FASEB: Nationalize conflict rules

Concerned that improperly managed financial conflicts of interest from industry-sponsored biomedical research may be damaging the credibility of scientists and their institutions, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) will today (July 17) urge adoption of voluntary nationwide guidelines to manage these relationships. FASEB will meet today with representatives from academic and professional research societies to discuss a set of preliminary guidelines and practices, derived from 19 separate rules FASEB published in July 2006. The goal of the meeting is to get feedback on the proposed practices, which include not working with companies that seek to delay or prohibit publication of research results and making sure all financial interests are fully disclosed. Eventually, FASEB plans to unveil a web-based conflict of interest toolkit to give scientists, university managers, industry sponsors, scientific societies, and journal publishers access to recommended practices. "Our call is to set up common, uniform policies across the country. We would hope that organizations would embrace those," Leo T. Furcht, immediate past president of FASEB and chair of the project committee told The Scientist. In addition to offering guidance, the Web site (currently password protected) gives examples of ways scientists can structure their research and interactions with university and industry officials to avoid potential conflicts. FASEB has distilled its conflict rules to three guiding principles: investigators must conduct their research objectively, operate with transparency, and be accountable to all stakeholders. "Our hope is to engage a variety of organizations coming to the meeting [today] and get them just to agree to the premise of national guidelines using these three fundamental pillars," Furcht said. "By using the toolkit, they can move towards that over time." But establishing nationwide standards may not be easy because universities and research institutes have adopted a diverse and confusing array of policies and methodologies, said Jim Severson, vice provost of intellectual property and technology transfer at the University of Washington, and a member of FASEB's advisory committee. "It will be a tough one because each institution jealously guards its autonomy and independence," Severson told The Scientist.These differences can also complicate the ability of scientists to work together. "In this era when people collaborate across universities it makes sense that people have a very clear understanding of what the expectations and obligations are," said Mark S. Frankel, director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility, and Law Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "There is room for better consistency across the board," he told The Scientist. FASEB has been developing the proposals under grants from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI).Over the past decade the percentage of industry support of academic research has grown significantly. About one-fourth of academic faculty members receive research funding from industry, which reached a record-high $2.3 billion in 2005 or about 5% of the total, according to latest figures from the National Science Foundation.Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, announced an investigation into allegations that David A. Schwartz, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), disregarded numerous conflict of interest rules. The NIH has cleared Schwartz of wrongdoing. Ted Agres mail@the-scientist.comLinks within this articleT. Agres, "Code of conduct for industry cash: FASEB," The Scientist, July 17, 2006 http://www.thescientist.com/news/display/23966/FASEB COI Toolkit http://opa.faseb.org/pages/advocacy/coi/toolkit.htm"Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication," International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Feb. 2006 http://www.icmje.orgMark S. Frankel http://www.aaas.org/ScienceTalk/frankel.shtmlAssociation of American Medical Colleges http://www.aamc.orgOffice of Research Integrity http://ori.dhhs.govN. Stafford, "Public concern for private funding," The Scientist, July 1, 2006 http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/7/1/70/1/T. Agres, "Research funding doubles in decade," The Scientist, September 22, 2005 http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22776/"Industrial funding of academic R&D rebounds in FY 2005," National Science Foundation, Washington, DC: January 2007 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07311/"Grassley works to protect federal whistleblowers," July 12, 2007 press release http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=5464&Month=7&Year=2007David A. Schwartz, MD http://www.niehs.nih.gov/od/T. Agres, "NIH grantees under the microscope?" The Scientist, April 2, 2007 http://www.thescientist.com/news/display/53048

FASEB: Nationalize conflict rules

Organization urges scientists to adopt voluntary nationwide guidelines to manage industry-academia relationships

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of