Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships

Abstract

University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people’s willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested.

Learned Discourse: Timely Scientific Opinions

“…This is apparent in the research that underlies risk assessment. Science funded by industry is assumed to be biased in favor of that sector; even having an industry partner involved in a collaboration can negatively impact its perceived legitimacy (Besley et al 2017). Clearly, government and academic researchers are also influenced by their own biases.…”

What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer‐reviewed and grey literature

“…However, the primary purposes of the food industry (to maximize profit) and population health researchers (to further knowledge to inform health improvement) are often poorly aligned, leading to the potential for conflicts of interest. These real and perceived conflicts of interest can undermine the credibility of research and researchers, resulting in an erosion of trust amongst the general public and policy makers and scepticism of published research …”

“…A conflict of interest can also be perceived to exist even when it does not. Perceived conflicts of interest can be just as important as actual conflicts of interest in undermining trust in research and researchers . This perception is not always unwarranted, with many examples of the food industry donating funds to, or collaborating with, universities as part of a deliberate strategy to improve their reputation and to influence the evidence base …”

“…These real and perceived conflicts of interest can undermine the credibility of research and researchers, resulting in an erosion of trust amongst the general public and policy makers and scepticism of published research. [6][7][8][9] Despite these concerns, there is currently no explicit international consensus for population health researchers regarding what constitutes acceptable or effective interactions with the food industry. 10,11 A significant factor informing acceptable interactions is preventing the damaging impacts of actual or perceived conflict of interests.…”

“…Perceived conflicts of interest can be just as important as actual conflicts of interest in undermining trust in research and researchers. 9,22,23 This perception is not always unwarranted, with many examples of the food industry donating funds to, or collaborating with, universities as part of a deliberate strategy to improve their reputation and to influence the evidence base. 7,[24][25][26][27] Secondly, the type of interaction that population health researchers may have with the food industry is varied and may have different consequences.…”