Abstract
We agree entirely with Richard Smith and colleagues that competing interests beyond the financial are important, and appreciate their contribution to the debate.1 As we state in our recent editorial,2 PLoS Medicine takes all potential competing interests seriously. We accept that financial competing interests are easier to define and judge, but our editorial also outlines our position that more leadership and better policy are needed in the area of non‐financial competing interests. These interests include the potential biases that may emanate from the public sector cultures in which many scientists and academics work. We look forward to the continued debate on the topic of competing interests and encourage readers to respond to our recent editorial and its recommendations on our website.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
