Advertisement

Current Environmental Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 109–118 | Cite as

Evidence Regarding the Impact of Conflicts of Interest on Environmental and Occupational Health Research

  • Ellen M. Wells
Ethics and Policy (M Tondel, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Ethics and Policy

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review describes published literature providing evidence for financial conflicts of interest in environmental and occupational health research. Secondary goals were to describe evidence that (a) utilized quantitative methods to evaluate the association of conflicts with study outcomes, and (b) assessed undisclosed as well as disclosed conflicts of interest.

Recent Findings

Forty-three studies were identified which contained descriptions of the impact of financial conflicts of interest on research results; 11 of these conducted quantitative analyses to demonstrate these relationships.

Summary

All 11 articles which quantified associations identified significant associations of the presence of financial conflicts of interest with study findings. In studies which measured undisclosed conflicts, these comprised a substantial proportion of all conflicts. Suggestions for improving understanding and interpretation of research results are presented.

Keywords

Conflict of interest Environmental health Occupational health Environmental tobacco smoke 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Jane Yactilla and Zainab Hasan for their assistance in preparing this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ellen M. Wells is a member of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology’s Ethics and Philosophy Committee.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep. 2005;120(2):200.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosner D, Markowitz G. The politics of lead toxicology and the devastating consequences for children. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(10):740–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heath D. Lauded public health researcher also worked for industry, revealing entanglements of science. Center for Public Integrity [Internet]. 2013 Dec 20 [cited 2016 Nov 13]; Available from: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/12/20/14039/lauded-public-health-researcher-also-worked-industry-revealing-entanglements
  4. 4.
    Roe S, Callahan P. Surgeon rebuked for flame-retardant falsehoods: disciplinary charges filed against doctor who made misleading statements about burned babies. Chicago Tribune [Internet]. 2014 Mar 13; Available from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-13/news/ct-flame-heimbach-met-20140314_1_flame-retardants-burned-babies-heimbach
  5. 5.
    O’Connor A. How the sugar industry shifted blame to fat. The New York Times [Internet]. 2016 Sep 12 [cited 2016 Nov 13]; Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0
  6. 6.
    Elliott KC, Resnik DB. Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(7):647–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. 2: Integrity in research. In: Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2002. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208714/
  8. 8.
    Kramer S, Soskolne CL. Ethics guidelines in environmental epidemiology: their development and challenges we face. Curr Environ Health Rep 2017;4(2); in press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lurie P, Almeida CM, Stine N, Stine AR, Wolfe SM. Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee meetings. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1921–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aneja A, Esquitin R, Shah K, Iyengar R, Nisenbaum R, Melo M, et al. Authors’ self-declared financial conflicts of interest do not impact the results of major cardiovascular trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(11):1137–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bariani GM, de Celis Ferrari ACR, Hoff PM, Krzyzanowska MK, Riechelmann RP. Self-reported conflicts of interest of authors, trial sponsorship, and the interpretation of editorials and related phase III trials in oncology. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;31(18):2289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fugh-Berman A, McDonald CP, Bell AM, Bethards EC, Scialli AR. Promotional tone in reviews of menopausal hormone therapy after the Women’s Health Initiative: an analysis of published articles. PLoS Med. 2011;8(3):e1000425.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson C, Holland N, Leloup D, Muilerman H. Conflicts of interest at the European Food Safety Authority erode public confidence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(9):717–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tong S, Olsen J. The threat to scientific integrity in environmental and occupational medicine. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62(12):843–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearce N. Corporate influences on epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(1):46–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huff J. Industry influence on occupational and environmental public health. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007;13(1):107–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krimsky S, Sweet E. An analysis of toxicology and medical journal conflict-of-interest polices. Account Res. 2009;16(5):235–53.19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Conflict of interest. Lancet. 1993;341(8847):742–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cappola AR, FitzGerald GA. Confluence, not conflict of interest: name change necessary. JAMA. 2015;314(17):1791–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaw DM, Morfeld P, Erren TC. Conflict or confluence of interest? JAMA. 2016;315(16):1793.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seltzer SE, Menard A, Cruea R, Arenson R. “Hyperscrutiny” of academic-industrial relationships: potential for unintended consequences—a response. J Am Coll Radiol JACR. 2010;7(1):39–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCrary SV, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, Khan T, McCullough LB, Wray NP, et al. A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1621–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Probst P, Hüttner FJ, Klaiber U, Diener MK, Büchler MW, Knebel P. Thirty years of disclosure of conflict of interest in surgery journals. Surgery. 2015;157(4):627–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lopez J, Lopez S, Means J, Mohan R, Soni A, Milton J, et al. Financial conflicts of interest: an association between funding and findings in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(5):690e–7e.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bailey CS, Fehlings MG, Rampersaud YR, Hall H, Wai EK, Fisher CG. Industry and evidence-based medicine: believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Can J Surg J Can Chir. 2011;54(5):321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bero LA, Grundy Q. Why having a (nonfinancial) interest is not a conflict of interest. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(12):e2001221.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Akl EA, El-Hachem P, Abou-Haidar H, Neumann I, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Considering intellectual, in addition to financial, conflicts of interest proved important in a clinical practice guideline: a descriptive study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(11):1222–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bosch X, Pericas JM, Hernández C, Doti P. Financial, nonfinancial and editors’ conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals. Eur J Clin Investig. 2013;43(7):660–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pickar JH. Conflicts of interest in government-funded studies. Climacteric J Int Menopause Soc. 2015;18(3):339–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e10271.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sass J. Credibility of scientists: conflict of interest and bias. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(3):A147–8. author reply A148CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turner C, Spilich GJ. Research into smoking or nicotine and human cognitive performance: does the source of funding make a difference? Addict Abingdon Engl. 1997;92(11):1423–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA. 1998;279(19):1566–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Drope J, Bialous SA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America. Tob Control. 2004;13(Suppl 1):i41–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neilsen K, Glantz SA. A tobacco industry study of airline cabin air quality: dropping inconvenient findings. Tob Control. 2004;13(Suppl 1):i20–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bitton A, Neuman MD, Barnoya J, Glantz SA. The p53 tumour suppressor gene and the tobacco industry: research, debate, and conflict of interest. Lancet Lond Engl. 2005;365(9458):531–40.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Garne D, Watson M, Chapman S, Byrne F. Environmental tobacco smoke research published in the journal Indoor and Built Environment and associations with the tobacco industry. Lancet Lond Engl. 2005;365(9461):804–9.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tong EK, England L, Glantz SA. Changing conclusions on secondhand smoke in a sudden infant death syndrome review funded by the tobacco industry. Pediatrics. 2005;115(3):e356–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yano E. Japanese spousal smoking study revisited: how a tobacco industry funded paper reached erroneous conclusions. Tob Control. 2005;14(4):227-33; discussion 233-35.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grüning T, Gilmore AB, McKee M. Tobacco industry influence on science and scientists in Germany. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(1):20–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guardino SD, Daynard RA. Tobacco industry lawyers as “disease vectors”. Tob Control. 2007;16(4):224–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cataldo JK, Bero LA, Malone RE. “A delicate diplomatic situation”: tobacco industry efforts to gain control of the Framingham study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):841–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cataldo JK, Prochaska JJ, Glantz SA. Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis controlling for tobacco industry affiliation. J Alzheimers Dis JAD. 2010;19(2):465–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brandt AM. Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(1):63–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Campbell R, Balbach E. Editorial input for the right price: tobacco industry support for a sheet metal indoor air quality manual. New Solut J Environ Occup Health Policy NS. 2013;23(3):467–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McDaniel PA, Solomon G, Malone RE. The tobacco industry and pesticide regulations: case studies from tobacco industry archives. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(12):1659–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ong EK, Glantz SA. Constructing “sound science” and “good epidemiology”: tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1749–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Neuman MD, Bitton A, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry influence on the definition of tobacco related disorders by the American Psychiatric Association. Tob Control. 2005;14(5):328–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith KE, Fooks G, Collin J, Weishaar H, Mandal S, Gilmore AB. “Working the system”--British American tobacco’s influence on the European union treaty and its implications for policy: an analysis of internal tobacco industry documents. PLoS Med. 2010;7(1):e1000202.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Campbell RB, Balbach ED. Manufacturing credibility: the National Energy Management Institute and the Tobacco Institute’s strategy for indoor air quality. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(3):497–503.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hammond D, Chaiton M, Lee A, Collishaw N. Destroyed documents: uncovering the science that Imperial Tobacco Canada sought to conceal. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2009;181(10):691–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hayes TB. There is no denying this: defusing the confusion about atrazine. Bioscience. 2004;54(12):1138–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sass JB, Needleman HL. Industry testing of toxic pesticides on human subjects concluded “no effect,” despite the evidence. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(3):A150–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    vom Saal FS, Hughes C. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(8):926–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Baur X, Soskolne CL, Lemen RA, Schneider J, Woitowitz H-J, Budnik LT. How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2015;21(2):176–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    • Valenzuela M, Giraldo M, Gallo-Murcia S, Pineda J, Santos L, Ramos-Bonilla JP. Recent scientific evidence regarding asbestos use and health consequences of asbestos exposure. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2016;3:335–47. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40572-016-0109-9. Recent review article including a discussion of conflict of interest
  58. 58.
    Castleman BI. Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence. Int J Health Serv Plan Adm Eval. 2001;31(1):193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Greenberg M. Revising the British Occupational Hygiene Society asbestos standard: 1968-1982. Am J Ind Med. 2006;49(7):577–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Müntener K, Röösli M. Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;115(1):1–4.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nierop LE, Roosli M, Egger M, Huss A. Source of funding in experimental studies of mobile phone use on health: update of a systematic review. C R Physique. 2010;11(9–10):622–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nussbaum RH. Manipulating public health research: the nuclear and radiation health establishments. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007;13(3):328–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Starkey SJ. Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Rev Environ Health [Internet]. 2016 Jan 1 [cited 2017 Jan 6];31(4). Available from: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.xml
  64. 64.
    Smith AH. Hexavalent chromium, yellow water, and cancer: a convoluted saga. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2008;19(1):24–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Egilman D. Scout. Corporate corruption of science—the case of chromium(VI). Int J Occup Environ Health. 2006;12(2):169–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Egilman DS. Suppression bias at the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005;11(2):202–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Levine J, Gussow JD, Hastings D, Eccher A. Authors’ financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):664–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brownell KD, Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: big tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is big food? Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):259–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    •• Friedman L, Friedman M. Financial conflicts of interest and study results in environmental and occupational health research. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58(3):238–47. Recent article quantifying the association of conflicts with research outcomes CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    •• Mandrioli D, Kearns CE, Bero LA. Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: a systematic review of reviews. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162198. Recent article quantifying the association of conflicts with research outcomes CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    •• Rollin L, Griffon N, Darmoni SJ, Gehanno J-F. Influence of author’s affiliation and funding sources on the results of cohort studies on occupational cancer. Am J Ind Med. 2016;59(3):221–6. Recent article quantifying the association of conflicts with research outcomes CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bakke Ø, Endal D. Vested interests in addiction research and policy alcohol policies out of context: drinks industry supplanting government role in alcohol policies in sub-Saharan Africa. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2010;105(1):22–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Infante PF. The past suppression of industry knowledge of the toxicity of benzene to humans and potential bias in future benzene research. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2006;12(3):268–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bailar JC, Cicolella A, Harrison R, LaDou J, Levy BS, Rohm T, et al. IBM, Elsevier Science, and academic freedom. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007;13(3):312–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Davies GR, Roberts I. Is road safety being driven in the wrong direction? Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(5):1615–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Heishman SJ, Taylor RC, Henningfield JE. Nicotine and smoking: a review of effects on human performance. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994;2(4):345–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fields N, Chapman S. Chasing Ernst L Wynder: 40 years of Philip Morris’ efforts to influence a leading scientist. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(8):571–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    MacKenzie R, Rogers W. Potential conflict of interest and bias in the RACGP’s smoking cessation guidelines: are GPs provided with the best advice on smoking cessation for their patients? Public Health Ethics. 2015;8(3):319–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Goozner M. Study on failures to disclose conflicts of interest in environmental health perspectives. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(14):A794–5. -797CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hardell L, Walker MJ, Walhjalt B, Friedman LS, Richter ED. Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(3):227–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Grant B. Climate change denier on fossil fuel payroll. The Scientist [Internet]. 2015 Feb 23 [cited 2016 Nov 15]; Available from: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42247/title/Climate-Change-Denier-on-Fossil-Fuel-Payroll/
  82. 82.
    Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(1):51–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Grandjean P. Opinion: problems with hidden COI: there may be much more to conflicts of interest than what gets declared. The Scientist [Internet]. 2013 Oct 28; Available from: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37934/title/Opinion--Problems-with-Hidden-COI/
  84. 84.
    Bero LA, Glantz S, Hong M-K. The limits of competing interest disclosures. Tob Control. 2005;14(2):118–26.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Fugh-Berman A. The corporate coauthor. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):546–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    • Pisinger C, Døssing M. A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Prev Med. 2014;69:248–60. Recent review article including a discussion of conflict of interest CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kosmider L, Anastasi N. Ideology versus evidence: investigating the claim that the literature on e-cigarettes is undermined by material conflict of interest. Prev Med. 2016;85:113–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Alasbali T, Smith M, Geffen N, Trope GE, Flanagan JG, Jin Y, et al. Discrepancy between results and abstract conclusions in industry- vs nonindustry-funded studies comparing topical prostaglandins. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(1):33–38.e2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Neutra RR. What to declare and why? Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):244–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Loewenstein G, Sah S, Cain DM. The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA. 2012;307(7):669–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations