Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 699–717 | Cite as

Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology

  • Katherine A. McComasEmail author


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.


Conflicts 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.


  1. Alpert, J. S. (2007). Peer review: The best of the blemished? American Journal of Medicine, 120(4), 287–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ancker, J. S., & Flanagin, A. (2007). A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research—A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2005). The complexity of competing and conflicting interests. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 515–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenthal, D. (1996). Ethics issues in academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: The continuing debate. Academic Medicine, 71(12), 1291–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E., & Louis, K. S. (1996). Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences—An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(6), 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A., & Wise, D. (1986). University-industry research relationships in biotechnology—Implications for the university. Science, 232(4756), 1361–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd, E. A., & Bero, L. A. (2000). Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry—A case study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(17), 2209–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, T. I. D., & Slaughter, S. (1999). Toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 309–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caulfield, T. (1998). The commercialization of human genetics: Profits and problems. Molecular Medicine Today, 4(4), 148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cech, T. R., & Leonard, J. S. (2001). Science and business—Conflicts of interest—Moving beyond disclosure. Science, 291(5506), 989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. (2008). Results of our ongoing research. Accessed 20 October, 2010.
  13. Cohen, J. J. (2001). Trust us to make a difference: Ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Academic Medicine, 76(2), 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czarkowski, M. (2006). The protection of patients’ rights in clinical trials. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dana, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290(2), 252–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidoff, F. (1998). Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128(1), 66–68.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. DeAngelis, C. D. (2000). Conflict of interest and the public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(17), 2237–2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Fallowfield, L., Ratcliffe, D., & Souhami, R. (1997). Clinicians’ attitudes to clinical trials of cancer therapy. European Journal of Cancer, 33(13), 2221–2229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farthing, M. J. G. (2006). Authors and publication practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 41–52.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Frankel, M. S. (1996). Perception, reality, and the political context of conflict of interest in university-industry relationships. Academic Medicine, 71(12), 1297–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedman, P. J. (2002). The impact of conflict of interest on trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glaser, B. E., & Bero, L. A. (2005). Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harman, G. (1999). Australian science and technology academics and university-industry research links. Higher Education, 38(1), 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1993). Conflict of interest. Lancet, 341, 742–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krimsky, S., & Rothenberg, L. S. (2001). Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: Editorial practices and author disclosures. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lesser, L. I., Ebbeling, C. B., Goozner, M., Wypij, D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2007). Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. Plos Medicine, 4(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levine, J., Gussow, J. D., Hastings, D., & Eccher, A. (2003). Authors’ financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. American Journal of Public Health, 93(4), 664–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. McNutt, K. (1999). Conflict of interest. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99(1), 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. (2010). Annual report, March 2009–Jan 2010. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  34. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2010). Funding opportunities. National nanotechnology coordination office. Accessed 14 May, 2010.
  35. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10–01).Google Scholar
  36. Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Priest, S. H., & Gillespie, A. W. (2000). Seeds of discontent: The public image of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(4), 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Romig, A. D., Baker, A. B., Johannes, J., Zipperian, T., Eijkel, K., Kirchhoff, B., et al. (2007). An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1634–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schrag, B., Ferrell, G., Weil, V., & Fiedler, T. J. (2003). Barking up the wrong tree? Industry funding of academic research—A case study with commentaries. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(4), 569–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Silverman, G. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Anderson, B. L., Ubel, P. A., Zinberg, S., & Schulkin, J. (2010). Failure to discount for conflict of interest when evaluating medical literature: A randomised trial of physicians. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. Accessed 4 March, 2010.
  42. Weil, V. (2003). Zeroing in on ethical issues in nanotechnology. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(11), 1976–1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson, R. F. (2006). Nanotechnology: The challenge of regulating known unknowns. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 34(4), 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolfson, J. R. (2003). Social and ethical issues in nanotechnology: Lessons from biotechnology and other high technologies. Biotechnology Law Report, 22(4), 376–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ziman, J. (2002). The continuing need for disinterested research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations