In recent years, there have been an increasing number of strident complaints from self-appointed consumer advocates who argue that scientists who have "industry ties" are covertly introducing pro-industry biases to scientific research and discussions. These scientists, they contend, should be excluded from scientific decision-making committees and/or clearly identified as "industry-funded" so that whatever they say or write can be viewed more skeptically than the work of a scientist whose funding is "pure and untainted."
The creation of such a dichotomy -- which implies that there are good/honest scientists (defined as someone without an industry connection) who are different from bad/biased scientists -- is not only absurd but threatens the advancement of science and medicine.
In a column today in the Boston Globe, Dr. David A. Shaywitz, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, argues that "the myopic focus on financial conflicts is likely to discourage relationships between university researchers and [industry] -- a bad idea, since these associations offer enormous potential for medical development." Dr. Shaywitz notes in particular the spectacular successes that have resulted from the collaboration of university scientists and pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Shaywitz notes an obvious fact -- but one which is almost always ignored in discussions of "conflicts of interest" in science and medicine: while people worry that consulting fees or research funding from industry will distort a scientist's views, bias and conflict of interest need not be related to financial issues at all. For example, a scientist who has been working on a specific hypothesis for years may have an inherent bias in favor of positive results -- to assure himself that his years of work will indeed pay off in a discovery. Other researchers may be influenced by a desire to generate media coverage for research -- or be motivated by a desire to constantly publish eye-catching results. Any underlying agenda, financial or not, could be viewed as a "conflict of interest."
What Dr. Shaywitz refers to as a "full-fledged witch hunt" against scientists with "industry ties" is well under way. For example, the House has already passed and the Senate is considering a bill which would forbid the Food and Drug Administration to appoint to scientific advisory committees scientists who have even a remote connection to industry. But any such policy only introduces new biases to replace the ones allegedly there in the first place. Since the overwhelming majority of today's research scientists have some connection to industry -- either because they have consulted with drug or other companies or have accepted research dollars from them -- the few remaining scientists in the pool of possible FDA advisors would be a unique group, not at all representative of research scientists as a whole. They may be academically inferior (which is why corporations did not invite them as consultants) or they may harbor hostility toward industry and other profit-making enterprises.
Scientists need industry -- and vice versa. The witch hunt against "industry ties" threatens research and product development -- including life-saving pharmaceuticals -- and that means consumers will be the losers.
Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
