Abstract
The increasing interconnectedness of academic research and external industry has left research vulnerable to conflicts of interest. These conflicts have the potential to undermine the integrity of scientific research as well as to threaten public trust in scientific findings. The present effort sought to identify themes in the perspectives of faculty researchers regarding conflicts of interest. Think-aloud interview responses were qualitatively analyzed in an effort to provide insights with regard to appropriate ways to address the threat of conflicts of interest in research. Themes in participant responses included disclosure of conflicts of interest, self-removal from situations where conflict exists, accommodation of conflict, denial of the existence of conflict, and recognition of complexity of situations involving conflicts of interest. Moral disengagement operations are suggested to explain the appearance of each identified theme. In addition, suggestions for best practices regarding addressing conflicts of interest given these themes in faculty perspectives are provided.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angell, M. (2000). Is academic medicine for sale? The New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1516–1518.
Angell, M. (2008). Industry-sponsored clinical research: A broken system. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1069–1071.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 454–465.
Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2008). A conflict of interest disclosure policy for science and engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 149–152.
Boyd, E. A., & Bero, L. A. (2007). Defining financial conflicts and managing research relationships: An analysis of university conflict of interest committee decisions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 415–435.
Cohen, J. J. (2001). Trust us to make a difference: Ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Academic Medicine, 76, 209–214.
Deer, B. (2011). How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ (British Medical Journal), 342. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347#xref-ref-7-1.
Fonteyn, M. E., Kuipers, B., & Grobe, S. J. (1993). A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 430–441.
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, 553–573.
Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ (British Medical Journal), 342. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452#ref-9.
Krimsky, S. (2005). The funding effect in science and its implications for the judiciary. The Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, 13, 43–68.
Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., et al. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics and Behavior, 16, 319–345.
The New York Times. (2013). Aftermath of an unfounded vaccine scare. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opinion/the-aftermath-of-measles-vaccine-scare-in-britain.html?ref=andrewwakefield&_r=0.
Acknowledgments
We thank T. H. Lee Williams for his contributions to this effort. Parts of this work were sponsored by Grant No. R21 ES021075-01 from the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mecca, J.T., Gibson, C., Giorgini, V. et al. Researcher Perspectives on Conflicts of Interest: A Qualitative Analysis of Views from Academia. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 843–855 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9580-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9580-6