The philosophical and ethical basis of this mission is the principle that protection of human life is an absolute value. Yet whistleblowers are subject to legal harassment, ostracism, job loss, loss of funding, intimidation, abuse, threats, or even force when investigating or reporting environmental hazards. Obstructing their mission leads to repression bias and repression bias leads to delay in reporting and preventing a hazard. Such delays endanger the public health.

The trial of Socrates is the classic case study of the risks of telling it as it is. The jurors of Athens, besieged from without, insecure from within, convicted Socrates because his teachings undermined order, stability and state security. . For Athenians, there was a Benthamite rationale for putting Socrates to death: Silencing him was necessary to protect the greatest good for the greatest number in a society weakened by external wars and internal divisions. Ironically, the Benthamite rationale--stretched somewhat--could have served to acquit Socrates and protect whistleblowers. Even so, scholars have pointed out that Socrates would be convicted by a modern jury for the same reason that he was convicted by the jury in Athens; the case of Dr Stockman, Ibsen’s Enemy of the People, suggests the literary truth of this statement.

Repression of research findings considered to be inimical to special interests or national interests ("repression bias") is well known. The direct and indirect repercussions of repression bias are of direct importance not only to environmental scientists and professionals, but also to the public. Pressure on whistleblowers deters the investigation or assessment of health risks from exposures, and thereby delays or blocks the implementation of preventive measures. Ultimately, repression of information about hazards and their health risks becomes a hazard to public health.

We presented documented case studies of harassment of whistleblowers from around the world at a meeting sponsored by the US Department of health and Human Services, on November 18-20, in Washington, DC.

Examples also exist to show that repression of information may impact on the peer review process in the academic world. Right to know pertains to access to information about hazards and risks. But the quantity and quality of such information is compromised if distorted by pressures, which produce repression bias. We are concerned that in developed countries, new strategic business alliances, most often with biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms create a threat to the last vestiges of “academic freedom” of individual researchers in universities, the traditional sanctuary for unfettered investigation.

Worldwide, powerful governmental, military, economic, and political interests are

often the driving forces and the sources of legal and illegal pressure. Harassment is most likely directed at younger or less well-known scientists, employees of government or industry, or members of the exposed population itself in settings where protection of human rights is weak. The exposure settings in which scientists are at greatest risk for threats, harassment, and legal pressure are those in which they are most needed. Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Mid-east and the former Soviet bloc are those regions of the world with the worst environmental and occupational health problems, the fewest environmental scientists, and the weakest safeguards to protect the rights of investigators. Persons at special risk are scientists, students, junior or untenured faculty, employees in government or industry, and whistleblowers from the exposed population itself.

We suggest there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between the severity of repression bias and environmental hazards.

There is a need to recognize a dissonance between the emphasis of the first generation of ethics on promotion of research integrity - focussed on problems with informed consent, fraud, scientific misconduct, plagiarism, and the teaching of bioethics -- and that of the second generation: the prevention of repression bias. Often there is a two-stage scenario in which investigators -- or officials in need of a rapid estimation of hazard or risk -- are first blocked from access to the exposed populations and relevant databases and then their reports are disqualified because they are incomplete, imperfect or imprecise. In short, the very criteria used to define the quality of investigation may serve as barriers to reporting its substance.