The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
What sort of industry connections could buy influence over a scientist’s research results? Defining what constitutes a conflict of interest continues to vex funding agencies, journals and institutions.
In trying to navigate such complexities, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been ahead of the curve — presumably because of long-standing concerns about physicians’ industry relationships and the high stakes for protecting patients. Its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was the first to establish conflict-of-interest disclosure rules in 1995 and is still beyond many of its counterparts in maintaining unified regulations. By contrast, the US National Science Foundation’s grants policy suggests that institutions look to scientific societies for ideas on how to manage a conflict of interest, and to report back to the foundation only if institutions cannot handle it themselves.
The HHS rules may not be perfect, but they address real issues and others should take note. They make it clear that institutions are accountable, that they must educate their researchers on financial disclosure and should evaluate whether an industry relationship is problematic. The reforms also enlist a second pair of eyes by requiring institutions to report details of the conflict and its management to the NIH. Perhaps most importantly, the reforms remove the excuse of plausible deniability by clearly stating the kinds of financial relationship that could be considered conflicts.
One thing has become clear: conflicts are slippery to define, so it is important for as many funders, institutions and journals to make as many demands as necessary. Had Kevin Folta been funded by the NIH, the HHS guidelines would have required him to report the Monsanto money.
Read full, original post: Too close for comfort?
