Risking one's job is not quite the same thing as risking one's career. A lot depends on how egregious the proposition that one is expected to "go along" with is.

Organizations need a certain amount of unit cohesion in order to continue to exist. If what the organization asks of you is so repugnant that you cannot "go along," you go somewhere else. On the other hand, "going along" with something that only bothers you a little is letting the proverbial camel put his nose in your tent.

The answer may be to develop a review process that is less subject to context effects and confirmation bias.

After the Brandon Mayfield fiasco at the FBI, their QA Manager saw an opportunity to change a system that was highly resistant to change. He said, "If we keep working cases the way we worked this case, we are going to have another fiasco."

To prevent this, he developed a system of review where the reviewer did not know whose work he was reviewing, and further, did not know whether his anonymous colleague had made an inclusion or an exclusion. That's about as "bias-proof" a system as I can imagine. The Bureau should be applauded for its willingness to admit a mistake (not a common trait) and it willingness to change its system of review.

Because when we review a colleagues work, we know who he is and what he thinks, I doubt that such a system could be devised for fire investigation, unless there was an outside agency involved. Perhaps cases could be stripped of their identity, submitted to an "editor," and sent out to other "subscribers" to the system for an anonymous review and comment.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]