Skepticism is the cornerstone of science. Much progress has been achieved by questioning established status quo and gathering social support toward finding answers to naturally occurring phenomena. It is hard to envision scientific progress without challenging status quo and finding empirical evidence to dispute established beliefs in favor of more accurate representation of reality. Furthermore, human ability to symbolically represent and challenge ideas affords tremendous opportunity to advance understanding of natural phenomena. It is perhaps most pronounced within the confines of theoretical physics and mathematics where theory most often precedes experimental observation.
Despite being powerful tool when applied judiciously, untethered from reason, skepticism takes form of self-deception. One cannot deceive oneself into believing something while simultaneously knowing it to be false. Hence, literal self-deception cannot exist. In genuine self-deception, people avoid doing things that they have an inkling might reveal what they do not want to know. However, suspecting something is not the same is not knowing it to be true. As long as one does not find out the truth, what one believes is not known to be false. Keeping oneself willfully uninformed about an unwanted truth in the main vehicle of genuine self-deception.
Within physical and life sciences experiments are nuanced and the number of explanatory parameters is large. As such it is quite easy to cast explanatory powers onto obscure experimental conditions employing confounded logic and elaborate causative schemes. Nonetheless scientific method is self-correcting and it is a rare, albeit still observable phenomenon when much effort must be placed into refuting indefensible propositions e.g. flat earth theory, supernatural powers, etc.
However, within the fabric of human interaction self-deception is highly pronounced. By not pursuing courses of action that would reveal the actual state of affairs, individuals keep the knowable unknown. For example, within the contract research services sector it is rare when clients and service providers are completely transparent about the state of business relationship. Service providers are often reluctant to initiate meaningful performance conversation for the fear that they may have to provide additional services at no extra cost or worse they open pandoras box and then have to deal with whatever comes out of it. Instead the common course of actions is to presume all is well and then act surprised when tensions reach inflection point.
From the client standpoint it is customary to treat service providers respectfully but highly tactically. Given that within lower mid-market sector, service providers are in general much smaller than their client base and contribute small but very important inputs to the overall success of client objectives, external partner management practices either do not exist, are not actively implemented or implemented in a haphazard manner. Generally unwritten and unsaid justification for this approach is that the return on meaningful engagement with a small CRO is not justified and therefore the effort is not expended. More strikingly is that partner management methodology is rarely discussed at the client and when discussions do take place the conversations usually center around specific examples from which omnibus extrapolations are made without much concern to logical coherence.
Despite being widespread and systemic actors’ self-deception as it relates to service provider-sponsor interactions within the confines of the CRO industry does not cause much concern and is generally not given much attention. We recognize our limited knowledge of the clients we engage with and appreciate the number and complexity of tasks they have to deal with. To that end our approach is to strive toward complete transparency and enable our partners to make the best decisions that yield the most value to them. Whenever we identify and validate an issue that affects our performance we do not hold back and are forthcoming so that corrective measures are taken expediently. We firmly believe and can empirically support our assertions that deliberate effort to stay uninformed will adversely impact our ability to generate value for our clients and is both ethically and morally unacceptable.
