Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Government grants were included because, as noted above, only five academics were currently only industry funded.

References

  • Alpert, J. S. (2007). Peer review: The best of the blemished? American Journal of Medicine, 120(4), 287–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2005). The complexity of competing and conflicting interests. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 515–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D. (1996). Ethics issues in academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: The continuing debate. Academic Medicine, 71(12), 1291–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, T. (1998). The commercialization of human genetics: Profits and problems. Molecular Medicine Today, 4(4), 148–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cech, T. R., & Leonard, J. S. (2001). Science and business—Conflicts of interest—Moving beyond disclosure. Science, 291(5506), 989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. (2008). Results of our ongoing research. http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm. Accessed 20 October, 2010.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarkowski, M. (2006). The protection of patients’ rights in clinical trials. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, F. (1998). Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128(1), 66–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • DeAngelis, C. D. (2000). Conflict of interest and the public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(17), 2237–2238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallowfield, L., Ratcliffe, D., & Souhami, R. (1997). Clinicians’ attitudes to clinical trials of cancer therapy. European Journal of Cancer, 33(13), 2221–2229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farthing, M. J. G. (2006). Authors and publication practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Frankel, M. S. (1996). Perception, reality, and the political context of conflict of interest in university-industry relationships. Academic Medicine, 71(12), 1297–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, P. J. (2002). The impact of conflict of interest on trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 413–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (1999). Australian science and technology academics and university-industry research links. Higher Education, 38(1), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1993). Conflict of interest. Lancet, 341, 742–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McNutt, K. (1999). Conflict of interest. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99(1), 29–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. (2010). Annual report, March 2009–Jan 2010. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2010). Funding opportunities. National nanotechnology coordination office. http://www.nano.gov/html/funding/home_funding.html. Accessed 14 May, 2010.

  • National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10–01).

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 579–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H., & Gillespie, A. W. (2000). Seeds of discontent: The public image of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(4), 529–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.people-press.org/report/528/. Accessed 4 March, 2010.

  • Weil, V. (2003). Zeroing in on ethical issues in nanotechnology. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(11), 1976–1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. F. (2006). Nanotechnology: The challenge of regulating known unknowns. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 34(4), 704–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson, J. R. (2003). Social and ethical issues in nanotechnology: Lessons from biotechnology and other high technologies. Biotechnology Law Report, 22(4), 376–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (2002). The continuing need for disinterested research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(3), 397–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Cornell University, 313 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY, 1483, USA

    Katherine A. McComas

Authors
  1. Katherine A. McComas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine A. McComas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McComas, K.A. Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 699–717 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9264-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9264-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation