Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology
- 238 Downloads
Dependence in nanotechnology on external funding and academic-industry relationships has led to questions concerning its influence on research directions, as well as the potential for conflicts of interest to arise and impact scientific integrity and public trust. This study uses a survey of 193 nanotechnology industry and academic researchers to explore whether they share similar concerns. Although these concerns are not unique to nanotechnology, its emerging nature and the prominence of industry funding lend credence to understanding its researchers’ views, as these researchers are shaping the norms and direction of the field. The results of the survey show general agreement that funding sources are influencing research directions in nanotechnology; many respondents saw this influence in their own work as well as other researchers’ work. Respondents also agreed that funding considerations were likely to influence whether researchers shared their results. Irrespective of their institutional affiliation or funding status, twice as many researchers as not considered financial conflicts of interest a cause for concern, and three times as many respondents as not disagreed financial conflicts of interest in nanotechnology were uncommon. Only a third was satisfied with the way that conflicts of interest are currently managed and believed current procedures would protect the integrity of nanotechnology research. The results also found differences in views depending on researchers’ institutional affiliation and funding status.
KeywordsConflicts of interest University-industry relationships Faculty surveys Research support
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ECS-0335765. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
- Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. (2008). Results of our ongoing research. http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm. Accessed 20 October, 2010.
- Davidoff, F. (1998). Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128(1), 66–68.Google Scholar
- Davis, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Davis & A. Stark (Eds.), Conflict of interest in the professions (pp. 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Farthing, M. J. G. (2006). Authors and publication practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 41–52.Google Scholar
- Fishbein, M. (2007). A reasoned action approach: Some issues, questions, and clarifications. In I. Ajzen, D. Albarracin, & R. Hornik (Eds.), Prediction and change of health behavior (pp. 281–295). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Lipton, S., Boyd, E., & Bero, L. (2004). Conflicts of interest in academic research: Policies, processes, and attitudes. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 11(2), 83–102.Google Scholar
- National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. (2010). Annual report, March 2009–Jan 2010. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.Google Scholar
- National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2010). Funding opportunities. National nanotechnology coordination office. http://www.nano.gov/html/funding/home_funding.html. Accessed 14 May, 2010.
- National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10–01).Google Scholar
- The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2009). Public praises science; scientists fault public, media: Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. http://www.people-press.org/report/528/. Accessed 4 March, 2010.