0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Peer Review Congress |

Financial Interest and Its Disclosure in Scientific Publications FREE

Sheldon Krimsky, PhD; L. S. Rothenberg, JD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Urban & Environmental Policy, Tufts University, Medford, Mass (Dr Krimsky), and the Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (Mr Rothenberg).


JAMA. 1998;280(3):225-226. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.225.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Journal policies and requirements of funding agencies on financial disclosure of authors and grant applicants have divided editors and scientists who disagree on whether such policies can improve the integrity of science or manage conflicts of interest. Those opposed to such disclosure policies argue that financial interest is one of many interests held by scientists, is the least scientifically dangerous, and should not be singled out. Those who favor open reporting of financial interests argue that full disclosure removes the suspicion that something of relevance to objectivity is being hidden and allows readers to form their own opinions on whether a conflict of interest exists and what relevance that has to the study. The authors believe that the scientific community and the public will be best served by open publication of financial disclosures for readers and reviewers to evaluate.

BOTH IN the clinical context and in the context of the publication of academic research, there is the potential for a conflict of interest, as defined by Thompson,1 when a set of conditions exist "in which professional judgment regarding a primary interest (such as a patient's welfare or the validity of research) tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain)." Although the mere existence of a financial interest does not imply a conflict and the potential for financial gain is only one of many factors that can generate such conflicts (including "personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion"), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has identified "financial relationships with industry (for example, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family," as the most important conflicts of interest. Moreover, the ICMJE2 considers that the manner in which authors, reviewers, and editors deal with such conflicts can affect in part the credibility of published articles in scientific journals.

For readers unfamiliar with the controversies over disclosure of financial interests by researchers and/or authors, a brief review may be useful. Prior to the 1980s, the emphasis of any guidelines or policies regarding financial interests of scientists tended to focus on voluntary disclosure and self-regulation. Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing to the late 1990s, journals, federal agencies, university and medical associations, and the media have issued policies on financial disclosure for authors, reviewers, or grant applicants.

An Institute of Medicine3 report describes 2 competing models for the management of conflicts of interest: the "prohibition" model, which is "based on a presumption against any relationships that might present a conflict," and the "disclosure and peer review" model, which is "based on a presumption for such relationships with a provision for disclosure and review." A demonstration of "sufficient social benefit" (eg, improved transfer of medical innovations to the bedside, creation of jobs, furtherance of economic development generally, and facilitation of private support of research programs and public universities) can override the prohibition model and outweigh the risk of bias. The disclosure and peer review model, by contrast, "holds that conflicts of interest are unavoidable and that financial conflicts are only the most visible and perhaps the least scientifically dangerous."3

Richard Horton,4 editor of The Lancet, has argued that the case in favor of full disclosure rests on 3 fallacies: (1) scientific writing can be free from common prejudices; (2) financial conflicts of interest are of greater concern than academic, personal, and political rivalries and beliefs; and (3) disclosure can "heal the wound inflicted by financial conflict." An editorial writer in Nature suggests that, barring a demonstrated link between such financial interests and a lack of objectivity or other factors that weaken the credibility of a manuscript, disclosure should only be voluntary.5

Arguments favoring disclosure echo the conclusion reached by the American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill, that "the best mechanism available to assuage public (and professional) doubts about the propriety of a research arrangement is full disclosure" and that such disclosure "should be made to the journals that publish the results of the research."6

Since the 1980s, when the commercialization of the biomedical sciences was becoming acutely visible in the American press7 and the US Congress held hearings on federal research funds and their relationship to conflicts of interest,8 biomedical journals began adding conflict-of-interest requirements in their instructions to authors.

Even if the information is disclosed to journal editors, however, the question remains of whether it should be shared with journal readers. Some editors view their role as the administrators of such information.9 We are persuaded by the views of Bernat and colleagues,10 leaders in the American Academy of Neurology, who argue that the purpose of public disclosure of conflicts of interest is not to remove the conflict but to publicize it "so that all relevant observers become aware of it and can modify their opinions on the credibility of statements of the conflicted person accordingly," which mitigates but does not resolve the conflict.

In a survey of North American medical journal editors published in 1995, Wilkes and Kravitz11 reported that 26% of responding editors required authors to reveal sources of their funding, 28% required disclosure of all institutional affiliations, and 13% and 10%, respectively, required disclosure of consultant positions and of stock ownership in companies that may pose a conflict of interest. This lack of editorial unanimity was revealed in the same year the nation's 2 leading funding agencies, the National Institutes of Health12 and the National Science Foundation,13 issued conflict-of-interest regulations requiring disclosure by researchers to their host institutions of financial interests in connection with grant proposals. It also comes at a time of changing conditions of scientific research funding and of the growth of a more entrepreneurial spirit among academic scientists and research institutions.14,15

Thus, although the ICMJE has expressed the majority view that "published articles and letters should include a description of all financial support and any conflict of interest that, in the editors' judgment, readers should know about,"16 the policies of medical and basic science journals vary significantly in their requirements to disclose financial interests to editors.

In our view, journal editors should begin to take seriously the implementation of disclosure policies in response to the escalation of financial interests of authors in their publications.17,18 Journals should be specific in their instructions to authors on the types of financial associations related to their submission and the form of communication (original research, letters, book reviews, and scientific review articles) that warrant disclosure. We also believe that the scientific community and the public will be best served by the open publication of financial disclosures for readers and reviewers to evaluate. While financial interest in itself does not imply any bias in the results of a paper and should not disqualify it from publication, readers and reviewers are the best judges of whether there is evidence of bias and whether that evidence favors those interests.

REFERENCES

Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest: sounding board.  N Engl J Med.1993;329:573-576.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.  Conflict of interest: writing for publication.  Lancet.1993;341:742.
Donaldson MS, Capron AM. Patient Outcomes Research Teams: Managing Conflict of Interest . Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991:61-62.
Horton R. Conflict of interest in clinical research: opprobrium or obsession?  Lancet.1997;349:1112-1113.
 Avoid financial "correctness" [editorial].  Nature.1997;385:469.
Council on Scientific Affairs and Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.  Conflicts of interest in medical center/industry research relationships.  JAMA.1990;263:2790-2793.
Culliton BJ. Biomedical research enters the marketplace.  N Engl J Med.1981;304:1195-1201.
US Congress, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations.  Are Scientific Misconduct and Conflict of Interest Hazardous to Our Health?  Nineteenth Report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1990.
Davidoff F. Where's the bias?  Ann Intern Med.1997;126:986-988.
Bernat JL, Goldstein ML, Ringel SP. Conflicts of interest in neurology.  Neurology.1998;50:327-331.
Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors.  J Gen Intern Med.1995;10:443-450.
 Objectivity in research.  60 Federal Register.35810-35819 (1995).
 Investigator financial disclosure policy.  60 Federal Register.35820-35823 (1995).
Krimsky S, Ennis J, Weissman R. Academic corporate ties in biotechnology: a quantitative study.  Sci Tech Hum Values.1991;16:275-287.
Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry.  N Engl J Med.1996;335:1734-1739.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.  Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.  JAMA.1997;277:927-934.
Krimsky S, Rothenberg L, Stott P, Kyle G. Financial interests of authors in scientific journals: a pilot study of 14 publications.  Sci Eng Ethics.1996;2:395-410.
Stelfox HT, Grace C, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.  N Engl J Med.1998;338:101-106.

Figures

Tables

References

Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest: sounding board.  N Engl J Med.1993;329:573-576.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.  Conflict of interest: writing for publication.  Lancet.1993;341:742.
Donaldson MS, Capron AM. Patient Outcomes Research Teams: Managing Conflict of Interest . Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991:61-62.
Horton R. Conflict of interest in clinical research: opprobrium or obsession?  Lancet.1997;349:1112-1113.
 Avoid financial "correctness" [editorial].  Nature.1997;385:469.
Council on Scientific Affairs and Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.  Conflicts of interest in medical center/industry research relationships.  JAMA.1990;263:2790-2793.
Culliton BJ. Biomedical research enters the marketplace.  N Engl J Med.1981;304:1195-1201.
US Congress, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations.  Are Scientific Misconduct and Conflict of Interest Hazardous to Our Health?  Nineteenth Report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1990.
Davidoff F. Where's the bias?  Ann Intern Med.1997;126:986-988.
Bernat JL, Goldstein ML, Ringel SP. Conflicts of interest in neurology.  Neurology.1998;50:327-331.
Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors.  J Gen Intern Med.1995;10:443-450.
 Objectivity in research.  60 Federal Register.35810-35819 (1995).
 Investigator financial disclosure policy.  60 Federal Register.35820-35823 (1995).
Krimsky S, Ennis J, Weissman R. Academic corporate ties in biotechnology: a quantitative study.  Sci Tech Hum Values.1991;16:275-287.
Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry.  N Engl J Med.1996;335:1734-1739.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.  Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.  JAMA.1997;277:927-934.
Krimsky S, Rothenberg L, Stott P, Kyle G. Financial interests of authors in scientific journals: a pilot study of 14 publications.  Sci Eng Ethics.1996;2:395-410.
Stelfox HT, Grace C, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.  N Engl J Med.1998;338:101-106.
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 47

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.