Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Defining Financial Conflicts and Managing Research Relationships: An Analysis of University Conflict of Interest Committee Decisions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite a decade of federal regulation and debate over the appropriateness of financial ties in research and their management, little is known about the actual decision-making processes of university conflict of interest (COI) committees. This paper analyzes in detail the discussions and decisions of three COI committees at three public universities in California. University committee members struggle to understand complex financial relationships and reconcile institutional, state, and federal policies and at the same time work to protect the integrity of the scientific process, the autonomy and intellectual freedom of their faculty colleagues and students, and the financial interests of the university.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The committee Chair is indicated by CHR, the committee Administrator by ADM; other committee members and grant applicants are identified by letters in order to preserve anonymity.

References

  1. Bird, S. J., & Spier, R. E. (2005). The complexity of competing and conflicting interests. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 515–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bero, L. A. (2005). Managing conflicts of interest in research. Journal of the American College of Dentists, 72(2), 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boyd, E. A., & Bero, L. A. (2000). Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(November 1), 2209–2238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyd, E., Lipton, S., & Bero, L. A. (2004). Implementation of financial disclosure policies to manage conflicts of interest. Health Affairs, 23(2), 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipton, S., Boyd, E. A., & Bero, L. A. (2004). Conflicts of interest in research: Policies, processes and attitudes. Accountability in Research, 11, 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Krimsky, S., Rothenberg, L. S., Stott, P., & Kyle, G. (1996). Financial interests on authors in scientific journals: A principal investigator lot study of 14 publications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(4), 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Objectivity in Research (1995). Federal register 35810, Vol. 60.

  8. Association of American Medical Colleges (2001). Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress: Guidelines for developing and implementing a policy concerning individual financial interests in human subjects research. Philadelphia: Association of American Medical Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  9. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2007). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication, http://www.icmje.org. Accessed 24 October 2007.

  10. Fontarosa, P. B., Flanagin, A., & DeAngelis, C. D. (2005). Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(1), 110–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Der Weyden, M. B., & Chew, M. (2005). Managing conflict of interest: Sense and sensibility. The Clinical Biochemist/Reviews, 26(May 2005), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Thompson, D. (1993). Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 573–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blumenthal, D. (1996). Ethics issues in academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: The continuing debate. Academic Medicine, 71, 1291–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frankel, M. (1996). Perception, reality, and the political context of conflict of interest in university-industry relationships. Academic Medicine, 71, 1297–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boyd, E. A., Cho, M. K., & Bero, L. A. (2003). Financial conflict-of-interest policies in clinical research: Issues for clinical investigators. Academic Medicine, 78, 769–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Glaser, B. E., & Bero, L. A. (2005). Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 553–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Conflicts of interest and commitment in academic science in the United States. Minerva, 34, 259–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. State of California (1974). California political reform act in 8100.

  20. Cho, M. K., Kim, Y. G., Lee, M. G., & Kim, S. G. (2000). Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(November 1), 2203–2208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lo, B., Wolf, L. E., & Berkeley, A. (2000). Conflict of interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(22), 1616–1619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shah, S., Whittle, A., Wilfond, B., Gensler, G., & Wendler, D. (2004). How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(4), 476–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Edwards, S. J. L., Ashcroft, R., & Kirchin, S. (2004). Research ethics committees: Differences and moral judgement. Bioethics, 18(5), 408–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. University of California Office of the President (2002). UC’s NIH research tops $1 billion. University of California.

  25. University of California Office of the President (2002) Research funding at UC: FY 2001. University of California.

  26. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  27. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Boyd, E. (1998). Bureaucratic control in “The company of equals”: The interactional management of medical peer review. American Sociological Review, 63(2), 200–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Beach, W. (1996). Conversations about illness: Family preoccupations with bulimia. New York: Lawrence Ehrlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreffered turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maynard, D. (1991). Perspective-display sequences and the delivery and receipt of diagnostic news. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Heath, C. (1992). The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general practice consultation. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Heritage, J., & Sefi, S. (1992). In talk at work: Interactions in institutional settings. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Perakyla, A. (1995). AIDS counselling: Institutional interaction and clinical practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bergmann, J. (1992). Veiled morality: Notes on discretion in psychiatry. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Maynard, D. (1984). Inside plea bargaining: The language of negotiation. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: The social organization of the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 7, 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kendon, A. (1979). Some theoretical and methodological aspects of the use of film in the study of social interaction. In A. Kendon (Ed.), Emerging strategies in social psychological research. New York: Wiley Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Goodwin, M. (1990). He said-she said: Talk as social organization among Black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Goodwin, C. (1993). Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics, 3(2), 181–209.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 420, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0613, USA

    Elizabeth A. Boyd & Lisa A. Bero

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Boyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa A. Bero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Boyd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boyd, E.A., Bero, L.A. Defining Financial Conflicts and Managing Research Relationships: An Analysis of University Conflict of Interest Committee Decisions. Sci Eng Ethics 13, 415–435 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9041-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9041-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation