Is There Social Consensus Regarding Researcher Conflicts of Interest?

Aytug, Zeynep G.; Rothstein, Hannah R.; Kern, Mary C.; Zhu, Zhu

doi:10.1080/10508422.2017.1402683

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This ad hoc and light touch approach to CoI, however, is likely to be influenced by a constellation of often interrelated factors. Given the lack of agreement about how to manage CoI and how normalised academia-industry partnerships are, it is perhaps unsurprising that many academics are still confused about what relationships constitute CoI and appear to have limited knowledge about why they may be morally contestable 75 . Some argue that academic institutions have little incentive to regulate CoI, when the revenue generated by their partnerships with industry is so significant 76 .…”

Section: Protecting the Integrity Of Medical Research: Why Is It So Difficult?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccine confidence, public understanding and probity: time for a shift in focus?

Wheelock

Ives

2021

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lack of vaccine confidence can contribute to drops in vaccination coverage and subsequent outbreaks of diseases like measles and polio. Low trust in vaccines is attributed to a combination of factors, including lack of understanding, vaccine scares, flawed policies, social media and mistrust of vaccine manufacturers, scientists and decision-makers. The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare societies’ vulnerability to new pathogens and the critical role of vaccines (and their acceptability) in containing this and future pandemics. It has also put science at the forefront of the response, with several governments relying on academics to help shape policy and communicate with the public. Against this backdrop, protecting public trust in scientists and scientific output is arguably more important than ever. Yet, conflicts of interest (CoI) in biomedical research remain ubiquitous and harmful, and measures to curb them have had limited success. There is also evidence of bias in industry-sponsored vaccine studies and academics are voicing concerns about the risks of working in a CoI prevalent research area. Here, we set out to challenge established thinking with regard to vaccine confidence, by shifting the gaze from a deficit in public understanding towards probity in research relationships and suggesting an alternative and perhaps complementary strategy for addressing vaccine mistrust. We argue that a concerted effort needs to be made to revisit the norms that undergird contemporary vaccine research, coupled with a willingness of all stakeholders to reimagine those relationships with an emphasis on demonstrating trustworthiness and probity.

show abstract

Section: Protecting the Integrity Of Medical Research: Why Is It So Difficult?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccine confidence, public understanding and probity: time for a shift in focus?

Wheelock

Ives

2021

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, in deontological reasoning, there are psychological and non-psychological factors that do not allow people to pursue their moral obligation to serve the good of the company. For example: ‘I was incentivized on revenues and this did not make me realize that I was deceiving the customer, going against the principle of honesty of the company’ (Table 1 , A); ‘In my university the career advancement is based on publications in A-class journals and this has led me unknowingly to falsify the results of a research to achieve this advancement, failing the institutional interest of the integrity of the research’ (the so-called publish or perish phenomenon in scientific research, Aytug et al, 2019 ). ‘I did not know that the corruption of a public official for increasing the revenues is against the good of the company’ (Table 1 , E, lack of competence).…”

Section: Integrative Model Of Ethical Justifications Of Deviant Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antecedents of Deviant Behavior: Psychological and Non-Psychological Factors and Ethical Justifications

Carlo

2021

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An integrative model of ethical justifications in organizations is proposed. The model recognizes the roles of psychological and non-psychological factors on the link between ethical theories and the ethical reasoning and, consequently, on the way operators justify themselves when accused of being against (or not favoring) the good of the company. This study wants to contribute to highlighting the benefits of the prevention of deviant behavior through a more profound comprehension of its antecedents. The analysis confirms the complexity of human beings, and the need for an integrated approach that leads to clarity and coherence among tools (e.g. mission, code of ethics, incentive system), people and among both people and tools. A central role is played by the dissemination of a culture that considers the firm as a real entity, with its own interest, that is separated from that of its stakeholders and which brings the purpose of the common good.

show abstract

“…Collaboration with external partners is now encouraged by, if not a requirement of, many governments and universities, and extensive performance targets for attracting external funding and publication output have become part of the everyday working conditions of university researchers (Israel, 2015; Emerald and Carpenter, 2015; Aytug et al , 2019). Although external collaboration is not in itself a problem, combined with the intensified competition and heightened demands of research productivity, there is, however, an explicit concern that it may challenge the honesty and solidity of research (Israel, 2015; Aytug et al , 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formal notions of COI typically include actual and potential conflicts (World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI), 2010; MHES, 2014; All European Academies (ALLEA), 2017; The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), 2018). These can be financial or non-financial, and in the case of the latter include political and religious interests, for example (Israel, 2015; Aytug et al , 2019). Finally, having a COI does not in itself compromise the integrity of the research (ibid.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Negotiating conflicts of interest: working with multiple stakeholders

Kristensen

2020

QRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to examine conflicts of interest (COI) in qualitative social research with multiple and often powerful stakeholders such as organisations and funders.Design/methodology/approachThe article offers an explorative qualitative analysis of a selected group of Danish doctoral students' experiences and negotiations of COI in their qualitative, multiple stakeholder research. The point of departure is that while potential and readily identifiable sources of COI, such as funding institutions, are important to disclose this may provide inadequate insight into stakeholders' actual – and potentially undue – influence on the research during the research process. This calls for a focus on research practice. Finally, the current neoliberal policy changes affecting universities provide the backdrop for the study.FindingsFocusing on negotiations around COI in practice, the analysis illuminates the complex reality of negotiating different – and sometimes conflicting – expectations and interests when conducting long-term qualitative studies. It also shows examples of stakeholders' attempts to potentially, and unduly, influence doctoral students' research. Finally, it suggests that stakeholders and researchers alike can be both powerful and potentially vulnerable when engaging in qualitative research.Originality/valueThe article contributes to the existing literature by explicitly focusing on COI in qualitative social research, and by exploring experiences and negotiations of COI in practice.

show abstract

Is There Social Consensus Regarding Researcher Conflicts of Interest?

Cited by 4 publications

References 71 publications

Vaccine confidence, public understanding and probity: time for a shift in focus?

Vaccine confidence, public understanding and probity: time for a shift in focus?

Antecedents of Deviant Behavior: Psychological and Non-Psychological Factors and Ethical Justifications

Negotiating conflicts of interest: working with multiple stakeholders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About