Erkenntnis

, Volume 79, Supplement 5, pp 917–937 | Cite as

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Criteria for Research Credibility

Original Article

Abstract

The potential for financial conflicts of interest (COIs) to damage the credibility of scientific research has become a significant social concern, especially in the wake of high-profile incidents involving the pharmaceutical, tobacco, fossil-fuel, and chemical industries. Scientists and policy makers have debated whether the presence of financial COIs should count as a reason for treating research with suspicion or whether research should instead be evaluated solely based on its scientific quality. This paper examines a recent proposal to develop criteria for evaluating the credibility of research without considering its source of funding. It concludes that proposals of this sort are likely to be either ineffective or impractical in many cases. Nevertheless, this does not imply that all research funded by those with an interest in the outcome must be placed under a cloud of suspicion; there are conditions under which research is at much more serious risk of being corrupted than in other cases, and attention to these conditions can guide productive responses to financial COIs.

References

  1. Angell, M. (2005). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  2. APHA (American Public Health Association). (2003). Supporting legislation for independent post-marketing phase IV Comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Washington, DC: APHA.Google Scholar
  3. Beder, S. (2000). Global spin (rev ed.). White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
  4. Bekelman, J., Lee, Y., & Gross, C. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgert, C. (2007). Conflict of interest or contravention of science. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 48, 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busenberg, G. (1999). Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Studies, 32, 1–11.Google Scholar
  7. Cain, D., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. (2005). The shortcomings of disclosure as a solution to conflicts of interest. In D. Moore, D. Cain, G. Loewenstein, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 104–125). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conrad, J., & Becker, R. (2011). Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: Emerging consensus on key assessment criteria. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119, 757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cranor, C. (2008). Toxic torts: Science, law, and the possibility of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cranor, C. (2011). Legally poisoned: How the law puts us at risk from toxicants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Curzer, H., & Santillanes, G. (2012). Managing conflict of interest in research: Some suggestions for investigators. Accountability in Research, 19, 143–155.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, M. (1982). Conflict of interest. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 1, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeAngelis, C., & Fontanarosa, P. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 1833–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas, H. (2005). Inserting the public into science. In S. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision making (pp. 153–169). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Elliott, K. (2008). Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict-of-interest policies. Accountability in Research, 15, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliott, K. (2009). Respect for lay perceptions of risk in the hormesis case. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 28, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott, K. (2011). Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliott, K., & Volz, D. (2012). Addressing conflicts of interest in nanotechnology oversight: Lessons learned from drug and pesticide safety testing. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14, 664–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fagin, D., Lavelle, M., & the Center for Public Integrity. (1999). Toxic deception (2nd ed.). Monroe, Maine: Common Courage.Google Scholar
  20. Healy, D., & Catell, D. (2003). Interface between authorship, industry, and science in the domain of therapeutics. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henry, C., & Conrad, J. (2008). Scientific and legal perspectives on science generated for regulatory activities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116, 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hochster, H. (2008). The power of “P”: On overpowered clinical trials and “positive” results. Gastrointestinal Cancer Research, 2, 108–109.Google Scholar
  23. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. Lenzer, J. (2008). Truly independent research? British Medical Journal, 337, 7670.Google Scholar
  25. Lesser, L., Ebbeling, C., Goozner, M., Wypij, D., & Ludwig, D. (2007). Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Medicine, 4, e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loewenstein, G., Sah, S., & Cain, D. (2012). The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307, 669–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Markowitz, G., & Rosner, D. (2002). Deceit and denial: The deadly politics of environmental pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarty, L., Borgert, C., & Mihaich, E. (2012). Information quality in regulatory decision making: Peer review versus good laboratory practice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 927–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGarity, T., & Wagner, W. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McKaughan, D., & Elliott, K. (2013). Backtracking and the ethics of framing: Lessons from voles and vasopressin. Accountability in Research, 20, 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mirowski, P., & Van Horn, R. (2005). The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science, 35, 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore, D., Cain, D., Loewenstein, G., & Bazerman, M. (Eds.). (2005). Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Myers, J., vom Saal, F., Akingbemi, B., Arizono, K., Belcher, S., Colborn, T., et al. (2009). Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: The case of bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117, 309–315.Google Scholar
  37. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  38. Proctor, R. (2012). Golden holocaust: Origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Resnik, D. (2006a). Intentional exposure studies of environmental agents on human agents: Assessing benefits and risks. Accountability in Research, 14, 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Resnik, D. (2006b). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Resnik, D., & Elliott, K. (2013). Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research. Accountability in Research, 20, 184–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schafer, A. (2004). Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defense of the sequestration thesis—Learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2007). Taking action, saving lives: Our duties to protect environmental and public health. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, R. (2005). Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Medicine, 2(5), e138. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Society of Toxicology. (2008). Principles for research priorities in toxicology. Available at: http://www.toxicology.org/pr/PrinResearch.asp. Last accessed on December 11, 2012.
  48. Sutton, P., Woodruff, T., Vogel, S., & Bero, L. (2011). Conrad and Becker’s ‘Ten Criteria’ fall short of addressing conflicts of interest in chemical safety testing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119, a506–a507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson, D. (1993). Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 573–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tweedale, T. (2011). Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: No consensus. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119, a507–a508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Volz, D., & Elliott, K. (2012). Mitigating conflicts of interest in chemical safety testing. Environmental Science and Technology, 46, 7937–7938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilholt, T. (2009). Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Lyman Briggs College and Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations