BIO and Topless Dancers: Where to Cast Our Ayes

BIO and Topless Dancers: Where to Cast Our Ayes

NOTE: the main body of this piece was written in July 2018 immediately following the incidents described herein that took place in conjunction with the 2018 BIO Annual Meeting.  The Epilogue has just been added (October 6, 2018).

===========================================

The event of topless dancers at a party held in conjunction with the recent BIO conference has occasioned quite a tizzy in the biotech twitter-sphere.  Recapping the narrative trope:

• A party features topless women dancers bearing the painted logos of companies that sponsored the event.
  
•  Photos of the women circulate
• John Maraganore, CEO of Alnylam and, importantly in this context, current Chair of BIO, tweets and is interviewed saying that sponsorship of such behavior is unacceptable and inconsistent with the values of the biotechnology industry
  o   Given Maraganore’s role as Chair of BIO, this carries an implication that companies sponsoring (perhaps even condoning?) such events and behavior might be subject to expulsion from BIO.
•  It rapidly emerges that, while held in conjunction with the BIO conference, and while attended almost exclusively by individuals who have some association with biotechnology, the event was not an “official” or “BIO-sponsored” event.
• It further emerges that the sponsors were not (or, at the least, claim not to have been) aware of what would take place at the party and condemn it.
•  BIO instructs its President, Jim Greenwood, to give the sponsoring companies a good talking to, indicating “that we did not think that having topless dancer was appropriate” and encouraging those companies “to speak with event organizers to ensure that any further events feature more appropriate entertainment”
• Through a spokesperson, Ken Lisaius, BIO issues a public statement clarifying that Maraganore’s comments have been misconstrued by some as implying that any BIO member company that continues to sponsor such events will be kicked out of BIO and that such an inference would be “Not accurate”
• On STAT’s weekly wrap-up podcast, Damien Garde offers the following syllogism:

o   The event was not sponsored/authorized by BIO

o   The sponsoring companies were unaware of what was to take place

o   The event, therefore, is nothing more than a party like any other party

o   We live in a society which—for better or worse—features topless bars and strip clubs and parties with lap dancers

o   Whatever we, according to the lights of our personal morality, think of such venues, activities, and events, it is not within our rights to prohibit those who like such things from engaging in such activities or penalize them for their behavior

§  They enjoy first amendment rights

§  Different standards apply to public vs. private behavior

o   QED: This has been much ado about nothing

o   Further proof: the folks at the party seemed to be enjoying themselves…

=========================

So, it would seem there is nothing more to say on the subject…or, perhaps, these topless dancers offer an occasion for a deeper set of reflections on the nature and meaning of BIO. 

An Association

•  BIO is the world's largest trade association representing biotechnology companies (BIO Website)
•  Association: from Mid-16th century English (in the sense of ‘uniting in a common purpose’): from Latin associare ‘to unite, ally”. (OED) --As in, a group that has come together as allies with a common purpose, in a common cause.
• ·He that walketh with the wise shall be wise; but a companion of fools shall be destroyed (Proverbs 13:20)

BIO as we know it today came about through the merger, on July 1, 1993, of the Industrial Biotechnology Association (IBA) and the Association of Biotechnology Companies (ABC).  [Historically, IBA had been the home of the larger, more mature biotech companies, with ABC the home of the smaller companies.]

In 1995, two executives from BIO member companies approached the then-President of BIO, Carl Feldbaum, with the suggestion and request to form a new standing committee of BIO, the BIO Bioethics Committee.  The impetus for this was twofold:

•  As the leaders of companies that were developing powerful new biotechnologies, we had a deep obligation to ensure that the technologies were developed and deployed in a socially responsible manner.
  
• Pragmatically, the single greatest potential obstacle to realizing the benefits of biotechnology was a mistrustful and fearful public (see, GMO’s in Europe).

Over the next several years, and continuing through today, the BIO Bioethics Committee has developed and issued statements of Principles Regarding Biotech Social and Ethical Responsibilities, on subjects ranging from informed consent, to genetic privacy, to compassionate use, to human cloning, to the conduct of clinical research in developing nations, etc.

Naturally enough, the question arose: what is the “force” of these BIO-issued principles?  Should they have the status of (mere) guidance, as it were, a menu of recommended best practices for member companies?  Alternatively, would a pledge to conformance with the principles be a prerequisite for membership in the association; would the principles constitute a Code of Conduct for BIO members such that actions by a member company in violation of the principles would constitute grounds for expulsion from the association?

This question was the subject of a spirited debate among the members of the then-Executive Committee of BIO.  It was decided that, with one exception, the Principles would have the status of guidance/recommendations for best practices, not an enforceable Code of Conduct.  (The one exception was that membership in BIO required that member companies agree not to use biotechnology to develop [offensive] bio-weapons.)

Hence, the leadership of BIO effectively decided that BIO would be an association in what I will call a thin sense.  Any company could be a member if it shared the common purpose of enabling the commercial/financial success of biotechnology.  It need not share a deeper, core set of values.

The Case of Turing Pharmaceuticals

In September 2015, in the wake of the price gouging scandal involving Turing Pharmaceuticals, and the antics of its CEO Martin Shkreli, BIO issued the following announcement:

"The company [Turing] and its leadership [Shkreli] do not reflect the commitment to innovation and values [emphasis added] that are at the core of BIO's reputation and mission. For that reason, BIO determined, after a review of Turing's membership status, that the company did not meet our eligibility criteria, and we took action to rescind its membership."

How are we to understand the basis of the expulsion of Turing from BIO? On its website, BIO says:

“The Principles…help to set expectations [emphasis added] regarding the social responsibilities of our members and the broader biotechnology community, and to encourage societally beneficial conduct.”

Whatever else they may be, a set of guidelines that “help(s) to set expectations” does not constitute an explicit Code of Conduct the violation of which constitutes (explicit) grounds for expulsion from a thick association.  So, we must look further for a principled ground for the rescission of Turing’s membership from the association.

Perhaps that basis exists in a further statement on BIO’s website that addresses membership criteria: 

“BIO expects that its members will not engage in conduct that is detrimental to the purpose or reputation of the organization.”

Here, beyond guidelines to help set expectations, we get an actual expectation of member companies: do not act in a way that may redound negatively on BIO thereby impeding its ability to help further the industry’s agenda in Washington.  

Shkreli and Turing’s behavior certainly failed to meet this expectation.  As the CEO of a BIO member company, I certainly don’t want my personal or my Company’s reputation sullied in virtue of being in association with Shkreli and Turing.  –But I can think of many other occasions on which the behavior of other BIO member companies, and their CEO’s, has found me grinding my teeth. And, setting my own sensibilities aside, I think that a debate between Len Schleifer and Ian Read, both CEO’s of BIO member companies, would be unlikely to yield a consensus on whether, in the absence of additional value/demonstrated benefits, increasing prices annually beyond the rate of inflation constitutes “conduct detrimental to the purpose or reputation of” BIO.

Now, of course, differences in degree or quantity can, at some threshold, become differences in quality or kind.  Just because there is twilight does not mean that we cannot distinguish night from day.  And, perhaps that is the case with Shkreli and Turing versus the other cases to which I allude.  

Nevertheless, in the absence of an explicit assertion that BIO’s principles constitute a Code of Conduct to which members must adhere on penalty of expulsion from the association, there is the risk of the association appearing, at best, disingenuous.  For example, given BIO’s dues structure, under which a Fortune 500 biopharmaceutical company pays dues that are > 50X those paid by a small company like Turing, would the same problematic behavior by the large member company result in the same consequences as that behavior by the small company?  One would hope the answer to be “Yes” but, reflecting on certain historical behaviors by certain large member companies (e.g., conducting trials in developing nations without obtaining informed consent, or obtaining a tax write-off for the philanthropic contribution of medicines that had passed their expiration dates), one would be hard pressed to believe that that “Yes” is assured.

Dancing Topless on Thin Ice

Since November 2016, in several pieces on this blog, I have drawn attention to what I claim to be the intrinsic connection between the Enlightenment’s two crowning achievements: the invention of the scientific method and the invention of the concept of human rights as accruing to persons in virtue solely of their personhood, not as a matter of their color, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender, power, etc.   

To capture that intrinsic connection in a single sentence, I have suggested that the exclusion of any voice from participation in rational, fact-based discourse (including scientific discourse) on any basis other than that person’s inability or refusal to engage in the discourse according to its foundational precepts is the moral equivalent of excluding data because it contravenes conventional wisdom and/or the prevailing dogma of the politically powerful class (see, for example, Galileo and the 17^th Century Papacy).

Insofar as the fundamental basis of biotechnology is the scientific method, I have further argued that it follows from that intrinsic connection that we, the leaders of the biotech industry, cannot claim a commitment to the scientific method without being equally committed to fighting against actions and practices that are exclusionary.  Further, to the extent that we believe that more voices participating in the (scientific) dialogue are more likely to result in a deepened understanding of the natural world, it is in our interest to move beyond opposition to social exclusion to advocacy for inclusion.

It is to this line of thinking—for me, an articulation of where I find our industry’s fundamental values, commitments, and purpose, and, equally, the basis of our industry’s reputation—that I turn when contemplating the topless dancers. How can a person (more than likely a male) or company claiming a commitment to the scientific method actively participate in, or even condone, activities that serve to perpetuate a perspective that assigns to women a lesser status—hence, less right to be taken seriously as equal and full participants in the dialogue—via their objectification?

Now the response to this line of thinking, echoing the STAT response cited in the opening to this piece, is likely to be, “Hey, this is an over-the-top reaction.  The men and women attending, and who stayed at the party, did so as individuals, as it were wearing their party, not biotechnology, hats.”  

 —But perhaps an "over-the-top" response is exactly what is called for when confronted with a topless situation.

Consider the following: you are a woman researcher.  You go to the party not knowing what you will find there.  You are at the party only because you are in biotech and it is being held down the street from and in connection with BIO’s annual meeting which you have been attending all day. You are accompanied by male colleagues.  You get there to discover the topless dancers.  Your male colleagues break into smiles and laughter.  You are uncomfortable with the display but even more so with your male colleagues’ reactions.  You want to leave; however, you don’t want your male colleagues to view you as a prude; you don’t want to be excluded from future social interactions with your male colleagues, interactions which will help to cement the human bonds that enable you to be viewed as a peer and worthy collaborator in your research.  So, you stay.  You even smile at your male colleagues’ off-color remarks and ogling.

For all appearances, at least by the lights of STAT, you are therefore attending that party in your capacity as a private individual, not as a biotechnology professional; you are exercising your first amendment rights; you are choosing to stay, hence you are not being coerced; and, you are smiling with your male colleagues, hence you must be having a good time.

I will assert without argument that this “analysis” of the party counts as an insightful narrative of the evening only if your frame of reference is patriarchal Victorian England, or, perhaps, the mythical account of a time in 1950’s America when women were truly respected. 

I only ask you to consider what that woman scientist is likely to be thinking when, the next day, at the weekly research group meeting, as is routine, her male colleagues speak over her when she tries to voice her opinion about the data being presented.  Is it likely to be, “Oh well, last night was just a party, and, let’s face it, boys will be boys.  Here at work, they still view me as an equal participant in our professional, scientific interactions.” 

Taking a Stand

As noted earlier, the following two statements feature on BIO’s website:

• “The Principles…help to set expectations [emphasis added] regarding the social responsibilities of our members and the broader biotechnology community, and to encourage societally beneficial conduct.”
• “BIO expects that its members will not engage in conduct that is detrimental to the purpose or reputation of the organization.”

These statements are to be found in a section of the website entitled, “BIO’s Membership Compact” (emphasis added).  

Interestingly, the concept of a Social Compact also originates in the Enlightenment, as articulated by thinkers such as Locke and Rousseau. The Compact is the means by which an organized society or association is brought into being and invested with the right to pursue the shared goals and purpose of its members.  A Social Compact creates a form of what, earlier in this essay, I termed a thick association.  You cannot become a member of a thick association without agreeing to the terms of compact, and your continued membership requires support for and behavior in accordance with the terms of the Compact. The Compact articulates a Code of Conduct. 

 —Words have meanings and the word “Compact” brings with it obligations that transcend a thin association entered into for expedient advantage and abandoned when its bonds no longer suit the moment.

Fundamental to the purpose and goals of the member companies of BIO, hence BIO, is the preservation and furtherance of free and open discourse conducted in accordance with the tenets of the scientific method (=rational, fact- and evidence-based discourse). If there is anything to my belief that there is an intrinsic connection between scientific/rational discourse and human rights and the imperative for social inclusion (hence, an intrinsic connection between anti-scientism and social exclusion), it cannot but be the case that BIO’s binding Compact requires of its member companies the corresponding commitment to behavior that, at the least, abjures violations of human rights and social exclusion, and, more strongly, promotes equal rights and social inclusion.  

I for one would like to see BIO become a thick Association in which our Principles constitute a Code of Conduct.  BIO's response to the event is to be commended; yet, BIO’s official response to the Topless Dancers, re: that it is not the case that a member company that continues to sponsor such events will be kicked out of BIO, demonstrates that BIO is not, or not yet, ready to go there.

But hope springs eternal. And, in John Maraganore’s reaction to the Topless Dancers, re: that sponsorship of such behavior is unacceptable and inconsistent with the values of the biotechnology industry, coupled with John’s role as the new chair and leader of BIO, I find reason to hope…hope that our association has found new leadership that will lead member companies to demand of themselves and their fellow members behavior worthy of our noble mission, our fundamental values, and our dedicated, diverse employees. 

                                                                                                                    
   —July 2018

======================================

Epilogue

On October 2, 2018, BIO officially announced a strong commitment to Workforce Development, Diversity & Inclusion (WDDI).  Importantly, for the first time since BIO’s decision in the mid-1990’s to find in the development of bio-weapons a categorical basis for exclusion from/rescission of membership, BIO stated:

As a result of this commitment, we stand ready to condemn those actions, activities, or events that are clearly inconsistent with the values BIO actively is promoting through the work of BIO’s WDDI Committee and our general membership principles and policies. BIO has established processes for membership review under such circumstances. (Emphasis added.)

—During a week in which our nation has been riven by the Kavanaugh nomination, I find reason to hold my head high as the member of an industry—as a member of a thick association—that stands for the best that the Enlightenment bequeathed to us.

And, on a personal note, I thank John Maraganore for his leadership.  It is with pride that I have the privilege and good fortune to call him a colleague and, even more so, a friend.

   —October 6, 2018

======================================