Taking Financial Relationships into Account When Assessing Research

Abstract

Many scientific journals, government agencies, and universities require disclosure of sources of funding and financial interests related to research, such as stock ownership, consulting arrangements with companies, and patents. Although disclosure has become one of the central approaches for responding to financial conflicts of interest (COIs) in research, critics contend that information about financial COIs does not serve as a reliable indicator of research credibility, and therefore, studies should be evaluated solely based on their scientific merits. We argue that, while it is indeed important to evaluate studies on their scientific merits, it is often difficult to detect significant influences of financial relationships that affect research credibility. Moreover, at least five factors can be examined to determine whether financial relationships are likely to enhance, undermine, or have no impact on the credibility of research. These include as follows: whether sponsors, institutions, or researchers have a significant financial stake in the outcome of a study; whether the financial interests of the sponsors, institutions, or researchers coincide with the goal of conducting research that is objective and reliable; whether the sponsor, institution, or researchers have a history of biasing research in order to promote their financial goals; how easy it is to manipulate the research in order to achieve financial goals; and whether oversight mechanisms are in place which are designed to minimize bias. Since these factors vary from case to case, evaluating the impact of financial relationships depends on the circumstances. In some situations, onemay decide that the financial relationships significantly undermine the study’s credibility; in others, one may decide that they have no impact on credibility or even enhance it.

Declarations, accusations and judgement: examining conflict of interest discourses as performative speech-acts

“…In demonstrating the performative aspects of COI declarations, we are not suggesting that such declarations are redundant. Indeed we recognise that they can convey important information to help readers evaluate the objectivity and trustworthiness of research (Resnik, 2013). However, in doing so the COI declaration shifts responsibility on to readers and allow the continuation of the status quo.…”

A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science

“…Disclosure embodies the virtues of openness and transparency. While disclosure is not a panacea (Elliott, 2008), disclosing COIs related to one's research allows others to evaluate these interests to determine their likely impact (Resnik and Elliott, 2013). Disclosure upfront also avoids the situation in which COIs are discovered after-the-fact, which can lead to suspicion that undermines the trustworthiness of research.…”

Epistemological depth in a GM crops controversy

“…(For insightful discussions of the depth of financial conflicts of interest and the limited effectiveness of conflict of interest disclosures, see Elliott 2011, ch. 4;Resnik and Elliott 2013;de Melo-Martín and Intemann 2009. ) Their report is updated annually, and goes back to at least 2005.…”