However, he thinks there should be a better mechanism for examining a case before it is played out in the public arena, though he's not quite sure how such a system might work. Samuel Hellman argues that science can police itself. Samuel Hellman, A.N. Pritzker Distinguished Service Professor of Radiation and Cellular Oncology at the University of Chicago, also notes that peer review and study replication can be effective ways to guard against misconduct and that the system of examining misconduct may need adjusting. He disapproves of the way Dingell conducted hearings on the case. Dingell was unavailable for comment for this article.
Some observers argue that government bureaucracy makes an ineffective science watchdog.
Brown, a member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, a group outside NCI that advises the government, thinks there is too much government bureaucracy involved, and that an independent counsel needs to be appointed. It might consist of representatives of government, industry, science, and the public. Others agree the process should be depoliticized. Yale's DeVita suggests that a group from the Institute of Medicine, for example, might serve such a purpose. Illinois C.K. Gunsalus points out that in many cases, science can be effective in policing itself.