A question of method

conflicts of interest in biomedical research can endanger the independent judgement of researchers and, in a worst-case scenario, can result in harm to humans, animals or the environment, or avoidable damage to scientifically validated truths. Highly publicized cases of scientists who have downplayed the risk of passive smoking—while receiving funding from the tobacco industry—or researchers who have questioned anthropogenic global climate change—yet are supported by the coal or oil industries—(laDou et al, 2007) have attracted persistent, and often appropriate, criticism. a conflict of interest occurs when someone in a position of trust—for example, an academic researcher, lawyer or physician—has competing private and professional interests that make it more difficult to fulfil his or her professional duties without bias. However, a conflict of interest in itself is not necessarily bad, as long as the ‘right’ interests prevail. nevertheless, conflicts of interest can create an impression of impropriety that, in the long run, might undermine the credibility of an individual or even an entire profession. at a time when policy-makers, politicians and the public increasingly rely on scientific advice about controversial issues—for example, human embryonic stem cells, genetically modified crops or global climate change—conflicts of interest diminish the public’s trust in the independence and unbiased judgement of academic scientists. to maintain trust, researchers must remain visibly trustworthy, which requires a careful and explicit management of conflicts of interest. amidst growing concerns about the rising prevalence of conflicts of interest (Bekelman et al, 2003) and the attendant risks, various commentators and scientists have proposed several measures to handle conflicts of interest, which range from injunctions for more systematic disclosures to outright bans (Kaiser, 2005).