“I cannot see any grounds on which Professor Shorvon can be accused of unethical behaviour… The charge of general mismanagement is patently absurd.” - Richard Doll

Remember Professor Simon Shorvon, distinguished neuroscientist and current bane of the Singapore National Neuroscience Institute? He has now written a comment about his experiences in Singapore in the medical journal Lancet. And oh dear, something very interesting has happened in the UK General Medical Council (GMC) very recently (my emphasis):

These events show that different regulatory systems can arrive at diff erent decisions. This is neither surprising nor noteworthy in view of wide social differences that exist between countries, but the point needs highlighting because of a recent change to GMC rules (rule 34[4]). This rule change now obliges the GMC to accept the findings of overseas regulatory bodies as proven fact, regardless of the nature of the evidence and the manner in which it was gathered. This replaces the current process by which the GMC is required itself to gather and test evidence within its prescribed procedures.

In other words, had Professor Shorvon’s case taken place now, the UK GMC would have simply taken their Singapore counterparts’ findings (SMC) at face value without independent verification. Shorvon of course strongly urges the GMC to reconsider this rule change, and not without merit, according to him (my emphasis):

[SMC's] claims were totally rejected by the judge, who wrote: “the SMC had failed to establish—and in my view in fact, has allen a long way short of establishing—that the decision should be quashed”. The judge also commented that “It is extremely difficult to view the statutory functions of the SMC as extending to inviting, initiating or making charges against a doctor in a different jurisdiction”… This may be the first time that one regulatory authority has challenged the decision of another in the latter’s jurisdiction.

These points are important for scientific research. In all countries, fair regulation is a glue binding scientific progress. Science depends on a reliable regulatory framework professionally applied. High standards are
required not only from scientists but also from those regulating them… Standards should be based on internationally agreed tenets of individual rights and duties, such as are contained in European legislation on freedom of information and human rights. Indeed, society should ponder whether ethical research can be carried out in the absence of such legislation.

The Singapore media may have given Shorvon a reprieve, but the damage appears to have been done. Even back in 2004, the Medical Protection Society (MPS), Shorvon’s indemnifier1 already recommended foreign doctors to avoid working in Singapore. With such further commentary in the specialist medical literature, one can only speculate at how many scientists and medicals professionals will hesitate before accepting offers of carrots galore. Even promises of funding aplenty, permissive laws toward stem cell research and gleaming new instruments can be balked by something simple and intangible - the freedom for an educated mind to express itself freely without fear of criminal prosecution.

References

  1. Simon Shorvon, Lancet, “The prosecution of research—experience from Singapore“, 369, June 2 2007, 1835-7.
  2. John Burton, Financial Times, “Medical group tells doctors not to work in Singapore ” July 8 2004. (archived copy on Singabloodypore).
Footnotes
  1. The MPS website states adamantly that “MPS is not an insurance company. All the benefits of membership of MPS are discretionary as set out in the Memorandum and Articles of Association.”↩