Preserving environmental health and scientific credibility: a practical guide to reducing conflicts of interest

Abstract

Conflicts of interest, situations where personal or organizational considerations have compromised or biased professional judgment and objectivity, can weaken scientific credibility, pose threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, and are often precursors to corruption. Here, we review historical and international examples of conflicts of interest and their impacts on global biodiversity. We present a contemporary example of a conflict of interest that might have implications for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's reevaluation of the safety of the herbicide atrazine. To help scientists, natural resource managers, policy makers, and judicial officials identify and thwart conflicts of interest, we review strategies used by individuals and organizations with conflicts of interest to evade environmental and public health decisions, discuss the role of the scientific and governmental review processes in maintaining scientific integrity, and offer recommendations to reduce bias and facilitate sound and swift decision making for enhanced environmental health.

Scientific integrity issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency

“…In environmental toxicology as well, controversies over the best interpretation of sometimes ambiguous facts can become entrenched and focused on the people who hold differing views as much as on the evidence behind the different views. Examples include deeply held and personalized disagreements over risks of atrazine to amphibians (Hayes ; Solomon et al ; Kintisch ; Raloff ; Rohr and McCoy ; Benderly ), sufficiently safe levels of Se for fish and birds (Skorupa et al ; Renner ), and a dispute that was maintained for more than 20 y about whether an oil spill resulted in indirect harm to salmon (Burton and Ward ). These intractable, mutual‐bias criticisms make it very difficult for nonspecialist readers to make informed judgments of which is the more credible science.…”

The pros and cons of ecological risk assessment based on data from different levels of biological organization

“…Ecological risk assessment (hereafter, “ERA”) was formalized nearly three decades ago by the U.S Environment Protection Agency (USEPA 1992) and thousands of chemical ERAs have been conducted (Suter 2008). Although ERA methods are under continued discussion and are frequently fraught with controversy (Boone et al 2014, Boone and Rohr 2015, Rohr and McCoy 2010a), new developments have been slow to take hold (Landis 2002) (but see EFSA 2013, which recently provided guidance on ERA from individuals to landscapes).…”

Blockchain: The Evolutionary Next Step for ICT E-Agriculture

“…A frequently cited cause for scientific misconduct is the increasing pressure for individual scientists and institutions to publish high-ranking research [47]. The validity of environmental research, however, remains questionable whenever perceived or real conflicts of interests exist [48]. The "March for Science" [49] (https://www.marchforscience.com) is a literal demonstration of the eroded trust between the US government and its scientific community, and a reaction to research censorship and disappearing datasets.…”