Abstract
Discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in the university have tended to focus on financial interests in the context of medical research; much less attention has been given to COI in general or to the policies that seek to manage COI. Are university COI policies accessible and understandable? To whom are these policies addressed (faculty, staff, students)? Is COI clearly defined in these policies and are procedures laid out for avoiding or remedying such situations? To begin tackling these important ethical and governance questions, our study examines the COI policies at the Group of Thirteen (G13) leading Canadian research universities. Using automated readability analysis tools and an ethical content analysis, we begin the task of comparing the strengths and weaknesses of these documents, paying particular attention to their clarity, readability, and utility in explaining and managing COI.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agres, T. (2003). The fruits of university research. The Scientist, 17(14), 55–56.
Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.
Baird, P. A. (2003). Getting it right: industry sponsorship and medical research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(10), 1267–1269.
Behrman, J. N. (2001). Adequacy of international codes of behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1), 51–64.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Boo, E. H. Y., & Koh, H. C. (2001). The influence of organizational and code-supporting variables on the effectiveness of a code of ethics. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(4), 357–373.
Boyd, E. A., Lipton, S., & Bero, L. A. (2004). Implementation of financial disclosure policies to manage conflicts of interest. Health Affairs, 23(2), 206–214.
Burgess, M. M. (2001). Beyond consent: ethical and social issues in genetic testing. Nature Reviews: Genetics, 2(2), 147–152.
Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2006). CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education 2006 (Ottawa: Canadian Association of University Teachers), retrieved February 28, 2007 from (http://www.caut.ca/en/publications/almanac/default.asp).
Cho, M. K., Shohara, R., Schissel, A., & Rennie, D. (2000). Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 2203–2208.
Cohen, J. J. (2002). Managing financial conflicts of interest in clinical research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 401–406.
Corrigan, O. P. (2003). Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25(7), 768–792.
David, P. A. (2000). A tragedy of the public knowledge ‘commons’? Global science, intellectual property and the digital technology boomerang. Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights WP 04:1–34, (http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/EJWP0400.pdf).
Davis, M., & Stark, A., (eds.) (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
Dunne, C., & Warren, C. (1998). Lethal autonomy: The malfunction of the informed consent mechanism within the context of prenatal diagnosis of genetic variants. Issues in Law & Medicine, 14(2), 165–202.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.
Fersko, R. S., & Merabet, H. (2004). Sponsored research and the public’s right to know. Drug Development Research, 63(3), 103–111.
Fisher, D., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the boundary: Academy–industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44(3–4), 449–467.
Gallagher, D. J., & Thompson, G. R. (1981). A Readability analysis of selected introductory economics textbooks. The Journal of Economic Education, 12(2), 60–63.
Johns, M. M. E., Barnes, M., & Florencio, P. S. (2003). Restoring balance to industry–academia relationships in an era of institutional financial conflicts of interest: Promoting research while maintaining trust. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(6), 741–746.
Juicy Studio. (2007) Readability test. Retrieved May 5 from (http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php).
Krimsky, S., Rothenberg, L. S., Stott, P., & Kyle, G. (1999). Scientific journals and their author’s financial interests: A pilot study. In T.A. Caulfield, & B. Williams-Jones (Eds.) The commercialization of genetics research: Ethical, legal, and policy issues (pp. 101–110). New York, NY: Kluwer.
Lewis, S., Baird, P. A., Evans, R. G., et al. (2001). Dancing with the porcupine: Rules for governing the university–industry relationship [Commentary]. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165(6), 783–785.
Lipton, S., Boyd, E. A., & Bero, L. A. (2004). Conflicts of interest in academic research: Policies, processes, and attitudes. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 11(2), 83–102.
MacDonald, C., McDonald, M., & Norman, W. (2002). Charitable conflicts of interest. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1–2), 67–74.
Nathan, D. G., & Weatherall, D. J. (2002). Academic freedom in clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(17), 1368–1371.
Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A., & Brancati, F. L. (2003). Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine, 348(8), 721–726.
Pressman, L. (2003). AUTM licensing survey: FY 2001. Northbrook, IL: AUTM.
Pressman, L., Burgess, R., Cook-Deegan, R. M., et al. (2006). The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: An empirical survey. Nature Biotechnology, 24(1), 31–39.
Resnik, D. B. (1998). Conflicts of interest in science. Perspectives on Science, 6(4), 381–408.
Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2002). Conflict of interest and the university. Accountability in Research, 9(1), 45–64.
Royal Society. (2003). Keeping science open: The effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science (London: Royal Society). (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip=0&id=1374).
Schafer, A. (2004). Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 8–24.
Stein, C. M. (2004). Publishing work sponsored by the tobacco industry. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 76(6), 517–518.
Stevens, B., Stevens, B. (2007). Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing behavior. Journal of Business Ethics (in press) DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9370-z.
Wilson, F. L., Baker, L. M., Brown-Syed, C., & Gollop, C. (2000). An analysis of the readability and cultural sensitivity of information on the National Cancer Institute’s Web site: CancerNet. Oncology Nursing Forum, 27(9), 1403–1409.
Zakaluk, B. L., & Samuels, S. J. (1988). Readability: It’s past, present, and future. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Acknowledgements
We thank the valuable research assistance of Elise Smith, Vincent Couture, Ashley Pringle and Aimee Smith who helped with background literature reviews, data collection and summary analyses. This study was supported by grants from the Faculty of Medicine, Univesité de Montréal and the Institute of Genetics of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Williams-Jones, B., MacDonald, C. Conflict of Interest Policies at Canadian Universities: Clarity and Content. J Acad Ethics 6, 79–90 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-007-9052-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-007-9052-6