We may speak of the integrity of a person, such as an artist or politician; of a body
of work, such as a writer’s or painter’s oeuvre; or of an institution, such as a vot-
ing system, a company, an academic discipline. So thinking about “the integrity of
science” leads to a whole snarl of issues: about science qua body of work, about in-
dividual scientists, and about science qua institution; about wholeness, unity, and
adherence to values; and about values of different kinds — the ethical, the aes-
thetic, and the epistemological — and the relations among them.

Interesting and important as they are, however, in what follows I shall set these
issues aside, focusing instead on integrity in the sense of “firm adherence to val-
ues,” and in particular on how this concept applies to science qua institution. I shall
begin by identifying and articulating the most relevant values — the epistemo-
logical values of evidence-sharing and respect for evidence — and sketching how
they are rooted in the character of the scientific enterprise; and this will pave the
way for an exploration of the circumstances that presently threaten to erode com-
mitment to these core values. Then, looking in some detail at the disturbing saga
of the arthritis drugs Vioxx and Celebrex, I will illustrate the threats to the integrity
of science that result from the present dependence of much medical research, and
especially of the medical journals, on the sponsorship of the pharmaceutical in-
dustry. And finally, returning to the broader concerns signaled by my subtitle, I
shall try to articulate why the erosion of scientific integrity should concern us.