Search

Abstract Background To ensure a high level of public health and environmental protection, authorities that deliver scientific expertise to inform decision-makers and the public at large need to be independent from external stakeholders and free of conflicts of interest. This independence requires effective rules for managing links of interest (LoIs) and a high level of transparency, including publication of declarations of interest (DoIs) where appropriate. In the particular case of plant protection products (PPPs) within the European Union, these requirements should apply to all Competent Authorities contributing to the marketing authorization processes. Methods A comparative analysis of LoIs management procedures was performed on a selection of ten National Competent Authorities from different member states (NCAs). This analysis was based on (i) the identification of 17 criteria aiming at characterizing good practices for LoIs management; (ii) a survey of ten NCAs, based on an analysis of their institutional websites and their responses to official mail requests. Results The comparative analysis showed: (i) a frequent lack of transparency of NCAs regarding their procedures for managing LoIs; (ii) a significant heterogeneity between the NCAs’ LoIs management rules, even though they are in charge of comparable missions regarding the marketing of PPPs; (iii) substantial gaps between the LoIs management procedures adopted by several NCAs and the good practices that are promoted by EFSA. Current limits on their practices regarding LoIs management might open ways for undue external influences on scientific expertise, and ultimately impact negatively the risk management options adopted by national or European authorities. Limitations of this study and its extension for a more thorough overview of the current LoIs management practices are also discussed. Conclusions LoIs management and transparency rules need to be improved across NCAs, given their contribution as (co-)rapporteurs or peer reviews participants to the health and environmental risk assessment steps of the EFSA processes. To this end, a common minimum set of rules should be defined by EFSA; recommendations are proposed, based on the best practices implemented by the investigated NCAs. Such progress would contribute promoting high-quality unbiased scientific expertise and enhance EU citizens’ trust.

Background: To ensure a high level of public health and environmental protection, authorities that deliver scientific expertise to inform decision-makers and the public at large need to be independent from external stakeholders and free of conflicts of interest. This independence requires effective rules for managing links of interest (LoIs) and a high level of transparency, including publication of declarations of interest (DoIs) where appropriate. In the particular case of plant protection products (PPPs) within the European Union, these requirements should apply to all Competent Authorities contributing to the marketing authorization processes. Methods: A comparative analysis of LoIs management procedures was performed on a selection of ten National Competent Authorities from different member states (NCAs). This analysis was based on (i) the identification of 17 criteria aiming at characterizing good practices for LoIs management; (ii) a survey of ten NCAs, based on an analysis of their institutional websites and their responses to official mail requests. Results: The comparative analysis showed: (i) a frequent lack of transparency of NCAs regarding their procedures for managing LoIs; (ii) a significant heterogeneity between the NCAs' LoIs management rules, even though they are in charge of comparable missions regarding the marketing of PPPs; (iii) substantial gaps between the LoIs management procedures adopted by several NCAs and the good practices that are promoted by EFSA. Current limits on their practices regarding LoIs management might open ways for undue external influences on scientific expertise, and ultimately impact negatively the risk management options adopted by national or European authorities. Limitations of this study and its extension for a more thorough overview of the current LoIs management practices are also discussed. Conclusions: LoIs management and transparency rules need to be improved across NCAs, given their contribution as (co-)rapporteurs or peer reviews participants to the health and environmental risk assessment steps of the EFSA processes. To this end, a common minimum set of rules should be defined by EFSA; recommendations are proposed, based on the best practices implemented by the investigated NCAs. Such progress would contribute promoting high-quality unbiased scientific expertise and enhance EU citizens' trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate how guideline development groups collect and manage conflicts of interest (COI) when producing electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) recommendations., Study Design and Setting: Public health bodies that had produced e-cigarette recommendations were identified from four purposively selected jurisdictions (World Health Organization, United Kingdom, Australia, and United States). We analysed their COI policies and conducted 15 interviews with guideline methodologists, policymakers, and academics in guideline development groups., Results: Only five of 10 public health bodies had a publicly available COI policy. Participants discussed the importance of those involved in the development process declaring COI. However, there were differences in who had to report COI, the time period asked about, and what and how declarations are made. COI policies and participants discussed a range of approaches for managing COI, from limiting involvement to disqualification from the recommendation development process. Participants considered the current processes for collecting and managing COI insufficient due to their open interpretation and possibility for partial declarations of interest., Conclusion: The management of COI varies across public health bodies, with little standardization and lack of transparency. To improve the collection and management of COI, and ultimately increase the trustworthiness of recommendations, guideline development groups should draw upon a comprehensive and accessible COI policy., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We propose an operational definition of conflicts of interest (COI), a framework for categorizing interests, and an approach to assessing whether an interest qualifies as a COI., Study Design and Setting: We reviewed the literature and conducted methodological studies to inform the development of a draft framework for classifying interests., Results: We developed the following operational definition: "a conflict of interest exists when a past, current, or expected interest creates a significant risk of inappropriately influencing an individual's judgment, decision, or action when carrying out a specific duty". Interest refers to a benefit (e.g., money received from industry) or to an attribute of the individual (e.g., having specific religious beliefs). The proposed framework includes seven types of interests relating to individuals (direct financial benefit, benefit through professional status, intellectual, and personal) or their institution (direct financial benefit to the institution, benefit through increasing services provided by the institution, and nonfinancial). When assessing whether an interest qualifies as a COI, one could consider its relevance, nature (e.g., cash vs. educational support), magnitude, and recency., Conclusion: The proposed operational definition and categorization framework may help journals, guideline organizations, professional societies, and healthcare institutions enhance transparency in health research., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This paper forms an introduction to this issue, the contents of which arose directly or indirectly from a conference in May 2001 on Corruption of scientific integrity? -- The commercialisation of academic science. The introduction, in recent decades, of business culture and values into universities and research institutions is incompatible with the openness which scientific and all academic pursuit traditionally require. It has given rise to a web of problems over intellectual property and conflict of interest which has even led to corporate sponsors' suppressing unfavourable results of clinical trials, to the detriment of patients' health. Although there are those who see the norms of science developing to recognise the importance of instrumental science aiming at specific goals and of knowledge judged by its value in a context of application, none justifies the covert manipulation of results by vested interest. Public awareness of these problems is growing and creating a climate of opinion where they may be addressed. We suggest a way forward by the introduction of nationally and internationally-accepted guidelines for industrial collaboration which contain proper protections of the core purposes of universities and of the independence of their research. Some codes suggested for this purpose are discussed. We note that some universities are moving to adopt such codes of conduct, but argue the need for strong support from the government through its funding bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]