Economistas: lei de responsabilidade intelectual?

Não exatamente. Apenas um código de conduta, o que seria uma boa ideia, segundo esta matéria da Economist.

Code or no code?
by R.A.
The Economist, January 10th 2011

WASHINGTON - LAST week, I mentioned that a growing group of economists is pressing the American Economic Association to adopt a professional code of ethics in order to address concerns that conflicts of interest are eroding public confidence in the field. We published a post by economist George DeMartino, author of a forthcoming book on the subject, who wrote:

The case for professional economic ethics is simple. Economists affect the lives of others, often substantially—that is the crux of the matter. Not just one person at a time, as is the case in medical practice; and not just a few people who consent to the economists’ influence—say, those who purchase economic consulting services. No, economists affect the life chances of countless people across the globe, not least through their impact on economic policy. Perhaps it is the enormity of that impact that makes it difficult for economists to wrap their minds around their ethical obligations...It’s a simple case, as I’ve said, one that stands on economists’ influence over others. Yet the profession has failed to accept the ethical responsibility that necessarily attaches to that influence. And that, I’m afraid, amounts to unethical professional conduct.
We asked the economists at Economics by invitation whether they agreed. The response was generally, though not entirely, favourable, albeit with significant caveats. Here's Tyler Cowen:

I favour such codes, but I'm not sure they will help much. First, most economic research doesn't matter in the first place. Second, the research which does matter very often is distorted anyway. It is pulled out of context, exaggerated, presented by intermediaries and political entrepreneurs without qualification, and so on. That's the real problem. In this context I'm not sure that a conflict of interest statement is going to push people closer toward truth; the process wasn't accurate or finely honed in the first place. What is published is already so much more scientific than the policy process itself. Improving the former inputs with an ethics code seems like pushing on the less important lever and to some extent it is a very weak substitute for the almost complete lack of an ethics code in politics itself. Third, a lot of the problem is economists in government—advising—rather than what is published in economics journals.
Several respondents emphasised personal responsibility. And Lant Pritchett made a fiery case against the code:

[O]nce we as economists abandon the idea (even if it is only a useful fiction) that people's ideas, arguments, and evidence should be evaluated on the premise they are sincere claims by sincere members of the community of discourse (at least until proven otherwise) in favour of a notion that we must first examine each person's "bias" we are on a slippery slope into an ugly mud puddle. Why single out the "financial services" industry? I write at times on education economics and I happen to know that most people writing in that area get six figure incomes from the "education services" industry. Does that bias everything I and they write? And why stop at income; what about assets? I also happen to know that many economists have a large fraction of their wealth in a long position in the "housing services" industry. Does that make everything they write about housing suspect? And why stop at income or assets; those are hardly the only personal interests that could create a bias. Suppose my child had a pre-existing condition that would make it difficult for him to get insurance without a mandate for universal coverage. That would bias my views in the health care debates, so should I therefore disclose that so everyone could filter it into their assessment of any ideas, arguments or evidence I might present? And of course, identity claims are powerful sources of motivation and "bias". Should either men or women who write about gender and economics disclose their sex so that we can dismiss the research produced by either gender based on bias?...To help readers fairly assess my ideas, arguments, and evidence I should voluntarily disclose about myself...nothing. Caveat emptor.
Do read all the contributions. Meanwhile, our informal poll of readers seems to show strong support for an economics code.