In research, does conflicts of interest mean scientific misconduct?


The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

We need to talk about conflicts of interest (COIs) in scientific research. Specifically, we need to talk about the difference between COIs and research misconduct. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the media and public conversations that a COI is research misconduct. While a COI may lead a researcher to commit research misconduct, a COI is not, on its own, research misconduct.

A COI is a situation in which a person has multiple competing interests, financial or other, that have the potential to compromise or bias their judgment or objectivity. COIs exist whether or not decisions are affected. COIs merely recognize the potential for wrongdoing based on conflicting motivations.

. . . .

In the United States, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy has defined research misconduct as follows:

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

. . . .

. . . .This is not to minimize the importance of the disclosure of COIs. It is this very transparency that allows us to identify problems, limit COIs and scrutinize research that may be biased. In science, credibility is our currency. Transparency and disclosure about conflicts of interest are critical to maintain our credibility.

. . . .

We need to stop automatically punishing scientists for having COIs. It’s not having a COI that’s a problem, it’s how COIs influence research that can become problematic. Let’s make sure we are judging the behavior of scientists, not based on just the existence of COIs, but based on how they act in the face of those conflicts.

Read full, original post: Credibility is our currency: conflicts of interest and research misconduct

  • Stuart M.

    I’ve always been amazed how anti-GMO activists routinely dismiss thousands of scientific studies because “they were company-funded” or “company studies.” This may be a conflict of interest but not sufficient evidence of scientific misconduct and the studies should not be dismissed out of hand. If they have been confirmed by or are consistent with studies performed by out-of-house scientists, they should be considered valid. Of course, some study being touted by a former Guru Maharishi follower who also lists dance instructor on his resume is obviously sound and above-board…