Sir

We agree with your Editorial “Taking a hard line on conflicts” (Nature 433, 557; 2005 10.1038/433557a) that “scientists and institutions everywhere should be sure that their own houses are fully in order”. But the academic research community and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have different societal roles, expectations and regulatory histories. These differences are essential to understanding why conflict-of-interest policies that apply to researchers employed by the NIH should not be extended to the NIH-funded university community.

Universities' long-standing interactions with industry have produced enormous benefits. Still, the academic community recognizes that the US public's support of academic, and especially biomedical, research depends on maintaining their confidence and trust.

Research universities have had policies on faculty consulting with industry for decades and have gained deep experience in regulating conflicts of interest across all disciplines. They have given special attention to conflicts in biomedical research since mandatory federal regulations for NIH-funded academics were published in 1995, enhanced by federal guidelines in 2004.

Academia has used these regulations as the base on which to build more robust standards, such as those on human research set out by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC; see http://www.aamc.org/members/coitf/start.htm). Our 2004 survey of medical schools (see Nature 431, 725; 2004 ) indicated that most have adopted all or substantial portions of the AAMC recommendations, thereby going well beyond federal requirements.

However stringent the standards and supervision, violations will occur. But to react with overzealous regulations would inhibit useful partnerships and the social benefits that flow from them. As long as universities and medical schools continue to take seriously the enforcement of strict standards, relationships with industry can be principled, protective of research participants and scientific integrity and remain capable of withstanding intense public scrutiny.