Sir

Rahul K. Dhanda makes an excellent point in his Correspondence “Time for bioethics and business to start talking” (Nature 421, 573; 200310.1038/421573a): the separation between bioethicists and biotechnologists constitutes a risk to both groups, as well as to the public good. He overstates, however, the potential for synergy.

The rift between bioethicists and the biotech industry is not just cultural, as Dhanda suggests, but also functional. Bioethicists have a social role that is sometimes at odds with the goals (and social role) of industry. The public expects bioethicists to offer independent, reasoned commentary on complex issues in healthcare and the life sciences. Nowhere is such commentary more crucial than in the rapidly expanding realm of biotechnology. Surely Dhanda would agree that unreflective collaboration with industry would hinder the ability of bioethics to meet this expectation.

It is true that bioethicists have often been preoccupied by questions of how they can maintain their integrity if working with industry. But what Dhanda calls “endless discussions over conflicts of interest” are, I fear, a necessity. Bioethicists need to carry on this discussion, but as well as including industry they must also try to determine what sorts of engagement with industry are least likely to corrode public trust in bioethics, and what kinds of structural safeguards are possible.

The Enron scandal taught us that the accounting profession must become more vigilant in its struggle to avoid conflicts of interest, and indeed may need to consider significant structural reforms if the profession is to retain its useful role in the functioning of financial systems. Similarly, bioethicists should not stop talking about conflict of interest: vigilance on this count is the discipline's only hope of continuing to merit the public's trust.