Advertisement

Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 79–90 | Cite as

Conflict of Interest Policies at Canadian Universities: Clarity and Content

  • Bryn Williams-Jones
  • Chris MacDonald
Article

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.

Keywords

Canada Conflict of interest Ethics G13 Policy Professors Readability University 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Agres, T. (2003). The fruits of university research. The Scientist, 17(14), 55–56.Google Scholar
  2. Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, P. A. (2003). Getting it right: industry sponsorship and medical research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(10), 1267–1269.Google Scholar
  4. Behrman, J. N. (2001). Adequacy of international codes of behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess, M. M. (2001). Beyond consent: ethical and social issues in genetic testing. Nature Reviews: Genetics, 2(2), 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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).
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. J. (2002). Managing financial conflicts of interest in clinical research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corrigan, O. P. (2003). Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25(7), 768–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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).
  14. Davis, M., & Stark, A., (eds.) (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fersko, R. S., & Merabet, H. (2004). Sponsored research and the public’s right to know. Drug Development Research, 63(3), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, D., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the boundary: Academy–industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44(3–4), 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher, D. J., & Thompson, G. R. (1981). A Readability analysis of selected introductory economics textbooks. The Journal of Economic Education, 12(2), 60–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juicy Studio. (2007) Readability test. Retrieved May 5 from (http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php).
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacDonald, C., McDonald, M., & Norman, W. (2002). Charitable conflicts of interest. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1–2), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nathan, D. G., & Weatherall, D. J. (2002). Academic freedom in clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(17), 1368–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pressman, L. (2003). AUTM licensing survey: FY 2001. Northbrook, IL: AUTM.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Resnik, D. B. (1998). Conflicts of interest in science. Perspectives on Science, 6(4), 381–408.Google Scholar
  31. Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2002). Conflict of interest and the university. Accountability in Research, 9(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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).
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stein, C. M. (2004). Publishing work sponsored by the tobacco industry. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 76(6), 517–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Zakaluk, B. L., & Samuels, S. J. (1988). Readability: It’s past, present, and future. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programmes de bioéthique & Département de médecine sociale et préventiveUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophySaint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Programmes de bioéthiqueUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations