That’s one of the reasons we were interested in founding CSPI, because so often scientists get grants from industry, serve on industry advisory committees and don’t represent the public interest. Their views may be biased by those connections and when they speak out, they may not be arguing for what would be best for the public.

Conflicts of Interest

What do you think is the proper relationship between corporations and scientists, and also between corporations and the public, as far as health effects of their products are concerned?

In my previous answer, I was thinking about the academic scientists. In addition, industry directly employs thousands and thousands of scientists, who are obviously working for the interests of the corporations, which may or may not coincide with the public interest. So what’s the proper relationship between industry and scientists? It’s a little complicated because, on the one hand, you want companies to get the best possible advice on what kind of products to make, for instance, or on how to respect the environment. On the other hand, you don’t want those scientists being pawns of industry.

At the very least, an academic scientist who consults with companies should disclose those relationships when speaking to a journalist or when writing scientific papers, so that the potential bias is recognized. Currently, many scientific journals list corporate affiliations, though some of them only list the affiliation if the company paid for the specific study that’s being published, as opposed to consulting or other arrangements.

What do you feel is the proper role of government in terms of regulating those relationships between corporations and scientists?

It depends on the venue. If, say, a scientist applies for an NIH grant, then the NIH should know about potential conflicts of interest so that they’re not indirectly helping companies market their products. The government has hundreds of advisory committees that should be as free from conflicts of interest as possible. They should have as their members scientists who don’t consult for or receive research funding from the companies whose products or profits might be affected by the advice of the advisory committees.

How do you respond to the argument that it’s sometimes difficult or impossible to find enough members for these committees who do not have financial relationships with the involved companies?

Industry is always bringing that up but there are a lot of scientists in this country who are knowledgeable about these things. Occasionally, there might be an obscure area of research that is only understood by scientists who work for or consult with industry; where conflicts are unavoidable they should be disclosed. But there are some government advisory committees that totally reject conflicts of interest. They say you just can’t to do it! The organizers of committees may have to work a little harder to find bona fide experts who don’t have conflicts of interest.

Recent court cases have shown that pharmaceutical companies sometimes manipulate scientific studies in a variety of ways, such as not permitting the publication of studies that show their products do harm or offer no benefit. Do you feel that more robust regulations are needed to change this pattern?

In some cases there might have to be legislation. The conventional wisdom is gradually becoming that drug and medical device companies should not be giving gifts to doctors at all. Not even prescription pads or pens. I don’t know whether Congress will get involved in that, but government could certainly encourage at least voluntary compliance.