of the person who investigates it. The attitude is that it is the Whistleblower's job to fully investigate a topic before reporting anything. That is a nice ideal, and before one blows the whistle on someone, it would be intelligent for the whistleblower to do adequate research and to ensure that they are not speaking out of turn. After all, the last thing whistleblowers need is to be labeled as 'the boys who cry wolf”, because this could lead to a culture where important allegations are routinely ignored. However, who's job is it to ensure that there are no ethical violations in research before an article is published? Technically, that is the job of the editors and journals, and if they are doing their job thoroughly, then they do not have to worry about annoying whistle blowers anymore, because they would catch every breaches of ethics before publishing. Of course, even if every editor is honest and thorough, there is inevitably room for human error. Even in the face of integrity and transparency, mistakes can be made and over looked. Thus, whistleblowers will always be valuable. If anything, the whistleblower is helping publications to do their job more effectively.

Why is it so important that whistleblowers remain anonymous? In short, whistle blowing can ruin one's career, reputation, and even life. “A negative reaction to criticism by somebody reviewing your paper, grant, or job application can spell the end of your career,” the organizers of PubPeer—who themselves remain anonymous—wrote in an e-mail to The Scientist. “We don’t want to take that risk, and we understand that many commenters do not want to either (Grens, 2014).”

Since we do not live in a perfect world where all ideal situations can be achieved, it is preferable that every year some time is wasted in following whistleblowing leads that are unfruitful, than that every whistleblower is endlessly shamed or ostracized by their institution. When whistleblowers are publicity humiliated and we see the stigma that they face, then it is not inspiring for anyone to become a whistleblower. The only way to ensure that whistleblowers can continue, and to ensure that whistles are actually blown when they should be, is to offer adequate protection for them. Anonymity is the best place to start. Not everyone is willing to trade in their career, lifestyle, social and professional network in order to stick to their ethical guns. When the price is so high, why would anyone aspire to be a blow the whistle? In short, some publications worry that whistleblowers who chose to remain anonymous could be wasting their time, but in asking whistleblowers to always come forward with their name, they are wasting the pool of potential whistleblowers, because a lack of anonymity makes the stakes too high to come forward.

At the end of the day, the whistleblowing debate is not only about the individual egos involved, although it does effect people and institutions so deeply, that it becomes emotional and personal for those concerned. Imagine being a researcher, and a colleague blows the whistle on you. In turn, that whistle blower loses their job and gets a bad reputation that keeps them from moving up and forward in their career. Obviously, both parties are hurt and insulted on some leve. The fact is that there is a lot of hurt ego and pride involved when someone blows the whistle. Studies suggest that most people involved in a whistle blowing situation (whether they directly blew the whistle or not) will deal with considerable stress issues, some of which can be quite severe (McDonald, S., & Ahern, K. 2002). The personal stakes are very high when it comes to whistleblowing, which is the reason anonymity is so important.

But what about the ultimate aspirations of the scientific institution to contribute to society in a meaningful way? Why is it so important that we protect whistleblowers? This is because it is not ultimately about the individual involved so much as it is about protecting the integrity of the larger institution and the greater good that the institution is supposedly responsible for. Science is bigger than any individual or person, and cheating in research can lead to devastating results that can effect thousands or even millions of lives. That is because science is supposed to somehow contribute to society in a meaningful way, and is not actually about helping and advancing individual scientists or institutions. When scientists cheat or lie, they are cheating all of the people who might be effected by those falsifications. For example, if you are an AIDS researcher, and you skew your results to make it look like you have found a cure for AIDS, when in fact you have not, you are wasting the time of an awful lot of people. Especially if you go so far as to run trials on that drug. People can actually be dying in your hands. Such atrocities have unfortunately happened before. The entire point of research is to ultimately benefit society, or to at least be a stepping stone for other researchers. Science is a complex web where researchers rely on the work of those who came before them in order to go further. When so many lives are influenced, it is clear to see why scientific integrity is so important, and thus why it is so important that whistleblowers feel comfortable to step forward. We need to protect the individual in order to protect the integrity of institution at large.

“Scientists also have "external," social responsibilities toward the larger community..." Science depends on public money, effects policy decisions, and offers risks and benefits to society. "The communities in which you live and the communities much farther out … are ultimately affected by the work that you do."-Mark S. Frankel, the director of the Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights, and Law Program at AAAS (Pain, 2013).

The fact is that people can sometimes figure out who blew the whistle, even if no name was given. So, even when whistleblowers are protected with anonymity, their identity may come forward. How can whistleblowers be best protected in this case? While the option to remain anonymous is key in enabling people to come forward, further protection measurements need to be in place for these people. What kind of legal protections are in place for whistle blowers, and where might those be lacking? Garcetti vs. Ceballos and the MSPB guidelines for review by agency lawyers are two legal weak spots where whistleblowers are not properly protected or taken seriously.

The U.S. Supreme Court, ruled in 2006 that government employees do not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the constitution, and that they actually lose their first amendment rights when they blow the whistle on their organization (Norton, H., 2006). This does not nurture an environment of trust, and it does not encourage people to come forward. A counter argument could be that some information is sensitive, and in exposing it public interest or health could be jeopardized. Where do we draw the line? This can be said for sensitive government information, as well as sensitive scientific information that could possibly endanger public health. While that is a separate debate in itself, the truth stands that when you work for a government agency and blow the whistle on that agency, you will lose your constitutional rights by default, and that is a problem because it automatically discourages people from blowing the whistle within their organization.

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) uses agency lawyers in the place of "administrative law judges” to rule on the appeals of federal whistleblowers. “The MSPB judges ruled in favor of employees a total of 1.7% of the time out of a total caseload of 4,698 cases nationwide. In other words, if you are a federal employee and have a whistleblower reprisal claim or otherwise challenge serious discipline or a termination before the MSPB you have more than a 97% chance of losing your case, even after factoring in the cases that settle. (Collapinto, 2010).”

The above information is certainly not promising because it illustrates the biased filters that whistleblowers have to go through. Agency lawyers filter out complaints against the agency itself. The MSPB is specifically for federal employees, so they do not represent the entire scientific institution. However, many research institutions are government based, and the policy also gives an idea of how much respect the U.S. Government has for whistleblowers while it illustrates how the cultural climate is currently one that does not protect whistleblowers or take them seriously. How are people expected to come forward if they are not adequately legally protected? How are people expected to be effective in coming forward if 98% of cases are denied by attorney examiners, who are actually agency lawyers? This is a serious conflict of interest.

If the government says it is okay to filter whistleblowers in a biased fashion, and to deny them their first amendment rights, then this sends a clear message to institutions and individuals that it is OK to bully and disrespect them. What can be said for this cultural climate? Can this attitude actually change? As mentioned earlier, egos and money are inevitably at stake in these situations, and things do get personal. The world where all whistle blowers would be safe, is the world that respects and encourages them to come forward and that recognizes them as heroes as opposed to nuisances. However, that would require honesty and transparency, and the organizations who face real threat from whistle blowers are the ones that inherently have something to hide. An interesting question to pose is not just whether or not whistle blowers should be allowed to be anonymous but, how we can we actually change our attitude towards them so that shaming the whistleblower would be considered shameful in itself? How do we create a culture where they are respected and protected; an atmosphere where bullying them would be considered lowly and unacceptable? Until we live in a world where this is the case, whistle blowers will need to remain anonymous in order to feel comfortable in coming forward. Changing cultural attitudes is surely more complex than changing policies, and it could take a generation or more to really see a change in attitude. However, changing policy to better protect and respect whistleblowers is the first pragmatic step that we can take towards getting there.

“In a perfect world, I would want to know who everyone was, what their biases were, conflicts of interest,” Oransky said. “But if we were in a perfect world, we wouldn’t be committing misconduct and fraud.”-Ivan Oransky (Grens, 2014)

In summary, whistleblowers need to have the option to remain anonymous, because there is no other way that they can feel comfortable in coming forward. Some publications or institutions may argue that they should name themselves in order to be taken seriously and not 'waste time' for the person who actually looks into the charges. However, whistle blowing comes down to benefiting all of society, and is not simply about individual researchers or institutions at the end of the day. Thus, whistleblowing should be encouraged. Whistle blowers can face immense stress and shame when they come forward, and in order to encourage scientific honesty, it is important that we do all that we can to encourage them. As it stands, the legislation protecting whistleblowers is not enough (its pathetic), and more effective policies need to be in place if there is any hope of ultimately changing a cultural atmosphere where it is acceptable to shame whistle blowers within institutions. The government needs to set a better example for its citizens to follow. Ultimately, with increased protection for whistleblowers, we can only hope that a shift in this cultural attitude will occur. As long as institutions and management are willing to bully whistleblowers, even if it is behind closed doors, then whistleblowers are never safe and there will always be fear associated with coming forward. The biggest challenge, is to actually change our cultural attitudes towards whistle blowers, so that it is no longer the whistle blower who feels shame, but the ones who attempt to shame the whistle blower. Continued advocacy for whistleblowers and a change in legislative policy is where we need to start in hopes for a more promising and honest future.

Colapinto, D. (2010, March 1). Federal Employees Have Less than 2% Chance of Success Before MSPB Judges.

Grens, K. (2013, September 14). What to Do About “Clare Francis”. The Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37482/title/What-to-Do-About--Clare-Francis-/

MacAskill, E. (2014, December 1). Edward Snowden wins Swedish human rights award for NSA revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/01/nsa-whistlebloewer-edward-snowden-wins-swedish-human-rights-award

McDonald, S., & Ahern, K. (2002). Physical and emotional effects of whistleblowing.Journal of Psychosocial Nurse Mental Health Service, 1(40), 14-27.

Norton, H. (2006, January 1). A Huge Loss for the Public’s Right to Know – And Its Safety.American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/node/343

Pain, E. (2013, February 16). The Social Responsibilities of Scientists.