Main

In recent years, scientific publishing has intermittently come under pressure from the news media over reports that authors of some studies have deliberately failed to disclose conflicting financial interests. Conflicts of interest, both financial and non-financial, are potentially present in any academic, industrial or government setting. Indeed, by the nature of their role and as a consequence of the importance of collaboration in most scientific disciplines, researchers inevitably participate in numerous activities that tend to raise competing financial interest (CFI) issues. Such activities include the publication of research findings, peer review (for example, of research articles, grant proposals and on promotion committees), and participation in scientific advisory committees and institutional review boards.

Exposure in the news media aside, the problems associated with CFIs are supported by a body of research: an analysis of industry-sponsored research revealed that university researchers with industry support are almost twice as likely to refuse to share research results or materials with colleagues as faculty members without industry support (11% versus 6%, respectively), and other studies have demonstrated that financial support from industry sources leads to positive outcomes for industry products. Moreover, as the ties between academic researchers and industry are becoming more prevalent — for example, a 1999 survey at the University of California, San Francisco, found that 7.6% of principal investigators have a personal financial relationship with the sponsor of their research, a threefold increase since 1985 — then the potential scale of the problem becomes apparent.

In recognition of the importance of the CFI issue and the need to ensure transparency within the increasingly extensive network of financial interests that permeates both academic and industrial research, Nature Reviews Microbiology, along with the other Nature-titled journals, has for some time followed a policy requiring authors of Review and Perspective articles to make one of three standardized public statements — choosing to declare CFIs, declaring there are no CFIs or declining to comment. The obvious motivation of this policy is to allow readers to form their own judgment, armed with the knowledge of any outside interest that has the potential to bias the authors' presentation of their work (detailed guidelines on what constitute financial interests, including the funding of research, direct employment and personal financial interests such as stock options, shares or patents, are available at: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/competing.html).

The most compelling argument for disclosure, however, is the removal of suspicion and uncertainty.

To gauge microbiologists' views on this and related issues, we recently conducted an informal poll of our readers, the results of which confirmed to us the importance of having, and enforcing, a general CFI policy. Interestingly, and to our surprise, a minority of readers questioned the necessity of including Review articles within our disclosure policy. We would argue that the reasons for their inclusion are persuasive. As mentioned above, studies of the clinical literature have concluded that industry funding is associated with pro-industry results. Furthermore, as review articles are inherently selective and opinionated about an ever-increasing and unmanageable research literature, they arguably provide more potential for bias than reports of specific research results. In addition, there are well-documented examples of abuse, in which academic authors have been paid by pharmaceutical companies to put their names to reviews produced by ghost writers employed to promote company products. The most compelling argument for disclosure, however, is the removal of suspicion and uncertainty. When scientists offer their professional expertise without disclosing a potential for personal financial benefit, it threatens to undermine public trust, not simply in a particular paper or journal, but in the integrity of the scientific enterprise as a whole.

Of course, the public interest is not served by stigmatizing commercial research, and microbiologists, more than most, would readily accept that the practical benefits of academic research cannot materialize without the help of industry. Academic institutions and industry are increasingly interlinked and such partnerships can offer significant benefits to scientific progress. The challenge is to manage the relationship in a way that does not undermine core academic values, including open communication and public trust in the integrity and objectivity of the scientific community. In the case of both research and review articles, many of these concerns are best addressed by a policy of public disclosure, a policy to which this journal is wholly committed. Your comments on this or indeed any issue are, as ever, very welcome.