Conflict-of-Interest.net

Here’re some news stories that caught my eye:

Setting standards and medical guidelines

• A conflict of interest? (Irish Times) – DSM, mental health research, big pharma, and downstream access to appropriate medication
• EMA tightens conflict of interest rules (InPharm) – European medicines policy, managing expert COI in science advising
• Guidelines Panellists’ Conflict Of Interest Raises Concern (Medical News Today) – Pervasiveness among scientists and expert advisors
• FDA Panel Conflict Of Interest Restrictions Too Stringent Say Senators (Medical News Today) – Can restrictions on expert involvement be too tight?
• Conflict of Interest in USDA Nutrition Guidelines, Doctors Say (International Business Times) – Who sets food standards, determine what people eat?

Transitioning from Academic to Decision Maker

• Esty speaking fees generate conflict-of-interest questions (Register Citizen) – academic speakers fees, science in the public space, transition from research to government

Policy Updates

• HHS revises financial conflict of interest rules for researchers (Ortho SuperSite) – updates on disclosure, financial thresholds
• Conflict of interest policy under review (The Brown Daily Herald) – managing financial COI, beyond medical research

Disclosure and recusal are by far the two dominant strategies considered when individuals or institutions are faced with conflicts of interest. But the emphasis given to these two particular ways of dealing with financial conflict of interest – for almost any circumstances – may reduce complex ethical situations into their simplest expression. Even if freedom from financial conflicts of interest could be attained, what about the impact of ideological, personal of even epistemological conflicts of interest that are intrinsic to the research enterprise? There is no way we can create a “conflict of interest free” context; and to pretend otherwise and continue to suggest that we can manage such situations exclusively by disclosure and recusal may undermine public trust. We cannot plausibly believe that because someone “admits it” (disclosure) or “was not there” (recusal) that the process is free of potential prejudice for patients, research participants, or the public interest. In this NY Times story, for example (Health Guideline Panels Struggle with Conflicts of Interest), it is argued that in the context of US national expert panels involved in developing health policy guidelines, it may be simply unrealistic to rely on gathering internationally recognized experts who are free of any financial conflict of interest.