Conflict of Interest in Science Communication: More than a Financial IssueReport from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009

Abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once (1). Up to 33% admit other questionable practices such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed changes in pre-research protocols or dubious ethical behavior (1). There can be no doubt that discovered cases of research and publication misconduct represent a tip of an iceberg and many cases go unreported (2). Experienced biomedical journal editors are aware of a “rogues’ gallery” of major fraudsters, such as Schoen, Hwang, Sudbo, Poehlman, Singh, and Chandra (3-8). Much more common are the less dramatic, because more subtle but probably more dangerous, examples; these are more dangerous because they remain undiscovered so may feed into meta-analyses and guidelines. A seminar organized by the Esteve Foundation, held in Sitges in April 2009, concentrated on conflicts of interest (COI, sometimes also referred to as Competing Interests, CI), which underlie so much research and publication misconduct. All attendants of the meeting agreed that there were many sources of COI in the general process of scientific communication (Figure 1). The meeting was mainly focused on non-financial COI. Three introductory presentations highlighted some of the topics related to COI in the contemporary scientific publishing enterprise. Figure 1 Main protagonists in the process of scientific communication among which conflict of interest may arise. Dr Virginia Barbour, editor of PLoS Medicine, raised the following issues: - Does past or present employment with industry prejudice authors and researchers? - Journal policies on competing interests are often unclear or ambiguous even though the problem is common and consumes a disproportionate amount of editors’ time. - It is difficult to persuade academic institutions and individual researchers to comply with accepted definitions of misconduct. - Editors and publishers have not got to grips with non-financial conflicts. - There is uncertainty and inconsistency about sanctions for misconduct. Magne Nylenna, editor-in-chief of the Norwegian Electronic Health Library, raised the following issues: - Good practice vs misconduct is not a matter of black and white. There are shades of gray. - Of greatest significance is the researcher’s/author’s intent – and that may be difficult to determine. - Extreme cases are probably unpreventable so, as in preventive medicine generally, attention to the whole population is likely to have a better outcome than concentrating on outliers. - Simple guidelines are more useful than detailed, lengthy protocol - Everyone concerned merits training. Ana Marusic, co-editor in chief of the Croatian Medical Journal, addressed the specificities of small journals: - There are particular problems for small journals whose editors are likely to be academics, not full time medical journalists. - There is special risk from “scientific inbreeding” (the tradition of having tenure in the same institution where one trained). - In post-communist countries the concept that it is praiseworthy to cheat the government may be extended to other perceived authorities. - There needs to be a clear definition of when and how an article is retracted and what should be the consequences thereof.