The recession may increase potential conflicts of interest in science: A comment on “‘A delicate diplomatic situation’: Tobacco industry efforts to gain control of the Framingham study”

2010 ◽  
Vol 63 (8) ◽  
pp. 818-819
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Cook
Keyword(s):  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Gain Control ◽  
Framingham Study ◽  
Interest In Science

Management of Conflicts of Interest in WHO’s Consultative Processes on Global Alcohol Policy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
June YY Leung ◽  
Sally Casswell
Keyword(s):  
Policy Development ◽  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Global Strategy ◽  
Alcohol Policy ◽  
World Health ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Alcohol Industry ◽  
State Actors

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) has engaged in consultations with the alcohol industry in global alcohol policy development, including currently a draft action plan to strengthen implementation of the Global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. WHO’s Framework for Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) is an organization-wide policy that aims to manage potential conflicts of interest in WHO’s interactions with private sector entities, non-governmental institutions, philanthropic foundations and academic institutions. Methods We analysed the alignment of WHO’s consultative processes with non-state actors on "the way forward" for alcohol policy and a global alcohol action plan with FENSA. We referred to publicly accessible WHO documents, including the Alcohol, Drugs and Addictive Behaviours Unit website, records of relevant meetings, and other documents relevant to FENSA. We documented submissions to two web-based consultations held in 2019 and 2020 by type of organization and links to the alcohol industry. Results WHO’s processes to conduct due diligence, risk assessment and risk management as required by FENSA appeared to be inadequate. Limited information was published on nonstate actors, primarily the alcohol industry, that participated in the consultations, including their potential conflicts of interest. No minutes were published for WHO’s virtual meeting with the alcohol industry, suggesting a lack of transparency. Organizations with known links to the tobacco industry participated in both web-based consultations, despite FENSA’s principle of non-engagement with tobacco industry actors. Conclusion WHO’s consultative processes have not been adequate to address conflicts of interest in relation to the alcohol industry, violating the principles of FENSA. Member states must ensure that WHO has the resources to implement and is held accountable for appropriate and consistent safeguards against industry interference in the development of global alcohol policy.

Session 5: Nutrition communication The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. McComas
Keyword(s):  
Health Communication ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Interest In Science ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
Public Views ◽  
Nutrition Communication

One of the key challenges facing efforts to translate nutrition research into public health recommendations is understanding how the public will respond to these efforts, including whether they will trust the information. Among factors that influence trust in health communication is the extent to which the sources of the information are considered accurate, balanced, fair and unbiased. In relation to bias, few issues rise to as high a level of concern as the suspicion of conflicts of interest among scientists. Sometimes, even the perception of conflict of interest is enough to cast doubt on the integrity of the research and credibility of the results. The present paper provides an overview of research on conflicts of interest in science, including ways in which it has touched the field of nutrition. It then offers data on public views about conflicts of interest in science, including the extent to which funding sources influence trustworthiness of the research. The conclusions suggest implications for translational research in nutrition.

scholarly journals Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

2021 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2020-056003
Author(s):  
Tess Legg ◽  
Michél Legendre ◽  
Anna B Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Free World ◽  
Scientific Organisation ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Publishing Practices

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation—the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)—was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder’s scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW’s publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian ‘Centre of Excellence’) and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document