Response by Samia A. Hurst & Alex Mauron

Abstract

We appreciate Ragnar Rylander's approval of our conclusions about the management of conflicts of interest. Distinctions can, and should, be made between acceptable and unacceptable conflicts of interests based on the primary interests of the partners, the types of decision that the conflict is likely to affect, and the feasibility of introducing local regulations to protect the freedom and judgement of academic researchers. Step-by-step management of conflicts of interest aims to minimize bias, and, as such, it should be an explicit part of the scientific method. However, Rylander also attempts to reopen a case that he has now lost both before the academic authorities of the University of Geneva and the Swiss legal system. In response to his letter, we can only refer the interested reader to the published record. As Rylander sued two whistleblowers for libel, the case came before the Swiss judiciary and was appealed all the way to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Geneva, 2003). The final sentence of the Geneva Court of Justice of 15 December 2003 completely rejected the charge and confirmed that Rylander “acting in his capacity of associate professor at the University, took advantage of its influence and reputation, not hesitating to put science at the service of money and not heeding the mission entrusted to this public institution, a mission which consists in particular in disseminating a culture founded on scientific knowledge” (Geneva, 2003). Further sources of reference in examining this ‘Affaire Rylander' include the public expose by McKee of the “very complex set of financial relationships between Professor Rylander and the tobacco industry”, an industry that had “engaged in a covert, sustained campaign to undermine the integrity of science”, together with Rylander's responses (McKee, 2003, and cited references), further discussions by Diethelm et al (2005) and Rylander's exchanges with these authors (Rylander, 2005). Sources also include the report of the inquiry commission set up in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Geneva (University of Geneva, 2004), which was summarized in the European Journal of Public Health, and concluded “that Professor Rylander was guilty of scientific misconduct in hiding the real extent of his links with the tobacco industry and in aligning his activity as a scientific investigator and expert with the strategic objectives of his industrial sponsors,” (Anon, 2006). The aftermath of the case is outlined in the Lancet (Neroth, 2004) and the lessons of the case for conflict-of-interest policies of scientific journals are drawn by the editor of the International Journal of Cancer (zur Hausen, 2006). We can only speculate as to whether the victims of the Spanish Inquisition would agree with Rylander's comparison of his predicament to theirs. As they are not in a position to challenge his rhetoric, however, this particular point is unlikely ever to be settled in the courtroom.